英语论文网

艺术作品

虽然不能说他们是反叛者，这两个似乎已经在他们的同龄人和社会艺术参数以外工作。Gainsborough是一个局外人，在这个意义上，他是一个白手起家的中国情人，拒绝被例如他同时代的Joshua Reynolds这样的大师的影响，他在没有景观背景的大画布上画肖像，而Gainsborough继续以风景为背景画肖像。另一方面shonebare曾在英国艺术家的非洲后裔预期的界限外工作，不包括头，约鲁巴部落，他的家族血统，认为是“灵魂所依 ”。

根本区别在于shonebare用模特儿装在一个画廊，而Gainsborough画油画。我对Shonebare如何使用概念建立了油画画家和一个安装在3 d里的玻璃纤维很着迷，修整的真人大小的模特在惊人鲜艳的棉织物里，但没有头。另一个明显的区别是，一个已经排除了风景，而另一个包括他心爱的风景，这是他的画的一个重要部分。

对Shonebare来说景观是极其重要的，通过肖像画与景观相结合，这不仅涵盖了他对山水的爱，同时也可以谋生，但这也给了我们一个历史的洞察和那个时期的农村景观。Gainsborough夫妇几乎显得次要，与 Andrews坐在树下，只是包含在图片中，而Shonebare排除了这些，完全改变了作品的主题。

事实上，shonebare排除最为重要的景观描绘了Andrews的财富和地位，shonebare代走了一定程度的这种权力和财富。

Piece of art

Although it could not be said they were rebels, both appear to have worked outside the artistic parameters expected of them by their peers and society. Gainsborough was an outsider, in the sense that he was a self-made country lover, someone who refused to be influenced by the Masters such as his contemporary Joshua Reynolds, who painted portraits on large canvasses without a landscape background and Gainsborough continued to paint portraitures with the landscape as the background. Shonebare on the other hand has worked outside the expected boundaries of a British artist of African descendant by excluding the heads, something the Yoruba tribe, his family ancestry, considers to be 'the seat of the soul'.

The fundamental differences stem from the fact that Shonebare used mannequins, installed in a gallery, whereas Gainsborough painted in oil on canvas. I was fascinated as to how Shonebare had used the concept of an established oil painter and made an installation in 3-d from fibreglass, dressing the life size mannequins in strikingly bright coloured cotton fabrics, but without their heads. Another obvious difference between the two artists is that one has excluded the landscape whereas the other has included his beloved landscape, which was a significant part of his paintings.

For Gainsborough, the landscape was extremely important and by combining portraiture with landscape, this helped him to cover his love of landscape and at the same time, earned a living, but it also gave us an historical insight into the landscapes and the countryside of that period. Gainsborough's couple almost appear secondary, with the Andrews sitting under the oak tree and just about included in the picture, whereas Shonebare has excluded this which alters the subject piece completely.

The fact that Shonebare excludes the landscape is significant as the landscape depicts the wealth and status of the Andrews and by excluding this, Shonebare has taken away a degree of this power and wealth. This sprawling estate and public pronouncement of wealth may have been imperative to show status and affluence in 18th century Britain but in Post-Modern Britain, and especially in the 1990s when there was a recession, Shonebare may have deliberately excluded these details which may have appeared irrelevant to him; he may have considered the idea too showy and unpalatable to flaunt wealth in this particular way, even although there were and still are very rich people in today's society. There may also have been practical reasons for this exclusion on Shonebare's part, but it could well be the concept appeared old fashioned. The calming blue grey background contrasts well against the vibrant colours of the m