Analysis Of Madonna And Child

1412 Words6 Pages
This beautiful artwork was born by the hands of Sister Mercedes. When deciding a name for this artwork, this Sister kept it straight and simple with a name most Judaic-Christians know Madonna And Child. While it would be interesting to see this image in three dimensional we will have to settle with a two dimensional painting of this simple yet beautiful image. While Madonna And Child is the name of the painting, it’s actually a term that stand for any portrait or painting that has Mary with or without her son, Jesus Christ. This style of painting dates back to the nation of Byzantium otherwise known as the Roman Empire. These paintings however are not suppose to be anatomically accurate rather an abstract form of Mary. Unfortunately,…show more content…
Casein is a milk-product based paint which may be thinned with water if you need to have a light touch with your artwork. The different values of the color blue really made me stare in awe at the painting it is so simple yet so beautiful with the darker shades at the bottom and lighter hues at the top where white light would be present. The baby of Jesus has a pigment of either absoulte white or shades or tan in it. I believe this was done to show the purity of Jesus. It truly shows was kind of value and hues come from casein…show more content…
I believe that is what Sister Mercedes wanted us to do is look at the captivating beauty of Mary and her son. But much like anything this is only my view others may say no due to the beautiful values red, white, and blue streaming like a river on this painting. As far as I can tell there are only three main colors in this portrait. If not including the different shades I see only red, white, and blue hues. The blue robe of Mary is the color most artists use when making Mary’s attire. The white I see on both Mary and her Child may represent youth since they both look so majestic. Unfortunately I don’t quite understand why the red what put into her work much like the painting’s history online it is a mystery. I would have to say the painting is none of them for two reasons. One, much like religion itself you can’t say she is real. But you also can’t say she’s fictitious. So both representational and nonrepresentational are out of the equation. Abstract itself can’t be it because while it is a warped form of reality it still has to be real. Non-objective hits the same problem you can’t say she is a fantasy based on the lack of knowledge we have. So it is not a warped version of a fictitious person. Second, we do not know what Mary actually looked like. Much like Jesus himself the image of Mary changes depending on the culture and religion you

More about Analysis Of Madonna And Child

Open Document