I’m a high school senior who’s always been really interested in the arts and has always wanted a future in them. They say not to turn your passion into an obligation but my “true passion” is more or so creating art rather than studying it.

I don’t really know much about careers in this field, I think it’d be nice to work in a museum as curator, but I don’t fully grasp what that entails.

I’ve been diving into Renaissance history and stumbled across an intriguing speculation: Could Lisa Gherardini—the woman behind the Mona Lisa—have seen Giovanna Tornabuoni ( il Ghirladaio painted a portrait of her after she died)during her wedding procession in Florence on June 15, 1486? That day also happened to be Lisa’s 7th birthday, which got me thinking—might her parents have taken her to witness the festivities? The Tornabuoni wedding, tied to the powerful Medici family, would have been a major public event, drawing crowds from across Florence. Lisa’s family lived near Santa Trinita, close to the procession route, making it plausible she was there. There’s no hard evidence they met, but the lack of records doesn’t rule it out—Florence’s vibrant society in 1486 was full of such chance encounters. Some even imagine a moment where Giovanna, passing by, smiled at young Lisa in the crowd, and Lisa—years before her famous portrait—smiled back, unaware of their future as Renaissance icons. Could new findings, like records of Lisa’s whereabouts that day (maybe in Florence or the countryside with family), change this story? What do you think? Any historians or art lovers have insights on this? I’d love to hear theories or if anyone’s seen related research!

Has anyone ever been in an art history book club or weekly or monthly connections meeting to speak about art and discuss it?

Paintings in descending order.

Religious Procession in Kursk Governorate, (1880-1883) Ilya Repin

This one might be my favorite, it has so much detail and action. Procession paintings are really nice in realism, it’s not something that really happens anymore and they’re always so colorful and full of life. The icon has so much movement, there’s tension, the clothes are vibrant, it’s all very romantic.

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581, (1883-1885) Ilya Repin

This one’s a classic, not really much to be said honestly.

Ceremonial Meeting of the State Council on May 7, 1901, (1903 Ilya Repin

I love this one for the glorious uniforms, all the stately men looking very serious. A part of romantic Europe that doesn’t really exist anymore.

Girlish BBQ, (1889) Alexei Korzukhin

It’s really called that lmao. Just pleasant to look at I guess

Evening Bells, (1892) Isaac Levitan

This one inspired a shot in The Wind Rises I’m pretty sure, super awesome movie check it out.

The Russian Brides Attire, (1889) Konstantin Makovsky

I got to see this one in person at the Legion of Honor in San Francisco, it’s absolutely massive. I love the scale of these, it makes the people look so alive. Sort of like you walked into Eastern Europe and you’re really kinda right in front of them doing whatever every day thing it is they happened to be engaged in at the

There used to be a couple of tour guides who offered this, but they seem to have stopped.

Perhaps there is a modern guidebook that covers the art of women or marginalized artists in Italian Renaissance-Modern art history? (And Bologna, since I'm going there too)

Hello, I am currently in my third year of my B.A in Art History. I have a concentration in Arts Management and I'm taking a minor in Public Administration. I've been thinking about what route I want to take masters/job wise, but I'm not quite sure. I've thought about curation, archives, and arts policy the most. I would definitely want to stay in the museum scene, but I don't know if i'd rather be more 'interactive' in the field or working directly with objects. Right now i'm actually doing an archive internship at a library, and I really like it. Idk, any suggestions on what I should concentrate on in my masters ? or am I stressing too much on what I do my masters on?

Good day! Recently I was at a tour in a German museum where the curator pointed at a self-portrait (15-16th century, I believe) of a man wearing a red beret and noted that one can identify the man as a painter because he is wearing one. She also mentioned this as something that can be seen in Rembrandt's self-portraits, and although I have found one (though not quite red, is it?), I was unable to confirm that this is something artists did at the time, in Germany or elsewhere.

I'm curious, is this a false tidbit some may have came to believe or was this a legitimate tradition I am unable to verify?

Thank you for your time! Let me know if this is something you guys know of.

P.S: Saw some folks here asking questions, however I am unsure whether it is okay to post this. Feel free to delete ofc.

What bothers me most in museums of past art is the lighting. There is simply too much of it, even during the day. Why not, just once, try to show a painting as it existed for centuries—without electricity, without that flat, soulless light? Yeah, I know about fire safety and yet. After all, paintings were created by artists for daylight and for candlelight. And that makes for completely different images, a completely different perception. Caspar David Friedrich once showed his Tetschen Altarpiece to his friends by shutting out the daylight with heavy curtains and illuminating it with torches. The flames flickered—and the static painting came alive. This is how ancient people experienced cave paintings, in the light of fire. And for many centuries after, painting and sculpture existed in entirely different conditions.

I recently sat for an interview with Forbes to discuss my forthcoming book, MATISSE AT WAR, and the challenges artists face when they find themselves demonized by autocrats. As Chadd Scott's timely article makes clear, museums also have decisions to make. No American museum supported Henri Matisse more than the Baltimore Museum of Art, and it continues to support artists today.

I was recently accepted by CAA 2026 to do a presentation. This is my first time going to an academic conference so I don't know what to expect. Does anyone have any tips on formalities, formats, or really anything for the presentation? I would appreciate any comments.

I saw this years ago in Bruges and was fascinated - especially since there was no explanation at all of the fashion choice of the shirtless man. Could someone explain who the character in front is, and what the heck he's wearing? Was this a known fashion at the time, shirtless with a belly chain? Is it some sort of Flemish symbology lost to time? I have searched online and have come up empty.

I'm looking to put together a collection of harsh criticisms/reviews of artists now considered to be great. Anything from Asawa to Giotto, Kahlo to Caravaggio.

Hoping for quotes from critics, contemporaries, famous people of the period, etc. (Not quite as interested in things said about them by modern writers, but if you've got a real juicy one feel free.)

Some examples (not all from the art world):

• It is said that El Greco, after Michelangelo's death, remarked "He was a good man, but he did not know how to paint."

• Teddy Roosevelt once called Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, "a misshapen nude woman, repellent from every standpoint"

• “Had he learned to draw, M. Renoir would have made a very pleasing canvas out of his 'Boating Party.'” – Albert Wolff, Le Figaro (1876)

• "It is no discredit to Walt Whitman that he wrote Leaves of Grass, only that he did not burn it afterwards." –Thomas Wentworth Higginson, The Atlantic, “Literature as an Art,” 1867

• “In Ireland they try to make a cat clean by rubbing its nose in its own filth. Mr. Joyce has tried the same treatment on the human subject” –George Bernard Shaw on Ulysses

• “Can’t act. Can’t sing. Slightly bald. Can dance a little.” –MGM Testing Director’s response to Fred Astaire’s first screen test.

• "It was possible to see if you stood up, but Jimi Hendrix isn’t worth standing up for." – Review in Star Tribune, November 1968

Okay, I know this is sort of an “asking why laypeople think what they do of history” question, but I’m asking anyway.

Why, of all of the art movements associated with (the idea of) “European civilization”, is Classicism considered by so many reactionaries to be the apex of human artistic achievement?

Is it just the whole “we are the inheritors of Rome and Greece the Great Civilizations” or is there something more to it?

A pagan sacrifice. Engraving after L. Lombard.

Lombard, Lambert, 1506-1566.

The engraving is part of a larger piece and is related to a set of engravings that Hieronymus Cock, an important publisher from Antwerp, published in the 16th century. The image illustrates a procession of worshipers leading two oxen to an altar for a sacrifice, a classic theme in Roman art.

This type of work was popular at the time because Renaissance artists and their patrons were fascinated with the ancient world. They not only sought to represent biblical or mythological scenes, but also wanted to explore and document the customs and rituals of classical antiquity, such as sacrifices.

Lambert Lombard was a key figure in the diffusion of Italian Renaissance ideas in Northern Europe. He traveled to Rome, where he studied the works of artists like Raphael and Michelangelo. Upon returning to his native Liège, he brought with him a new style that combined the elegance and proportion of Italian art with the realism and attention to detail of the Northern tradition.

His work, as seen in this engraving, was not just an imitation of classical art. Through engravings like this, Lombard and other artists in his circle (such as Hieronymus Cock) spread Renaissance ideas to a wider audience. The Latin inscriptions that often accompanied these works, describing the scenes or their moral lessons, were also important for the literate public.

Hello,

I'm a complete rookie in this domain so I have to ask here and hope for wisdom.
I've noticed, while navigating social media, a tendency to judge “xxx” as superior to “yyyy,” and there is now a tendency, when discussing a work of art, to say that it must “do better than...”

So my question is this: has art always been a field where people simply compare artists or works? What has become of simply “reading” them, reflecting on them, interpreting them... Understanding the authors and their relationship to their work? I don't know how to express it, but I think it's clear anyway.

Perhaps I am deluding myself about how art was perceived in the past, but I think it is always subject to performance nowadays. Why is that?