Johnny Bergh Christ Healing the Blind Podcast

This is a description of the artwork "Christ Healing the Blind" by El Greco. It was produced in circa 1570 and is an oil on canvas painting. The painting is part of a series of three variations of the same subject. The composition of the painting focuses on Jesus, who is depicted on the left side. El Greco's technique includes verisimilitude, although some figures appear transparent and unfinished. The setting of the artwork is believed to be in Rome. The painting depicts the biblical story of Jesus healing a blind man and symbolizes the supernatural powers of Christ. The use of perspective is evident in the artwork. Introduce me to your artwork. Sweet. The identification information for my artwork is that it was produced by El Greco the Greek. The title is Christ Healing the Blind, made in circa 1570, with oil on canvas in either Venice or Rome. The dimensions of the painting are 47 by 57 and a half inches, and that's from netmuseum.org. The period style of this particular painting is the Renaissance, more specifically the High Renaissance. While my artist is a well-known Mannerist painter, his style changed a lot over his career, and this painting wasn't at a point when El Greco had fully dived into Mannerism and elongated figures, distorted spaces, and really harsh lighting. What is your artwork? My artwork is oil on canvas painting. This is particularly evidenced by the fact that the two figures in the middle of the painting, who appear to be in a struggle together in the street, appear to be almost transparent. That is a common characteristic of unfinished oil painting, because you can work with that medium in layers. Is your artwork from a series? I would say that this artwork is from a series of paintings, in a sense, because this particular piece, at least from what I discovered and took away collectively from all my research, was the second painting of three in total that were all of Christ Healing the Blind in different variations, which we will discuss in further detail later. In short, the very first version, which I will refer to as the Dresden version, was the first in the series and is currently held in Dresden, Germany, and I garnered that information from Vecniac178, and that's El Greco's Miracle of Christ Healing the Blind, Chronology Reconsidered. The third, which is supposed, supposed, however, it is backed up by my research and insight that it is indeed a third due to artistic choices, cleanup, and additions made by El Greco, that will be referred to as the Parma version, which is again where it is held, and that comes from Vecniac180. What is the subject and or story of your chosen work? The subject of my chosen work has to do with the life of Christ. That would be the overarching subject that this piece deals with, however, this specific story is derived from the Bible in an effort to describe and depict the supernatural healing powers of Jesus Christ. For further context of the story, in John 9 we see Jesus heal a man who was born blind. Jesus fell on the ground and made mud, and put the mud in the man's eyes, and he told him to wash his eyes, and after he was healed. Clearly this was an act that only God could do, and the Pharisees, essentially very legalistic Jewish people who hated Jesus because he was threatening their authority, said that only someone without sin could do such a thing. Little did they know they were talking about the only sinless person ever in history. Jesus was showing that he was in fact the Messiah, the one who was to come and save God's people. The thing was that the Jews were expecting a king to come with strength and power, but Jesus, the true king, came as a servant to forgive sin through his sacrifice. Jesus came to save those who were weak in this world, not those who believed that they were righteous and not in need of forgiveness, in a need of forgiveness. I derived that story, and particularly the excerpt from it, from Colin Mennie, who is a student at Boyce Christian University studying theology. Why did you choose this piece to look at? You know, I chose this particular piece because of the setting, style, and narrative within the art. I love the columns and classical architecture in the background. Perhaps even more than that, I love the way El Greco paints. It's not hyper-realistic, but his style is so mastered that it just flows with consistency. While I'm not the most religious person, I had always heard the stories of Christ's magical healing powers. Seeing this painting was kind of my first visual interpretation of that, and I'm glad it was. The gestures and body language of the blind man in Christ are beautiful. It's as though he is bestowing all this trust into Christ and allowing himself to be vulnerable in the eyes of God. It reminds me of my favorite verse, My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness. I loved diving deeper into the construction of this painting and analyzing the oil-on-canvas medium. It's almost surrealist, the feel and look of the painting, plus I love paintings over most things. And one can also look at Christ healing the blind man as a metaphor for helping one see a clear path to success or clarity with their vision, with life in general, which ends up being a major point of discussion, or will be later on. What is the setting of the artwork? In the Bible, at the very least, the actual location is given. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus healed the blind man in the pool of Siloam, an ancient reservoir near Jerusalem's Old City. That is also coming from Colon. Within the scope of the painting, the classical architecture within its columns, arcades, rounded arches, and pediment lend itself to the idea that this painting takes place in Rome, possibly. Which makes sense, because at the time of the painting, El Greco had moved to and been experienced with Rome, and we know that from Christensen's essay, El Greco, 1541-1614. Describe the composition to me. The composition of the painting is interesting to say the least. There are a number of directional gestures that actually point you to Jesus, who is on the left-hand side of the painting, and we know that is him because of his iconography. Fair skin, long brown hair, and most significantly, the red and blue that adorns him. It's key to understand that not only are many, if not no figures at that time, fashioned in blue and red beside Mary and Jesus. And other men who are dressed in red and or blue that don't possess the other features of Jesus aren't sporting those colors to showcase their righteousness and purity, rather their wealth. The figures aren't all lined up, and to me, the most important figures are actually cast in somewhat of a U-shape in the painting, divided by the open space in the middle, which descends down the street in this apparent Roman city. The composition, transitioning from the left side of the U to the bottom, reveals the boy's parents, and moving to the very right-hand side shows us the opposing Pharisees of Jesus that Colin had mentioned from the Bible. And we know those are the Pharisees because of Casper's research article, Experiential Vision in El Greco's Christ Healing the Blind. I would say the divisor in this case is the open space and perspective that El Greco is creating in the middle. As to whether or not the subject is in the center, objectively no, Christ healing the blind man is the subject, which is to the left, but as we will see, the use of orthogonal lines in the actual open center of the painting can very well make an argument for being the subject of the painting depending on how you view it and its allegorical properties, purely in terms of perspective and what that means for the painting, and that is also derived from Casper's article. Describe the techniques of El Greco. El Greco was a master at his craft, and very clearly with a glance you can see that, yes, there is indeed verisimilitude within the artwork. However, when examining further, there are two figures in the middle of the painting that are clearly transparent, as if there weren't enough layers of oil paint added to them in the final product. So this isn't exactly the appearance of being true or real that you'd expect, or label for that matter, considering that they are transparent. Still, looking closely at most of the figures, you can distinguish their unique facial features between each of them, and I think that is vital to keep in mind, that this piece of art is technically unfinished due to an error made by El Greco, and we know that by Vecniac's research article, El Greco's Miracle of Christ Healing the Blind, Chronology Reconsidered. Looking at some of the Pharisees on the right-hand side, there are some faces that aren't complete, figures caught in the divisor, the tree are almost completely transparent, and finally, the columns that are supposed to come down right next to Jesus and the blind man don't, because El Greco didn't paint those with the crowd of figures on the left-hand side in mind. Perhaps the most unfinished portion of this painting is actually the figure right above the blind man that you can make out by looking closely at the figure just above him. As a token toward the verisimilitude of the actual painting, though, the gestures of the figures collectively along with their body positions tell a story. Even before discovering the dissenting Pharisees via contextual analysis, I had a feeling they opposed Jesus, purely off of how El Greco captured their bodies at that moment. In addition, the fingers, arms, and hands, really just the anatomy of most of the figures, particularly the man pointing up to the unfinished column on the left-hand side, has picture-esque calves and feet, like if you were to look at a muscular structure of those parts of the body. El Greco's portrayal of an anatomical structure was very spot-on, which makes sense because he lived in Italy and they loved anatomy during the Renaissance. Perspective is huge in this piece for multiple reasons that we'll get into later, but at the surface level, there is without a doubt perspective in this artwork. The scientific perspective is evidently there just based upon the use of orthogonal lines created in the street and tiles, with all of those lines leading to a common horizon point, which is positioned just behind the carriage in the background of the street. Atmospheric perspective, as well as with the haze of the spatial regression, too, in the background. Just a lot of perspective, which happens to be a sticking point in this podcast. That too can be another facet of the verisimilitude of this piece. There are definitely shadows present in Christ and the Blind. A common shadow amongst many of the figures is that of the shadows cast on their fabrics from the sun being positioned up high and to the left. Christ's right side of his garments are all shadowy, along with the tufts of red fabric being tucked into the crossing portion of his blue clothing. There are shadows simply positioned on the ground of the outlines of these figures. This is particularly in reference to the shadows under Christ and the Blind Man. You don't see shadows cast by people in the streets, though, which, considering they're almost transparent, makes sense, along with the fact that El Greco simply didn't finish painting them. Along the three arcades lining the left side of the painting, there are shadows, too. Implied texture is definitely here, as well. The fabrics of all the figures in the U-shaped composition, for those of whom are finished, give the impression of these rich and soft fabrics and clothes. The way that some blow in the wind and hang upon the body allows me to get a sense of the feeling they do possess in a way namely that of the figures closest to the viewer within the painting. Another thing I wanted to mention was the attention to anatomy and touch, especially with the man pointing to the left. Jesus and the Blind Man give me an idea of the feeling of their flesh and human tissue. I can see differentiations in the pointing man's back next to Jesus and get an idea of what those muscles might feel like. The action of Jesus touching the eyes of the Blind Man in tandem with its representation allows me to visualize and feel what a touch might feel like. The depiction of detail is obvious, for one. Look at the classical architecture. Each arcade of columns feel and look different from one another. Just the fact that there are so many different buildings primarily on the left-hand side are included should heighten the sense of detail. Furthermore, the tile is color-coded orange and beige, mostly until the unfinished portion on the left. Keeping in mind the attention to perspective, shadows, texture, anatomy, gestures, actions, there aren't two of the same person or thing presented in the artwork. I can see forehead wrinkles on the Pharisee on the right with both hands out dressed in purple and green. Speaking of which, the robes and clothing of all the individuals make it seem as though they are almost boasting unique fashion statements for only that person. The aforementioned man with both hands out has purple-green, Christ has red-blue, obviously the parents in the foreground collectively have green-white-red-blue, and there is another man wrapped up on the far right in horizontal-striped white-yellow-black lines. And then almost where you see that haze in the background under the Roman arch beneath the pediment, you can make out the saddle on the horse closest to us and the carriage driver. And those things are very, very far back in the street. Circling back to the detail of clothing specifically, there is an Italian use of pastels with a northern European use of jewel tones. And you can tell the lighter portions of Christ's fabric almost where it looks pink in the shadowy blue on the right, which appears very rich and bright blue and contrasts the pastel red. Proportionally, admittedly, El Greco did mess up with the columns on the left in proportion to the crowd he had painted. Additionally, in my research, I uncovered that the proportions of the tallest Pharisee you can see in the middle of the group with his head poking out is also incorrect. And that's via Vecniac's article on page 181, El Greco's Miracle of Christ Telling the Blind. In the face seemingly emerging out of the doorway at the left, Arcade also seems a bit wonky in comparison to everyone else. But the figures in the street are smaller than those in the front, and the space proportionally regresses very, very well into the collective horizon point. Introduce me to your comparison work. My comparison works consist of Christ driving the money changers from the temple, the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, Madonna and Child, St. Catherine of Alexandria in prison, and oddly enough, the different versions of Christ Healing the Blind as well. I garner the information of the first four from both the Met and JSTOR. It is hard to cite them because they are all entries within those respective websites, but they are there. Individually, I mean. That is, with the exception of the other versions of Christ Healing the Blind. What is the identification information of each? I'll begin by listing off each in the same order with their identification information. The first, El Greco, Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple, circa 1571-1576, oil on canvas, 46x59 inches. This piece from El Greco, while similar in subject matter and location-setting, is starkly different in style, which makes me lean toward Mannerists with obviously some Renaissance, and that comes from JSTOR. The second, El Greco, The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, circa 1590s, oil on canvas in dimensions 102x131 centimeters. Now, notice that this painting, without even describing it, is at the point in El Greco's career where he fully embraced Mannerism. Although he may have had skills garnered from the Renaissance, this painting is predominantly Mannerist, and that also comes from JSTOR. Titian, Madonna and Child, circa 1508, oil on wood with dimensions of 18x22 inches. If this hasn't been mentioned already, Titian is actually El Greco's mentor, and that comes from a number of sources, but particularly Cathan, research article, The Art and Influence of El Greco. And this painting goes back to the Renaissance kind, kind of right smack dab in the middle of that time period, and that comes from metmuseum.org. The fourth, Paolo Veronese, Saint Catherine of Alexandria in Prison, circa 1580-85, oil on canvas, 116.2x83.8 centimeters. Saint Catherine is said to have been made at a time in Veronese's career when he was using light very dramatically, with new depths of expression, so I don't want to slide this directly into the Renaissance camp when it is somewhat similar in regard to Mannerism. That's also from metmuseum.org. The fifth and sixth comparison works, El Greco, Christ Healing the Blind, circa 1567, oil on canvas, Venice, 25.8x33 inches, and that, keep in mind, is the Dresden version, the very first. El Greco, Christ Healing the Blind, circa 1573-ish, oil on canvas, Rome, 20.0x24 inches, the Parma version, the very last, according to scholars, specifically Vecniac, page 180, El Greco's Miracle of Christ Healing the Blind, chronology reconsidered. Both of these do not differ radically from our Christ Healing the Blind version, and is technically called the New York version, since that's where it's held, which is majority Renaissance, as stated before, with the humanization of our religious figure, Christ in this case, and obviously a lot of verisimilitude in the finished or close to finished portions, at least, and the perspective which adds to that. Tell me, what is the art form, subject, slash story, and setting of each? Christ driving the money changers from the temple is yet another oil on canvas painting by El Greco. I say that it is, in fact, more mannerist because of the illogical lighting, harsh colors, and confused space. The subject and story of this artwork, in a very condensed format, is essentially Christ's expulsion of the money changers who were desecrating a temple in Jerusalem. This was an allegory for the counter-reformation of purification of the Protestant heretics at that time, which is very similar to that of Christ Healing the Blind, actually. That comes from jesur, the description, I mean. Like my artwork, Christ driving, dot, dot, dot, is also supposed to be depicted or take place in Jerusalem, but the architecture is very Roman-like and classical. The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane is also an oil on canvas painting by El Greco. This is full mannerist this time around. The subject and story of this painting has to do with the actions preceding Christ's crucifixion, I believe. Judas is approaching with his soldiers in the background, and to the left are the sleeping apostles of Christ, who's looking up at an angel who has a cup for him, and that's also from jesur. The setting of this piece would have to do with that, of where the Bible places Jesus in this moment. I would assume that's maybe Gethsemane, just based off the title of the painting itself. Madonna and Child by Titian is oil on wood. This subject is rather simple, but still very beautiful. Titian wanted to capture the bond of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus, and he did so with them in a very relaxed pose, sitting down with Mary holding her baby in her arms. It's a very intimate moment between mother and son. The tree behind them has two trunks growing side by side to signify their relationship, and I garnered that information from metmuseum.org. Saint Catherine of Alexandria in Prison is by Paolo Veronese, and is oil on canvas. Saint Catherine of Alexandria attempted convincing Roman Emperor Maxentius of Christianity. In response, he imprisoned her for 12 days until starvation. Veronese depicts her in a dark cell, comforted by the glowing dove of the Holy Spirit. Around her are fragments of the wheel the emperor saw unsuccessfully to kill her with. Ultimately, she was beheaded and here holds the martyr's palm. That's from metmuseum.org, and the location of this is, I would assume, Rome, just based off the context of this actual painting. The Christ Healing the Blind, the Judson and Parma versions I'm referring to, are the same art form by the same artist. Once more, the story in each is the same, with the differences being discussed in just a moment. What art historical analysis will you be pulling at in your discussion? I'm going to be looking at both the general contextual and visual analytic lenses for this artwork. Contextual analysis of my chosen artwork being the formal analysis of the work as a whole, using outside research in an effort to answer the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the art, as well as its patronage, purpose, and cultural meaning-slash-significance. The visual analysis includes examining how the art looks, how it was made, and the effect it has on the viewer. With such a miracle event, excluding possibly diving into the social hierarchy of the Pharisees, I didn't find doing a Marxist analysis to be very fruitful, nor did I really grow fond of performing a gender analysis because Jesus doesn't discriminate. Hegemonic and or iconographic analyses do present a potential avenue in commenting purely on Jesus's healing and revelatory power along with his iconography, but those almost overlap with that of visual and contextual. What is your thesis? I will be using both contextual and visual art historical analysis of Christ Healing the Blind to support my argument that this artwork represents more than just Christ healing the blind man. There is an evident allegory of metaphorically having your sight restored and being illuminated by the divine. While this painting did objectively provide commentary on the Counter-Reformation, as we will discuss, there also exists that divine purification and illumination in the spirit of more than just religion. Everyone has sight, but just as we all have it, we can all lose it at times, and the figure of Christ acts as a vessel for a potential family member, a friend, an event, a teacher, a guardian, a powerful force akin to nature, the ocean, the cosmos, something we look up to opening our eyes so we see more than just distortion. We see more than just the detractors of our personal prophecies. Our vision clarifies, and when we look out, we see a more clear path, just like the one in the middle of the painting. Give me a brief overview of the existing scholarship surrounding El Greco's Christ healing the blind, and if there is a strong focus of it. Certainly. There is admittedly a lot to unpack in terms of scholarly sources and research, but I will try and condense it and go through the offerings of each of my sources individually. Keith Christensen's essay, El Greco, 1541-1614, was a brief synopsis going over El Greco's life in general, with his art, of course. He was a painter of the spirit-rejecting materialist culture born in Crete of nation territory, moved to Venice in 1567, setting out to master the elements of Renaissance art, perspective, and elaborate narratives. As a disciple of Titian and Veronese, moved to Rome in 1570 for six years in the palace of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, with no commissions for an altarpiece because he insulted Michelangelo, which is important because it tells you he spoke his mind. He moved to Toledo, where he saw his real success. His art was of imagination rather than nature. He went from a high degree of naturalism to a warped and elongated mannerist style. This was based upon the rejection of mere appearances in favor of the realm of intellect and spirit. And that's all from Keith Christensen's essay. Jean Sorabella's essay, Painting the Life of Christ in Medieval and Renaissance Italy, is quoted as saying, quote, El Greco's bold portrayal of Christ making a blind man see indulged his special attraction to visionary scenes while also demonstrating his mastery of perspective in conveying a message suited to the spirit of the Counter-Reformation, end quote. She elaborated on this by writing about the fact that the scene in particular was a less common scene of Christ's life, which allowed El Greco to have more freedom in his depiction of it. Jean Sorabella's other essay, The Crucifixion and Passion of Christ in Italian Painting, is simply a reference to El Greco's contribution to the Counter-Reformation art and attitude. In the spirit of the Counter-Reformation, painters work to involve the emotions in meditation on Christ's suffering and death. Andrew R. Casper's experiential vision in El Greco's Christ Healing the Blind is the most influential research article of mine. He manages to identify the Pharisees and the boy's parents and also says that the dramatic spatial regression is key to the theme of sight in this piece. It is an allegory of inner spiritual illumination. This painting is actually very true to character of El Greco because of the dramatic luminosity, spatial clarity, and colors. That comes from Casper, page 351, hence how bright some of the fabrics appear in the sun. In line with the Counter-Reformation, Casper says, quote, blindness was not simply a physical condition but an external manifestation of spiritual impairment witnessing divine Christian truth, page 352. El Greco was fascinated with, excuse me, Christian truth, end quote, 352. El Greco was fascinated with architectural cultures and that was one of my first interests within the art itself and the article helped identify the architecture as that of Roman architecture, Casper, page 354 through 355. Quote, perspective is functioning as more than just, excuse me, as more than a naturalistic formal trait, end quote, Casper, page 360. Christ catalyzing the vision of the blind man caused El Greco to predicate his setting of perspective to signify the physical act of seeing, Casper 367. This is because perspective back then had a lot to do with the optics and mechanics of our eyes and how we see. Beyond perspective and sight, Christ healing the blind serves as a, quote, powerful metaphor for the elusive concept of divine illumination and the revelation of Christian knowledge, end quote, Casper, page 372. Jesus serves as his conduit for divine illumination within the painting. You can see the focus here was a metaphorical analysis of Christ's actions with El Greco's style and use of perspective in mind. Irina Veknyak's El Greco's Miracle of Christ Healing the Blind Chronology Reconsidered represents a rich and fulfilling research article that grapples with the convoluted chronology of this series amongst many other things. El Greco takes after his mentor Titian when considering the colors used in construction of this painting. The, quote, the rich Venetian colors play an important role in the pictorial conception. As in many works by Titian, the religious drama is conveyed through the movement of colors and gestures, end quote, Veknyak 177. The Met version is deemed to be the second version which contains the most Venetian elements of the three because its, quote, coloring has a greater variety, luminosity, and richness, end quote, Veknyak 177. The Dresden version left a lot to be desired with the narrative and perspective which leads us to the Met's version which is said to be, quote, painted in Venice in about 1569-70, end quote, Veknyak 178. As to why El Greco left this painting unfinished, he erred with the architecture in relation to the crowd on the left, quote, thus creating a spatial complication in the front left corner, upper front left corner, excuse me. The arrangement of the figures behind does not allow for the columns to come down, end quote, Veknyak 178. To compensate, he left the painting unfinished but the subject matter adds to this idea such occurrence because the blind man is regaining his sight. It's very interesting because you have to think that El Greco didn't scrap this artwork and intentionally left it unfinished, quote, El Greco literally painted himself into a corner, end quote, Veknyak 179. The Parma painting corrects this spatial error made in the Met's version as noticeably finished and more aesthetic than the second in its construction, blank, or, it's not blank, excuse me, quote, if we accept this painting as a third version of the subject, it would be neither accidental nor prosthetic but a logical next step in El Greco's artistic development, end quote, Veknyak 181. Focus in Veknyak's article was a chronology and error made in the artwork. Charles H. Caffin was, or excuse me, has an excerpt that comments on the art and influence of El Greco. Although short, Caffin delivers a multitude of many great points of conjecture. El Greco became, quote, a pupil of Titian, while it is also evident that Tintoretto influenced him, end quote, Caffin 78. This is where he really honed in on his verisimilitude and religious drama depictions. Many called El Greco's style in his later years crazy, even King Philip, and that comes from Caffin 78. The artistic period surrounding El Greco really comes into play when you consider that Spain became one of the leaders of the Counter-Reformation, Caffin 78. Finally, and what relates so closely to my work and many other pieces of art made by El Greco is that, quote, he painted not only the fact but the soul of the fact, end quote, Caffin 80. El Greco could paint reality perfectly, but he wanted to capture the spiritual environment. This research found its focus in a biopic-like structure of El Greco's life in addition to his dynamic art style, religious beliefs, and his art philosophy. Give me a visual analysis of your chosen work versus that of your comparison works. Christ Shown in the Blind in comparison to Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple hosts both similarities and differences. Similarly, the architecture in both is very Roman. Christ is the main subject in both paintings, and both have to do with the purification and Counter-Reformation, whether that's expulsion or healing to help that cause. The iconography for Jesus is the same. The setting is very similar, if not the same. There are transparent figures in both. For Christ Healing, dot dot dot, those figures are in the street, while for Christ Driving, dot dot dot, those corporeal figures are down a hall to the far right of the painting. In terms of difference, Christ Driving is actually a finished painting, so there aren't any of those, with the exception of those figures to the far right, unfinished figures, like in Christ Healing. With Christ Driving, in the bottom right, El Greco depicted Michelangelo, Titian, Gillo, Clovio, and Raphael, and actually signed the painting on a step below Jesus. In Christ Healing, no such references or a signature are present. Perhaps the biggest difference is the tone and attitude of Christ in each painting. In Christ Driving, you see a very authoritative Jesus expelling people from this temple, whereas with Christ Healing, he is actually healing someone. The composition of Christ Driving places Jesus in the middle of the painting, with perspective being less important, whereas in Christ Healing, Jesus is placed left, with a lot of emphasis on perspective. The agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and Christ Healing the Blind are pretty different from one another, despite being from the same artist. While the agony might contain Jesus Christ as the primary subject, like our chosen work, the whole space features highly terraformed land, or very distorted land, that has a lot of very illogical lighting. There is no structure and scientific perspective in the agony, and this is further accentuated by the fact that the proportions make Jesus seem absolutely giant in the middle. Additionally, the agony is a finished work, whereas Christ Healing is not. Another distinctly different example of the portrayal of Jesus is featured as with the agony. Christ is almost afraid, looking out to an angel, as if he himself is looking for guidance versus our artwork, which shows Jesus healing someone, despite being opposed by the Pharisees. Similarly, Jesus is being opposed in both works, and they both happen to be on the right side of the painting in each. The Pharisees and Judas with his soldiers both happen to be less seen biblical events. Madonna and Child compared to Christ Healing the Blind is an interesting comparison because the former painting comes from El Greco's mental oratition. Both aren't derived from famous biblical scenes. Both have allegorical properties, with the tree in the case of Madonna and Child representing their bond and the street progressing out into space for Christ Healing the Blind, which represents the restoration of sight and divine illumination. Both put a lot of emphasis on anatomical structure. With Madonna and Child, you can see the roles in the baby Jesus like any healthy baby would have, and Mary has typical feminine traits like a softer face and smaller round chin. With Christ Healing the Blind, it's the man pointing out to the left, the blind man, and the boy's parents where you witness the most accurate anatomy with muscular structure and implied texture of each of those figures. This is revealed that Titian didn't really care about a lot of architecture or the background for that matter in his painting, where that was a major point of contention for El Greco as he wanted to master perspective, which is highly evident. Titian didn't put a lot of figures in his painting, unlike El Greco, and the fabric in Titian's painting feels rougher than that of El Greco's fabrics. There is more jewel tone with Titian than with El Greco, and I'd argue overall Titian's painting feels more Northern European than that of El Greco's painting. St. Catherine of Alexandria in prison might be the least similar to Maitreau's work visually speaking. Jesus isn't depicted, there really isn't any background, nor are there any figures besides St. Catherine and the Holy Spirit. El Greco painted it in a setting where light was decently present throughout, whereas Veronese made this painting very dark and shadowy, if you will. I'd say most notably of the similarities, which are few and far between, St. Catherine almost has the same expression and body positioning, looking up at the Holy Spirit, as the blind does looking up at Jesus. It's like the same entrustment in God or religion in the face of similar religious persecution that is present in both paintings. Veronese definitely went all out for achieving verisimilitude in his painting, as St. Catherine is more intricate and real than any figure in Christ, Teal and the Blind, although I'd say El Greco does rival the neck anatomical structure and accuracy of St. Catherine as he nailed that portion of his work. Finally, there are other versions of Christ, Teal and the Blind to examine, luckily not much exploring will need to be done as most of these works are very similar. The subject is the same, Jesus is the same, although the Dresden and Parma versions are finished. The New York and Parma versions look the most Romanesque of the three. The Dresden and Parma versions have a gold aura around the back of Jesus' head, whereas the New York version does not. However, the New York and Parma versions do give the most attention to perspective, as if El Greco made that a sticking point in my second version and kept it until the third. The New York version is the only one with the boy's parents in the foreground creating that U-shaped composition, whereas the others don't. The New York version does pale in comparison to both other versions when taking verisimilitude into account, but that's only due to the fact that it's unfinished and we're going to talk about how that adds more to the painting in one moment. What about the similarities between all of them relate to the period style? I think these paintings coming out at a time when most, excuse me, when most of them at least, the high renaissance has already sparked, CC, an amalgamation of anatomy, realism, humanization of religious figures, and classical architecture really shows you that even despite changes in the artistic period, or these artists being completely different people, those influences and driving factors with the artwork contribute to a general focus on religion, relying on Jesus, purification, revelation, tight bonds with your faith. And these similarities, excuse me, the similarities of all my works and mine, chosen in comparison help to articulate and figure out how the period style of the renaissance helped influence and shape the finished products of these works. You know, you see red and blue, or you see Christ at different stages in his life, you see varying but close degrees of verisimilitude, you see a martyr holding a palm branch due to religious persecution, you see the Pharisees opposing Jesus, you see Judas opposing Jesus, you see similar Roman architecture, you see Jesus, although he might be the center of attention appearing human, eventually all the similarities, even if they are in fact few and far between, give you a semblance of a particular period style that collectively helped influence each of them. Imagine what these similarities and or differences convey about patronage, creation, function, display, and overall context of the work. These similarities and or differences have helped to make me realize that there was a lot of religious turmoil surrounding Christianity and Catholicism at that time, and contextually this makes sense as El Greco and as I would imagine a number of other artists were participating in the counter-reformation, so within each of their creations there was some intention of pushing a religious idea, belief, and or allegory. In terms of patronage, I think that it would have made sense for Catholic nobles and religious persons to issue these counter-reformatory works, or Christian works even to help substantiate their religion and hold fast their perceived validity of it, especially if they wanted to place themselves in those scenes in a constant state of devotion or show others how devout they were. Maybe the patrons wanted to host diplomatic meetings with the intention of showcasing these works to wow other members of rival or neighboring nations, and that kind of ties into both the function and displays of these works. Devotion, showcase, diplomatic gains, devoutness. It feels similar to the Northern European illuminated manuscripts where nobles would showcase their abundance, wealth, and comfort. These paintings potentially represented faith, beliefs, devoutness, and virtue of the patron and their land and or peoples. What is the most important support for your thesis? From class, there are a couple of important things I want to hone in on that will support my thesis of the metaphor for this work being more than Christ healing this blind man. Divine illumination, vision clarification, and life overall. Breaking down the distortion of your ambitions and path through the entrustment and guidance of someone you love. I believe composition, allegory, oil paint, and classical structure all support this argument. We have to realize that the placement of each figure, building, article of clothing, gesture is intentional. There is barely, if anything, that is by accident. These artists were masters of their respective crafts, and they knew how to manipulate works and their meaning by altering these complex compositions. With that in mind, it goes without saying that leaving certain portions of this painting unfinished was a choice made by El Greco, even despite the spatial error he made with the columns on the left-hand side. He would have finished the painting, excuse me, he could have finished the painting, The Two Translucent Men in the Street, or the figures in the crowd to the left, but he didn't, and that was a choice. As to why that was one he executed, I thoroughly believe he made that choice to emphasize what was important in the painting and what regaining your vision and clarity meant. Looking closely at the painting, we see that most of the complete figures are the boy's parents, the blind man, some of the Pharisees, and Jesus especially. Keep in mind that amongst those figures being more complete than others, the street is also near finished and with much detail inputted into making that spatial regression a cornerstone portion of the painting. Why those figures have the amount of detail that they do is to grant them symbolism in the allegory. Blindness has rendered everything fuzzy for that man, his whole life, just as stress for us and anybody for that matter can blind us to what's important, make us nearsighted to the trouble. The Pharisees in this case, hence why they are depicted more vividly, but all it takes is just one person, one thing, to change all of that and bestow upon us that clarity in the form of Jesus in this case. But it doesn't have to be Jesus who paints us this clear picture, it could just as easily be a parent, a friend, your chosen family, who allows us to see that clear path in life. In the composition of that street in the painting, besides the phenomenal scientific perspective and the atmospheric perspective letting us know that although we can see further now, some things will be hazy no matter what, notice the two figures fighting in the street are almost transparent. That's because through Jesus' illumination, his clarity, the blind man needn't pay attention or give energy into those detractors anymore and that's a beautiful choice by El Greco. Another choice that was made was not putting Christ in the center, instead it's the spatial regression and Christ is on the left of it. And how this painting was made, oil paint, which is constructed with pigments mixed with linseed oil in most cases to make a paste, allowed El Greco to make the figures appear that way. Almost see-through, that's not focusing the bad things, that's how you use your medium's full potential. And the classical structure. One might wonder, why does it look so colorless? Well the Renaissance understanding of architecture within antiquity renders most buildings colorless. The ones that take after Romanesque structures at least. And this is important because it attempts to mimic calmness of the mind, clarity of intellect and understanding. And that goes perfectly with the restoration of one's sight, one's path, and one's stride to see where they want to go. I want to shift gears to where my comparison works to analyze what they have to offer my argument. Madonna and Child by Titian is one of the most beautiful paintings I've ever seen. Excluding religion, a mother holding her healthy baby just communicates such a high degree of love and compassion. And so does the action of Christ healing a blind man, a man who was born blind as a matter of fact. Christ unconditionally heals a blind man with compassion just as Mary loves her baby in that fashion. What's more is that there is a tree behind Mary that has two severed trunks growing side by side to signify their relationship between her and Jesus. Diana of itself is an allegory, one found in nature to represent their love. Just as the regressing street with the fantastic use of perspective is also an allegory to represent that returned sight of the man. Christ driving the money changers from the temple is similar in that it represents an allegory of purification, one that involves Christ expelling the money changers from the temple to clear it in the fashion of the counter-reformation which El Greco is so fixated with. And although there is such a stark contrast in this portrayal of Jesus, it isn't far off from the meaning of what Jesus is doing in Christ healing the blind. In similar fashion, Jesus is restoring sight to purifying grant clarity. Both cases present a common allegory of purification, restoration, and returning to a former order. Again, another similar allegory and one that also has classical structure as well to add to that. Besides a deeper meaning, it shows that there is more than one way to depict the subject to represent the same thing. In much the same way then, no matter how Jesus is depicted in these very similar situations, he is helping to restore a place or person back to a state of mind that can clearly see the path they want to embark on. St. Catherine of Alexandria in prison, as previously mentioned, mirrors the neck anatomy of the blind man looking up at Jesus. It is that very same trust that the blind man gives to Jesus to show him a path forward and illuminate his sight and soul that Catherine gives to the Holy Spirit in the upper right hand corner of her painting. That similarity grants so much in the way of how we talk, think about, and interact with those we love and it mirrors the message in Christ healing the blind, that if you bestow yourself within the hands of another in our times of grief or blindness, that will allow them or us to see clearly. Both the blind man and Catherine's actions help make this argument. The agony in the garden of Gethsemane, as mentioned prior, depicts Jesus this time around as the one looking for help and guidance and further substantiates the point that we don't need our divine illumination to be a holy figure or someone of massive power. Just look at Jesus, even he gets fearful. This can just as easily be a parent, a loved one, a friend, and although they might help, they will need help too sometimes. I know that I have talked plenty about the other versions of Christ healing the blind, but there is one thing I want to mention and it is that unlike the other two versions, my chosen artwork's Jesus doesn't have a golden glow around his head. El Greco made Jesus the most human-like in the New York version, adding once more to the claim that this figure allegorically doesn't need to be Jesus. Within this version, he is almost human, the closest version to it, meaning that we don't need a supernatural being to be the one that grants us essential clarity within our existence. And finally, I'll unpack my research sources now. The Met version is deemed to be the second version, which contains the most Phoenician elements of the three because its coloring has a greater variety, luminosity, and richness. That's Vecniac, page 177, El Greco's Miracle of Christ Healing the Blind, Chronology Reconsidered. And that is because this is the very first time the blind man is seen, and El Greco did a better job at portraying that in this version. It is as though the restoration of sight and clarity by Christ, and more generally speaking in an untrusted figure, makes us see things in a different light, more rich, more appreciative. Quote, the arrangement of the figures behind does not allow for the columns to come down, end quote, Vecniac 178. To compensate, he left the painting unfinished, but the subject matter as to this idea, such occurrence, because the blind man is regaining his sight. It's very interesting because you have to think that El Greco didn't scrap his artwork and intentionally left it unfinished, which ties back into the whole composition of the artwork. To make that choice is to manipulate the mechanics of being blind in the moment of regaining that through Christ. The dramatic spatial regression is key to the theme of sight in this piece, as we know very well by now. It's an allegory of inner spiritual illumination. This painting is actually very true to character of El Greco because of the, quote, dramatic luminosity, spatial clarity, and colors, end quote, Casper 351, and that comes from experiential vision in El Greco's Christ, Him and the Blind. In line with the Counter-Reformation, Casper says, quote, blindness was not simply a physical condition, but an external manifestation of a spiritual impairment to witnessing divine Christian truth, page 352. In essence, blindness is more than just how we see it. It is that inability to have that faith, and furthermore, an inability to see the truth in the form of you being on your own path, not constrained by others, and Christ happens to serve as a conduit to that idea. Once more, just as anybody can in our lives. El Greco, quote, he painted not only the fact, but the soul of the fact, end quote, Caffin, page 80, and that comes from Caffin's research article, The Art and Influence of El Greco. El Greco could paint reality perfectly, but he wanted to capture the spiritual environment of everything surrounding his subject, everything having to do with the subject. There was a rejection of fact within his art, especially later on, and we can see this here with the, quote unquote, error he made in how he chose to paint the rest of the artwork with the translucent figures, a uniquely very human Jesus, the dramatic and on-point regression and the fuzz figures behind. This wasn't painted just to showcase the action of Jesus healing this man, but also to showcase his spirituality of restoring that sight and giving someone the clarity they never had back. That's what this painting shows above all else. More than just at the surface level, it helps to support the thesis as well, because you have an artist who factually intends to paint or show more than just what is there on the panel or canvas. His art was of imagination rather than nature. He went from a high degree of naturalism to a warped and elongated manner of style. This was based on the rejection of mere appearances in favor of the realm of intellect and spirit. And let's not forget that El Greco wasn't afraid to speak his mind and push batteries, considering that he had insulted Michelangelo. That's from Christensen's essay. El Greco, 1541-1614. Jean Sorbella had commented on this scene in particular being a less common scene of Christ's life, which allowed El Greco to have more freedom in his depiction of it. More freedom he was granted allowed him to represent a deeper meaning in the art like this, purification and restoration of sight. Purification and motivation by lending yourself to a figure you look up to in your own life. Restate your argument. Certainly. This artwork represents more than Christ healing the blind. It's an allegory of metaphorically having your sight restored and being illuminated by the divine. By the divine offers much in the way of not only supporting the argument itself, but seeing the artwork in that way. While this painting did objectively focus on the counter-reformation, there exists divine purification and illumination of more than just religion. Everyone has sight, but just as we all have sight, we can all lose it. The figure of Christ acts as a placeholder for a potential parent, relative, friend, event, teacher, guardian, powerful force akin to nature, the ocean, the cosmos, something we look up to. Something that will open our eyes to more than just distortion, more than the detractors of our personal legacies. Our vision clarifies and looking out, we see a clear path, just like the one in the middle of the painting. That is my argument, and that is what I believe I achieved in showing. My evidence for this claim lies in the composition of the painting. The choices of what went unfinished, finished, and placed. The use of oil paint, the limited layers, the classic architecture, Roman calmness of mind according to the Renaissance, and most definitely the allegory of inter-spiritual revelations and restoration to the truth through one another. I then used my comparison works like Madonna and Child to show the prevalence of allegories in dramatic religious scenes and the parallels between that and Christ healing the blind. I dove into Christ driving the money changers from the temple to get into, although there being a different attitude of Christ in that painting, the allegory was fundamentally the same. St. Catherine of Alexandria in prison was used in a similar way based off of her similar posing and entrustment in the Holy Spirit that the blind man had in Jesus. The agony in the garden of Gethsemane humanized Jesus further showing that the one who helps give us this newfound clarity doesn't need to be a superhero necessarily, and the other versions of Christ healing the blind also helped to point out that my chosen version of this artwork humanized Jesus more than the rest of the pieces because of his missing aura. My research helped evidence the unfinished portion of this work and the color palette of El Greco, both of which were instrumental in laying the foundation of my art argument, and the majority of that was given by Vecniac. Casper's research dove into the overarching allegory by really focusing on the dramatic spatial regression and elaborating on what that meant. St. Catherine combed over the uber important fact that El Greco didn't paint just the facts of the artwork but rather also the spiritual environment surrounding it, and that of course helped me establish this thesis to begin with. Christensen's essay did a similar thing by referencing El Greco's honest and outspoken attitude, also talking about his rejection of mere appearances, and learning that the scene was chosen by El Greco because it wasn't as well known, therefore he could depict it however he wanted, gives more credibility to the choices that he made because he chose this scene specifically so he can have more freedom in depicting it, and that's from Sorabella. What dead ends did you approach in your work? There is no individual definitive location for the second painting of Christ in the Blind trilogy. The first version, the Dresden, was painted and finished in Venice between 1566 and 1568, and that's cited by Vecniac 178. The third painting, the Parma, was given its characteristics, or excuse me, given its characteristics and El Greco's move to Rome, was painted and finished in Rome between 1570 and 1576, and that's cited by Vecniac 181. The second painting, we know it's the second because of the changes made in the Parma version, followed the completion of the Dresden immediately supposedly, but definitely preceded the Parma version, Vecniac 181. However, it is still unclear if it was made and finished in Venice before El Greco's move, or if it was potentially started in Venice and finished in Rome. The patron of Christ here in the Blind is still widely unknown. Even in my research pertaining to the location of the painting, there was some input about it, but in terms of the patron, I haven't seen anything. While El Greco did produce at least one of the versions of the painting whilst living under the Cardinal Farnese in Rome, there aren't any mentions of him commissioning El Greco for that particular piece, although both of them were devout Catholics, so it is a feasible assumption to make, and that comes from Christensen and Caffin, that conclusion I have come to. However, El Greco was already a very devout Catholic and began painting Christ here in the Blind long before he moved to Rome. Maybe the art wasn't patronized and El Greco was just that devout to his religion and the Counter-Reformation. I can't substantiate that claim, but we do know that he loved to paint the spirit of the painting and wasn't afraid to push the boundaries of realism, so if he was that passionate about it in the spirit of the subject, I think it's feasible to think that this might have been an independent project separate from a patron, especially considering the repetition of his attempts at depicting the scene. What is additional research that you would have liked to dive into with more time-slash-access? With more time, I would have looked into the Pharisees a bit more and dig into the past patrons of El Greco. Maybe that would have helped give me an idea of who commissioned Christ here in the Blind. Additionally, I would have cross-examined my sources even further to try and substantiate a potential location of where this was made. We already nailed it down to two, but I feel as though maybe if I searched deep enough, I could have named a definitive location between those two. Beside that, I would have liked to look more into why El Greco didn't get commissioned as much in Rome. I know the answer is that he had an insult to Michelangelo, but that couldn't have been the only reason. And that comes from Christensen. I honestly didn't come across a whole lot of conflicting information within my own research. The only research that seems to be up in the air still is the chronology of the series that El Greco made, but it's easy to put together in the end when you look through the most logical lens. I mean, specifically, whether the New York version did, in fact, get produced second and the location it was produced in. I think that I can answer effectively to the near fact that the New York version is indeed a second in the chronology, according to Casper. But the location is simply beyond me because, honestly, in my eyes, I think El Greco started this middle version of Venice and finished it in Rome, but I don't have the right amount of quality of research to substantiate that claim, especially with so much conflicting information. How might your analysis of your chosen work be relevant today? Gosh, well, you have to exclude the service level application of just Jesus Christ in our modern society and stretch it out into a complete metaphorical sense. Only then do I believe that Christ in the blind represents an actually very vital lesson to be learned, even now. And that surrounding yourself with people similar to Jesus, I realize those are pretty high standards, but just realize I mean relative to his goodness and forgiveness and entrust that person to helping you see clearly. I know for me, looking at matters even my own self through the eyes and help of others has helped me rationalize things very well. Whether that's body dysmorphia, intense stress, and feeling like you're just about to burst with anxiety, consulting those in our lives who can effectively clarify our headspaces are still very germane to life. This message is truly timeless and its relevance is limitless, it feels like, especially with the smothering effect of social media on our minds, which makes us jump so quickly from one thing to another, yes. The artwork referenced in this podcast is El Greco, Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple, circa 1571 through 1576, oil on canvas, 46 by 59 inches. El Greco, the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, circa 1590s, oil on canvas, 102 by 131 centimeters. Titian, Madonna and Child, circa 1508, oil on wood, 18 by 22 inches. Paula Veronese, St. Catherine of Alexandria in Prison, circa 1580 through 1585, oil on canvas, 116.2 by 83.8 centimeters. El Greco, Christ Healing the Blind, circa 1567, oil on canvas, Venice, 25.8 inches by 33 inches. Christ Healing the Blind, circa 1573, roughly, oil on canvas, Rome, 20 inches by 24 inches.