This piece is made by Parmigianino and is named “Madonna of the Long Neck”. In this piece Madonna has wide hips, a big neck, small toes and everything about her body seems out of proportion. She is holding Christ as a child and this almost echoes the picture of when Mary would hold him as a baby. Although in the painting baby Christ is not actually dead, he appears to be. There are many distorted and transformations in the body to exaggerate it, which is a beautiful thing to know how to observe realism and be able to distort it, which is why this piece is so fascinating. There are a lot of women on the left side of the painting and Madonna sits on the right side of the painting holding the body of baby Christ. There is a small sized prophet that stands in the lower right corner of the painting, almost as if he is watching over baby Jesus. Madonna holds her long bony fingers against her chest, of course she is a virgin and appears so delicate. There is a lot of ambiguity in this painting by the pillar because there is a gap between where the prophet is to where baby Jesus lays in Madonna’s arms. This is a very beautiful piece and really shows a lot of character in the people and a lot of emotion.

This beautiful piece is made of marble by the famous Michelangelo. This piece is named Pieta and was made between the years 1498 and 1500. This is a sculpture that is relatively small compared to the chapel that it is placed in. This sculpture shows the body of dead Christ laying in the arms of the virgin Mary. She is holding her dead son’s body as it lays there lifeless and she looks down upon him in sorrow. Mary holds up his right arm and by looking at the piece you can feel the weight of the loss of life. This is almost a physical experience for the viewer because Michelangelo did such a great job sculpting the piece. It looks like a real body of a young man that has just recently passed away. You can tell by looking at Mary it is not easy for her to hold onto her son because he is heavy. There is a lot of light and shadows in the marble and deep cuts are made in the marble to provide a lot of contrast in the sculpture. Mary’s left hand is open, almost as if she is presenting Christ’s body to represent salvation. This is a very beautiful sculpture.

Make-Up Work Week 6

 CRITIQUE #1

The original of this painting on the left is named “A Sunflower from Maggie”, painted by the famous 20^th century painter, Georgia O’Keeffe. I love the original painting but I also love the one on the left. I enjoy looking at the drastic changes in the color and how the painting on the left is an up-close painting. Most of Georgia’s paintings were up close and personal, especially with her flowers. She enjoyed painting the inside of flowers and made them almost abstract. The difference with both of these flower paintings is that they are up close but they do not look abstract. Although the “artist” on the left created the flower with unrealistic colors, I like how they did that because it makes the piece more interesting. I especially like the middle of the painting where I can see all the seeds of the sunflower in different colors.

I think the painting on the left also shows a lot of depth in the brush strokes of the flower petals. I think the depth of the flower petals is more obvious from the left painting than Georgia’s original. The dark purple background makes the flower pop out and definitely makes the flower the area in focus. If any changes needed to be made of the flower painting on the left would be to create smaller dots in the center of the flower and to make more of a “swirling” effect or technique in the very center of the flower. I feel that these changes would make the flower look more professional and relaxed rather than a well-thought out flower painting. To me, the idea of creating and painting a flower is supposed to represent natural beauty and it is supposed to naturally flow. With some of the harsh brush movements of the dots and the center of the flower gives the flower a harsher effect rather than a natural one when you look at a real flower. If the artist on the left wanted to change up the way Georgia created her original piece, they definitely managed to make their artwork their own. I also think maybe the painting would look even better had the flower on the left painting not been such an up-close image of a flower. I love the idea of having the flower staring at the audience but I think it would look better if the flower was just a little further back. Also, to add to that maybe putting the flower on an off-angle and not directly in the center of the painting would make it look more interesting and unique. Overall, I obviously love the painting on the right because Georgia O’Keeffe is an amazing artist and is very talented, though I do enjoy looking at the painting on the right. I am not sure if you could correct any changes that have been suggested for this particular piece on the left but I think it is a really neat painting how it already is.

CRITIQUE #2

I am not sure what the original painting is on the right or who the painting is by but I think it is a beautiful painting of a woman. Although both pieces are not a realistic painting of a woman, I love the representation that both pieces give about a woman. It is as if the painting is trying to tell you a story about the woman in the painting. I feel that the painting on the right is gloomy and has dark colors representing how the woman feels almost sad or has a somber feeling. The painting has a somber feeling and it looks like the woman is starting off into space and has a flat face with no emotional expression to tell the audience how she feels. The painting on the right, however, tells a story. I love the drastic change on the painting on the left from the painting on the right. The painting on the left has a night and day scene. Almost portraying that this woman is the goddess of night and day, at least this is the feeling I get from the painting. The woman on the left painting has a smirk to her face and seems to be smiling. Of course, her lips are on the “happy” side of the painting, or the bright colored side. Maybe the artist on the left wanted to change the piece so drastically because she wanted the woman to see different views of the world and realized she is too beautiful to be sad.

On the left painting I also feel like the woman is dreaming, which is why her hand is resting upon her chin. It is as if she is day dreaming of the woman she really wants to be to the rest of the world. I feel a strong connection with this piece just because I think it has so many meanings to it. The interesting thing is that the artist probably thought it would look neat to change the original painting to this type of style; the artist probably did not intentionally recreate this piece to make you feel like you wanted to know more about the woman. The only negative critique about this painting that I can state is that in some areas some of the little figures, such as the stars, almost look like a child painted it. I love the idea of this painting and the way it makes me feel but whenever my eyes drift to those childish painted images I feel that the painting could be better. Nonetheless, I would buy this painting on the left in a heartbeat and I would prefer to look at the painting on the left rather than the somber one on the right. I love the painting on the left so much because of the drastic change in colors and it makes me just want to keep looking at it, as if I am missing the opportunity to look at something more in the painting. The painting keeps me wondering and thinking about life and how I am portrayed as a woman, as a human being.

CRITIQUE #3

The paintings on the left are what I will be critiquing next. As far as the painting on the right (on the left side) is a very delicate and intricate painting. I am not sure as to who created this particular piece or what the name of it is but it is very easy-going and has a neat variety and use of colors. It reminds me of two sisters or two friends that are at a very fancy brunch and are talking or gossiping about the latest fashion. The painting on the left differs a lot from the painting on the right. I feel that the artist of the painting on the left created a random tree in the background of the two women talking. The lips of the woman in the painting on the left are abnormally large and she seems very uncomfortable. I am not sure if this artist meant to recreate this painting this way but everything in the painting seems odd and out of proportion. I feel that the painting on the right has so many vibrant colors and looks so natural and more realistic compared to the painting on the right. However, this could have just been a bad painting that was created from the artist on the left. I like the yellow hat in the painting on the left and I think the artist did a good job on the long brown hair of the girl in the hat. There is a lot of texture and movement in her hair and I feel that if the artist used this type of technique throughout the whole painting, it would have softened the looks of the piece. I feel that the painting the artist chose to recreate from the right side is such a difficult and complicated painting to recreate, so I give credit to the artist on the left that attempted to do a replica. I also found it interesting that the artist on the left used the same sort of color scheme throughout her whole painting, almost a burnt orange. I feel that the painting would look much better if more variety in color was used and would show a different feel to the painting. The painting just seems stiff and dry as if the artist did not want the audience to look at it. However, this is just my interpretation of the painting.

I do believe, though, in the painting on the left the artist recreated a good connection between the two women talking in the painting. The angles and the body movements of both of the women resemble the original piece a lot, which I thought was very impressive. If the artist were to re-do her recreation of the painting on the right, I would suggest to use more variety in color and to have the background fuller. When I say “fuller” I mean to create the background with a lot of clutter in the background, just as the painting on the right did.

CRITIQUE #4

The drawing on the left is the painting that I will be critiquing. I feel that the general sketch and outline of the house and yard resembles the original painting on the right. I am not sure the name of the original painting on the right nor do I know who painted it but I love the beautiful use of colors and the fascinating use of brush strokes. I love how the painting on the right makes you feel you are looking at this house in the middle of the day. The only thing in the painting that makes me feel uneasy is the woman in all black standing in front of the house. However, on the sketched drawing on the left the artist recreated a nighttime scene. You can notice that it is nighttime because of the moon placed where the sun is in the original painting. I feel that the sketched drawing on the left is too much of a rough sketch and could have used a lot more shading in the areas where the yard and the house are. The details are barely there in the drawing compared to the tremendous amount of detail that was used in the original painting. I think the drawing on the left would look better if it was at least in color and make the scenery daytime, as in the original painting. Also, the woman in the black figure in the original painting almost reminds me of a ghostly figure that wanders around the house at all times of the day, which makes the painting tell a creepy story. I do not feel that way in the drawing because it lacks depth and the woman is sketched very small, so it is hard to tell what the image in the front of the house is in the drawing. If any changes should be made to the drawing on the left would be to make the woman bigger and to change the scenery to a daytime. However, I think if the artist on the left wanted to continue doing a nighttime scene in the drawing, they should change the clothes of the woman in the front of the house to be bright colors. This would make even more of a contradiction from the original painting and it would be neat to see both pieces side by side with different scenes.

The drawing on the left just needs some more work altogether. I think the general outline of the house and the yard look great and look very similar to how the artist painted it in the original. The drawing just needs more depth, which you can get this by using more pressure when you are shading. It also needs more variety in pencil marks; such as, if you use the pencil as a tool, you can create different effects on the paper to make each pencil mark look unique. However, it would not be a harsh line of pencil onto the paper, it would be a gradual shading. I think the artist just needs to practice their techniques more and add more shading and depth to their drawing.

This video described Monet’s beautiful oil on canvas painting named, “The Argenteuil Bridge” created in 1874. This is a painting of a sailboat on water in Paris, actually where Monet lived previously in his life. This painting describes the perfect scenery for everyday normal life to escape from the chaos in the suburbs on Paris. This shows people fishing and boating and just having a good day on the lake in the sunshine. Monet painted this outside so it is painted on “plein air”. What is important about this piece is the obstacle feeling of seeing the painting, not what he is actually painting. He wanted the audience to be able to feel how he felt when he was painting this piece, to feel the nature surround the audience. Nothing in this piece is easily identifiable, it is even hard to see what type of sailboat Monet painted, but that is the whole point of this piece, is to see the natural beauty of everything. Monet used a unique mix of colors to show the beauty of life. This piece almost looks flat and rough sketched, it does not look like a “finished” painting. This new impressionism period has led Monet to create a new way of painting a landscape with short brush strokes and the unique use of color.

This video explained Picasso’s cubism period when he created his painting named, “Still Life with Chair Caning”, painted oil on canvas in 1912. The critics in the video explained that they believe the painting itself does not actually look like a painting, they think it looks like a disaster. The colors he used are grey and brown and are not vibrant so it does not draw the audience to look at the painting for long. The interesting thing about this painting is that it is not entirely made of paint. Only the top right side of the canvas are paint and the other is made of cheap oil cloth. This somewhat suggests to the critics that Picasso was making trash into art. This piece does not become interesting and significant until people know the exact meaning behind the piece. This almost looks like a breakfast table and the cheap oil cloth is a printed pattern looks as if it was purchased from a hardware store. Picasso glued the pattern onto the painting and painted over it. This makes the critics wonder if he is cheating on his artwork by buying reproduced material and using it in his painting. The “Jou” letters that appear on the left side of the painting mean “game” or “play” in french. The first 3 letters in the French word are for “newspaper”. This makes it seem like the painting is almost like an elliptical table. There is rope surrounding the painting. You can see almost all angles of each image of the pieces of the painting, such as the image of a knife, pipe, lemon and a glass. This is a very strange painting that almost seems irrelevant to look at but it was meaningful for the artist to create it.

This is my progress replica of a painting originally created by Georgia O’Keeffe. Georgia was born in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin in 1887. Her family was farmers but Georgia wished to study art. She studied at the Art Institute of Chicago and the Arts Students League in New York.  Between 1915 and 1918 Georgia was either taking an art course or teaching an art course, she was always intrigued to learn more. According to an online source, it states that “The artistic brilliance of Georgia O’Keeffe revolutionized modern art in both her time and in the present.  With her paintings she vividly portrayed the power and emotion of objects of nature” (Women in History). One of her first pieces of art was a charcoal drawing of silhouetted bud-like forms. She created this piece in 1916 which eventually brought attention to her as an artist. Throughout the 1920s she continued to create pieces like this and was inspired to start her magnified paintings of flowers. Her whole purpose of her artwork was to convey to people that nature in all its beauty was as powerful as the widespread industrialization of the period. She became highly famous for her abstract and up-close paintings of flowers and nature themed compositions. She is also famous for painting magnified images of items such as sea shells, cow skulls, flowers, leaves and landscapes of New Mexico. She is also considered one of the greatest painters of the 20^th century and is one of the greatest artists that ever lived. A line from a website states something about O’Keeffe, “Like many of her peers, she took daring risks as she worked, experimenting adventurously with color, scale, and composition. What truly distinguished O’Keeffe from her contemporaries, however, was her innovative and consistent approach to abstraction: an approach rooted not in esoteric theories and rigid, grid-oriented geometry, but rather in a highly personal interpretation of her subject matter that she consistently realized through a unique vocabulary of circular forms” (Circling around Distraction”.

As time passed, around the 1930s and the 1940s Georgia had returned from a vacation in New Mexico, where she was surrounded by all sorts of interesting and new inspirations to her. This is the part of her life where she started to paint magnified images of skull and cross bones of animals bones found in the desert of New Mexico. It states in an online source that, “Just as with the flowers, she painted the bones magnified and captured the stillness and remoteness of them, while at the same time expressing a sense of beauty that lies within the desert” (Women in History). An example of a painting done with skulls is the painting named “From the Faraway, Nearby” in which she painted in 1937.

Georgia was married to the pioneer photographer, Alfred Stieglitz. Georgia’s charcoal drawings were first exhibited at Alfred’s famous New York art gallery named “291”. These drawings were first exhibited in 1916. The union lasted a total of 22 years, until Alfred passed away. At the time of Georgia’s death in 1986 at the age of 98, she had owned more than one half of the 2,029 known works of her total output (Georgia O’Keeffe Museum).

As far as the painting that I chose to do a replica of, which is named “Music – Pink and Blue II” I love the way the painting makes me feel whenever I look at it. This painting that was originally created by Georgia O’Keeffe was created in 1919 and is made with oil on canvas. Currently, this real painting is being displayed at the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York. Georgia wanted to represent a sort of beauty and almost tranquility in nature with her paintings and this particular painting really stands out to me. I really like how the colors complement each other in a mysterious way and the movement the artwork makes. My eyes always want to focus on the different patterns of the flowers and the variety of colors that Georgia uses. However, I used a different color scheme in my replica of this particular painting. I wanted my painting to somewhat resemble Georgia’s painting, but the colors were difficult to mix so I decided to use my own idea of colors.

I am not sure of the exact meaning of this particular painting, “Music- Pink and Blue II”. However, the name has the word “music” in it which may be where Georgia O’Keeffe had developed her inspiration for this particular piece. As I have already looked online, it does not say anything about Georgia playing music, enjoying music or being around people who knew how to play music well. Possibly music was also another inspiration to her beautiful up-close flower images and her strange skulls that she loved to create. I believe that artists like this do not come by easily and she is by far one of my favorite painters because her intriguing use of color and the movements that she makes in each of her paintings. Even her paintings with the vulgar skulls and cross bones in it have a pretty blue sky with a feeling of serenity. All of her paintings come across with hard emotion and a sense of mystery, especially the paintings with the skulls and cross bones. I hope to recreate this piece, “Music-Pink and Blue II” and create it as Georgia would, with all of her emotion put into that piece. I feel that when artists such as Georgia put their emotion onto their canvas it creates a sense of emotions for the viewer and reminds the artist how they felt when they created that piece. I know that Georgia was one of the greatest painters of the 20^th century but I hope I can recreate this piece well enough to hang it and know that I was creating one of my favorite pieces from one of my favorite artists.

Reference Page:

Women in History. Georgia O’Keeffe biography. Last Updated: 7/17/2012. Lakewood   Public Library. Date accessed 7/17/2012 . <http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/okee-geo.htm>.

This video shows a painting done by the famous popular culture artist, Roy Lichtenstein. This painting is a series replica of Monet’s Rouen Cathedral, named Lichtenstein’s Rouen Cathedral Set V. This was created in 1969 and is a trip-tic painting. He uses individually painted dots, called bendai dots, in which you can hardly see them until you are up close to the painting. He uses color reproduction in this series and each painting is unique and the dots are individually painted but they come together beautifully as a piece of artwork. It was told in the video that this process takes a long time and takes a lot of patience to create this type of artwork. Roy painted this piece after 7 or 8 years after popular culture was created.

This oil on canvas named “Standing by the Rags” was created by Lucian Freud in 1988-1989. This is a painting of a life size nude lady that is standing upright and almost leaning in a weird and unrealistic position. The reason the painting is called “Standing by the Rags” is because her body is almost leaning against the rags, yet she is putting a lot of pressure upon her feet. The artist makes you wonder whether she is actually comfortable and leaning onto the rags or uncomfortable by putting pressure on her feet as she leans back. There is a lot of thick paint texture around the woman’s face and neck area and also on her upper thighs. The painting looks somewhat disturbing, yet simple and beautiful at the same time. It as almost as if you are not supposed to be looking at the woman. The painting seems somewhat disturbing to the viewer because the woman’s body is out of proportion. Her right arm is too long for it to be a norm size arm and her feet are unrealistically large. The woman almost looks at her audience and has somewhat of a confrontation with the viewer because she is standing so close to us. This is a really interesting yet strange painting, but I enjoy looking at it and figuring it out.

The “Birth of Venus” was created by Sandro Botticelli was created in 1483-1485, and is a tempura on panel. This is one of the most iconic images of Western art. Venus stands practically naked, she is the ancient Goddess of Love, according to Greek Mythology. Botticelli based her stature on an ancient Roman sculpture of Venus, which is called the Goddess of Venus. She stands on or almost on a seashell. She is born of the sea and pushed in by the winds from the left, named the “Zeffors”. The story is that when she gets to the shore she will be met by an attendant that is ready to wrap her nude body. She has a strange curve to her body as she stands upon the seashell. There are 3 groups of the painting, the Zeffors, Venus and the lady waiting to wrap Venus up in a towel/blanket. There is so much pattern and beauty in this painting, but we are not quite sure what this painting is meant to be about. For the most part, art historians have figured that this painting is supposed to represent beauty, a sort of elegance and pure decorative qualities in artwork.

This video explained Sandro Boticelli’s painting named “La Primavera (Spring)” created in 1481-1482. In the center of this painting stands Venus, a fairly young beautiful women who is the Goddess of Love, according to Greek  Mythology. Venus looks at the viewers as she stands in her planted grove, surrounded by the sky and trees, she loves to be surrounded in her natural and mythical environment. Sandro enjoys painting about these scenery’s because he embraces roman and Greek Mythology. To the left of the painting stands Mars who is the God of War. To the right of the painting stands Uffor, who is abducting the figure of Flores, which may be one of the same person. Cupid floats above Venus, Cupid is blindfolded and he is aiming his arrow and ready to strike. Cupid, in fact, is Venus’s son. This painting is not very direct in explaining what it is supposed to be about, there is no specific meaning to this painting. However, this makes a beautiful piece regardless of what the true meaning Boticelli wanted to get across to his audience.

1.         I think in the first snapshot, the doors in the picture represent a broken pattern. I think this because a broken pattern is a point at which a perceptual structure of a pattern is broken, then becoming an area of focus. I think the doors are definitely an area of focus because they break the patterns of the whole chapel because they are one solid brown color and do not have much pattern and texture to them, so they stand out.

2.         The second snapshot was taken because I was blew away at the amount of time spent on the tile floors and the unique and eccentric designs of the floors, let alone of the paintings in the chapel. This tile floor was definitely created with the technique of composition, where the combining of distinct parts or elements form a whole and the manner in which such parts are combined or related. This image correlates with this definition because the time is a combining of distinct parts and elements, which are the tiles and it forms a unique and artistic floor.

3.         In this particular painting in the chapel, there is an extreme emphasis for the man kneeling on the ground who appears to be yelling in pain. The emphasis is on him in the painting because he is separated from the other people in the painting and he is wearing a bright red shirt. Although the rest of the painting has bright colors including orange and red, his red shirt and his facial expression is what captures the viewer’s eye and gives a focal point and emphasis on his. It gives a special forcefulness of expression that gives importance to something singled out. He is also the area of focus that attract the most attention; having the most visual weight in the composition of the painting.

4.         In this snapshot, it shows the cream colored, boxed looking flooring. I am not sure if the flooring actually has steps, but if it does not, this is called a gestalt. This is a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. Either way, these lines of the “steps” are rectilinear shape, a shape whose edges are created by straight lines and angular corners.

5.         I really liked this fireplace and how the colors were not exactly matching the flooring and the walls inside the chapel. The fireplace is almost a light pink/white/cream color that seems to stand out among the center of the wall. I believe that it appears to be the main focal point because of radial symmetry, which is a form of balance that is created when shapes or volumes are mirrored both vertically and horizontally, with the center of the composition acting as a focal point. Although the images in the snapshot are not shapes or volumes, they are lines that make us lead our eyes to the on-center and off-color scheme fireplace.

6.         I was really drawn to this snapshot because of all the circular patterns used on the floor and on the right side of the wall where the fireplace sets. These are curvilinear shapes whose contour is dominated by curves and flowing lines, in which case the floors also have patterns along with flowing lines, which makes this really intricate. I believe this is a contradictory texture because it is the unfamiliar use of a texture or the addition of an unusual texture to the surface of an object.

7.         I really liked the bottom bordering of the painting right up against the wall. I thought it was very neat and intricate and seemed that it would have taken a long process to complete just the border alone. The borders are made with an asymmetrical balance, which means they have no balance or symmetry. It appears to be of men fighting with swords, in each direction and there is no repetition of any men in the border.

8.         I took a snapshot of the dividers on the wall between each of the paintings. I thought that the texture almost looked like tapestry or carpet, but it seems to be a characteristic texture. This is a texture that is inherent or familiar texture of a material, such as this carpet-like design on the wall. Although this was painting long before the time period of the 1970s, it still reminds me of the 70s because of its anomaly, the obvious break from norm in a design. Anomaly is often used to create an accent or to emphasize an idea. The idea on the walls here, I believe is to find something not too simple or not too intricate, therefore most of the attention will be made out to the paintings.

9.         This snapshot was to show the borders of the men fighting, below the paintings, and how in between the gold borders there is a brown border. Therefore, in the chapel, all of the walls have a gold border of the men fighting following a simple brown border, then back to the gold border. However, this really seems to accent the paintings and gives a nice rhythm, or movement or variation characterized by the regular recurrence. This is a recurring alternation of contrasting elements. This is because the gold and the brown borders are contrasting from one another.

10.       This last snapshot was of mostly all of the chapel itself, inside the main room. I think that the variety of patterns being used together made the paintings stand out more, and complimented the paintings a lot. By the term variety, I mean that this arrangement and the amount of variety is the quality or condition of being diverse, which the walls and floors are very much different. It is a group that is distinguished from other groups by a specific characteristic or set of characteristics. In this snapshot, it shows that the walls and the floors are what make the chapel room very unique and diverse, along with the different paintings mounted on the walls.

This bronze and glass piece is the head of the popular Augustus: Roman, made in 27-25 C. Augustus became the first emperor, his birth name given was Octavian and was given the infamous name Augustus after he defeated others who wanted to be in his power. His eyes are made of glass and never meet yours eyes no matter what angle you are looking at. This piece is preserved so well because it was a part of a stature that was taken down and then the head was cut off. Upon cutting the head off, it was buried for years and years under a temple in Egypt, where the sand had kept it preserved. This symbolically represents that by cutting off the head of a stone stature, it represents cutting off the source of power to that person. Augustus passed away at the age of 76.

This sculpture, made of stone, is portraying the victory of Stele of Naram-Sin, which commemorates an important victory. This sculpture is approximately 4,200 years old, born in 22 B.C.E. Naram, who stands at the top of the piece was the great-great grandson of the founding King of Arcadian. Naram appears very erect and noble and acknowledges his victory. On the left side of the sculpture you see Naram’s army under him, and looking up to him. They all have weapons and seem at peace for their victory. On the left side of the sculpture is complete chaos, portraying the ones who have fallen, the Lullabee mountain people who were defeated. However, they still look up to Naram although they have been defeated by him and his army. This is symbolic language that tell of this particular event.

This oil on canvas painting called “La Loge” was created in 1874 by Pierre Auguste Renoir. This painting was from London in the Impressionist’s period. In the video, the described that these types of paintings in the Impressionist’s time period were not accepted into art galleries for showing. Therefore, the Impressionists started their own impressionism shows. This is a loosely painted scenery of the modern life in the 1870’s at a theater in an opera box. Women always sat in front of their man that they went with and the men would look around the theater and not watch the show. The woman in the painting was very popular at this time period and she wore a big black and white dress with a lot of jewelry, representing that she was an an upper-class, single woman.

This video of the Birth of Gothic: Abbot Suger and the Ambulatory at St. Denis showed us a beautiful church created by Abbot Suger in 400 C.E Ancient Cultures in the Salijuq period. This church is a burial place of royal families, in which Suger was an adviser to the royal families. The choir of the church was a space behind the alter of the church and the ambulatory is an aisle to take on behind the alter. Suger completed the ambulatory. He wanted to create an architectural style that would express the growing power of the monarch. He built the church so that the light would flood in through the church windows. He created the church by using a complex web of interlocking vaulting with pointed arches pointing down, which is why the walls of the church are not very heavy. The church itself is very beautiful and the colors of the glass are very intriguing. I wish i was able to go there and see the church with my own eyes. It is extraordinary.