My prior Art posts can be found HERE.
How do we move away from being a civilization that produces art that causes comments like, “my five year old could make this,” back to being one that creates beauty and inspires deep questions? We must reject modernity and embrace tradition. To embrace tradition, we must first learn about it..
Let’s study art history together.
Saint George and the Dragon
| Artist | Paolo Uccello |
|---|---|
| Year | c. 1470 |
| Medium | Tempera |
| Dimensions | 55.6 cm × 74.2 cm (21.9 in × 29.2 in) |
| Location | National Gallery, London |
This 15th century painting depicts one of the most famous stories in Christian history. George was a real person, a 4th century Roman soldier, a canonized saint in the Catholic Church, and a popular symbol of Christian warriors ever since. The story of his fight with a dragon emerged in the Middle Ages, at a time when George was becoming a warrior symbol used by Crusaders.
You do not *have* to believe that George actually fought a dragon to believe he existed, or to venerate him as a saint. Are you allowed? As far as I can tell… you are allowed. Is it actually possible that dragons once existed around the world? It seems incredible that if they did, that everyone would deny it. On the other hand, we actually have well-documented accounts of finding the bones of human giants all over the world and that is downplayed or denied outright. I could buy that dragons have been covered up, too. I mean, it’s interesting that nearly every unconnected culture on earth has dragon myths. The Chinese Zodiac features nothing but real, living animals, that actually existed… except the dragon. Maybe 1,000 years ago, there were dragons in ancient China and everywhere else, too.
The story of St. George – dragon slaying included – inspired nearly all of Christendom. You see proof of that in how many places name him a patron saint, are named after him, or use his flag. (If you’ve seen a flag with a red cross on a white field… you’ve seen St. George’s flag.)
I love this painting. The use of color draws me in and reminds me of art I might have looked at in the 1980s. I also love this as a contrast to a lot of other art form its era. Sometimes the beautiful and high-minded mood of painted art does not always match the dark and mysterious mood created by gothic architecture. That does not apply here. This looks like it was made by the same people who built the gothic cathedrals all over Europe.
(more via wiki)
Saint George and the Dragon is a painting by Paolo Uccello dating from around 1470. It is on display in the National Gallery, London, United Kingdom. It was formerly housed in the Palais Lanckoroński in Vienna, belonging to Count Karol Lanckoroński and sold by his son and heir Anton in 1959 through Mr. Farago. The first mention of its being there is 1898.
Gothicizing tendencies in Paolo Uccello’s art are nowhere more apparent than in this painting. It shows a scene from the famous story of Saint George and the Dragon. On the right, George is spearing the beast, and on the left, the princess is using her belt as a leash to take the dragon up to the town.
The eye in the storm gathering on the right of Saint George is lined up with his spear showing there has been divine intervention.
The painting is commonly interpreted as an illustration of the legend of St. George as recounted in the Golden Legend. However, Stanford professor Emanuele Lugli has suggested an alternative reading: that the work functions as propaganda, encouraging Florentine elites to adopt agriculture. According to him, the dragon was a symbol of pollution, and St. George’s slaying of the creature can be seen as a metaphorical reclamation of the land, leading to a pure water source located in a cave.
An earlier, less dramatic version of the same subject by the Italian artist is in the Musée Jacquemart-André, Paris and an even earlier (c. 1430) is in the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne.
The painting is used as the basis for the U. A. Fanthorpe poem, Not My Best Side, and may have served as inspiration for Sir John Tenniel‘s illustration of the Jabberwock in Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.
It’s interesting how small dragons are in most classic art. I guess that’s for realism. How is a dude on a horse going to beat a dragon the size of a commuter plane?
Yeah, that makes sense. Of course, a dragon the size of a sedan is pretty terrifying anyway.
I’m working on putting together a theory for how dragons might have existed up until around the middle ages and then been successfully (and erroneously) shifted into mythological status. I think it’s pretty straight-forward if you just assume that “I have never seen one, therefore they’re not real” gets three or four generations of runway.