Making a Giant Look Immense and Powerful

What makes The Colossus look so gigantic?
_____

GIANT, noun: (in folklore) a being with human form but superhuman size, strength, etc.
Dictionary.com

There are very tall people among us now, and no doubt there always have been. Here are photos of just a few of them:

Zhan Shi Chai (1840s-1893), Chinese, Eddie Carmel (1936-1972), Israeli-American, Ralph Madsen (1897-1948), American, and Sultan Kosen (1982-still living), Turkish.

These unfortunate people have often ended up being exhibited as freaks in circuses, and as there are few other job openings for them or anyplace where they "fit in," they usually grudgingly accept their fate and allow themselves to be exhibited. Their abnormal size is usually a result of a tumor on their pituitary gland (which regulates growth). Rather than being super-healthy, their condition often causes them to die young. These people are startlingly tall compared to the rest of us, but of course none of them have been "giants" of the kind that we know about from legends and fairy tales. They are not the type to cause an earthquake when they walk or eat a pile of whole roast oxen for dinner.

The giants of mythology and stories and movies and so on are always huge beyond a size that humans have ever grown to, and are extremely strong and powerful and often looking for a fight with gods, or with other giants, or else they're looking for a meal. No matter if they might be supposedly "friendly," such a giant would be frightening, as even the most careful and courteous giant might inadvertently step or sit down on people or animals or houses, etc., or knock over a building. He (sometimes she) would also use up the resources of the local "little people" in a hurry.

Though it's obvious that giants of this type have never actually existed in real life, they've been invented by writers, artists, and storytellers as metaphors to fill different needs. For instance, it is likely that the giant ("Colossus") in the painting shown below is meant to represent the Spanish people resisting Napoleon's invasion.



The Colossus - 1808-10
A clearer reproduction
Artist: This painting was formerly attributed to Francisco de Goya, but some experts now believe it is by Asensio Julia (1760-1832) (Here is a much better article on Julia, but in Spanish), a pupil and friend of Goya (Spanish - 1746-1828)
Picture, from Wikimedia, is in the public domain

To me this giant looks definitely of gargantuan size and strength, in addition to appearing somber, serious, and powerful. One would think mountains would crumble as he walked by.

What are some of the things the artist has done that make this giant seem so gargantuan and powerful? It's not just the size he has made the figures in the foreground, which are tiny in relation to the giant. If we are able to see this picture more clearly and in a larger size, we'll see there are people and animals in the foreground fleeing the area, but I didn't even notice them when I first looked at this dark reproduction of the picture, and wasn't aware of them until I read about them later; they just looked like specks of debris to me. When I saw another reproduction, I could see them, but even when I didn't know they were there the giant looked extremely gigantic. In fact, it seems to me that you could remove the bottom third or so of the picture, leaving out all the comparatively tiny humans and animals, and he would still look of monstrous size.

And what if we leave the bottom of the picture intact - Why is it that we don't see the Colossus as a man of normal size and the fleeing people and animals as being very tiny?

There are several things I can think of that the artist has done to make the Colossus look so gigantic and powerful. Here is what I've been able to come up with so far:

Borrowing the immensity of the sky

- There is the fact that he blends in with the black sky, making him "as big as the sky," since in many places you can't really see where he ends and the sky begins. I think that is one of the most effective methods the artist has used to imply monstrous size. What is bigger than the sky?

Making the giant appear to be rooted in the earth

- Although he seems to be part of the sky - or the sky seems to be part of him, at the same time he seems to be "rooted" in the earth (his body from the thighs down is either in a very deep valley or at the bottom of the ocean...neither one of which seems likely...or he is supposed to be buried from feet to thighs in the earth, not immobilized, but in order to appear figuratively deeply of this place and not about to be unsettled by mere interlopers), and this secure attachment to the ground gives him a look of great stability, adding to the impression of power and invulnerability.

Comparing his height with the height of the clouds

- He rises above the clouds...that alone makes him seem huge.

Contrasting his size with that of the clouds

- There is also, of course, the contrast in size between the clouds and the giant.

Contrasting his size with that of figures in the foreground.

- Mentioned above.

Having his eyes closed to show control of a huge reservoir of emotional energy

- The giant appears to have closed eyes. To me at least the closed eyes add to the feeling of power and strength contained within his massive and stable body. The closed eyes remind me of closed vents on a steaming pressure cooker. They show that he's holding back extremely strong emotions in order to keep them under control, presumably in order to make the best use of them, though he could explode with fury and action at any second.



Making him appear reddish
- One thing that helps make him look powerful is the lighting, which presumably is caused by a setting sun, making him reddish, and therefore hot looking, which causes him to appear very "alive" and possibly angry or otherwise possessed by a powerful emotion about to erupt.

Illuminating the giant from a low angle

- The light shining on the giant is coming from a low angle, illuminating him as a just-setting sun would throw dramatic reddish light on a monstrous thundercloud to the east. Lighting him from "below" helps make him seem even taller.

Positioning his body so that he looks even bigger

- His raised arm and fist make him look bigger -- It gives him more bulk; and although his back is in blackness, much of its outline is clearly defined by the lighted clouds beyond it, so that we are aware of the thickness of the middle of his body -- If the background behind his back had also been black, he would not have looked so big and powerful. He would have look very tall, but "flimsy," not thick and strong.

Positioning him so that he appears to be rising

- Also, the raised arm, capped by a huge fist aimed upwards, along with the nearby head of the giant (which so strongly pulls our attention so near the top of the picture), makes it seem as if he's rising (and, as Arnheim [see Note 3, below] points out, what is rising is what we are alarmed by -- what is drooping or lying flat does not scream out "danger" to us; it calms us down as it is non-threatening). A rising giant (and/or the rising arm and fist of a giant) is definitely alarming.

Using a strong diagonal to show action

- The raised arm is the only really noticeable diagonal in the composition. We all know that a diagonal that is not supporting something signals "action," though that action could be "rising" or it could be "falling." The arm does look like it's rising, rather than falling, as the fist seems to "pull it up." Action, especially "rising" action, implies energy and power.


Providing a viewpoint that makes the giant look huge

- Another thing that adds to the impression of hugeness is how the giant appears from our viewpoint. Even though he is a great distance away, we are looking "up" at the giant from approximately the level of his thighs, knowing that the rest of his lower body is far below our eye level. Just imagine how it would affect us if we saw such a thing from this viewpoint in real life.

Putting him in the upper part of the picture

- There is also the fact that objects that are higher up in a picture seem heavier than they would if they were lower in the picture. The giant is the only thing in the upper part of the picture, other than the clouds (which are "floating"). His raised arm and fist plus the thickness and three-quarter view of his body give him great width in this part of the picture. If his arm had been at his side and the hugeness of his back not defined by the light-colored clouds behind it, he would have looked tall but not massive. But he does have a raised arm and fist and etc. Not only that, but as mentioned, just because these things are so high up in the picture it makes him seem even heavier, and stronger. (If a person can easily hold up that much weight - the weight of his monstrous body - we can assume he is very strong).

Putting him in the distance

-- Oddly enough, something else that makes him look huge is putting him at such a distance from the foreground. How do we know that the giant is far in the distance? One way we can tell is that the mountains are in front of him (i.e., between the giant and the viewer) -- We may not assume that those dark shapes are mountains but even then we know that the entire foreground, whatever it is, is between him and us, cutting him off at the upper thighs, thereby, to our eyes, pushing him back behind something, which of course indicates that he is in the distance.

-- Another thing that implies distance is the dramatic difference in lighting between the foreground and background. Where the giant is, in the distance, the evening sunlight is still trickling through, but in the foreground you can hardly see what is going on; it is as if it's already nighttime there. Such a difference in lighting indicates a difference in depth. Knowing he's at a great distance, the fact that he still looks enormous is rather stunning.


Putting him in the vertical center

- He is basically, as far as the legs and main trunk of his body is concerned, in the vertical center of the picture (though turned toward the left). Being in this position stabilizes him and makes him seem invulnerable.

Having him turn toward the left
- The fact that he is turning toward the left might show an attempt to push back at something that is coming at him from that direction. Action in a picture generally is imagined to begin at the left side and in this case the giant stops it and keeps it from going further. (Due to the fact that his base is firmly "planted" along the central vertical of the picture, the giant does not seem to have come from elsewhere, but to be defending himself from his home base, there in the center of the picture.) Having him turned toward the intrusion shows that he is quite aware of the danger and is able and prepared to do something about it ("the sleeping giant" has been awakened and he is furious).

Including fleeing people and animals

- Although these are hard to make out (at least in the copies of the painting I've seen), when you do notice them, they appear to be moving at top speed away from the giant, indicating, I would guess, one of three things:1) The giant is scaring them; 2) They know that something horrific is about to happen involving that giant and whatever he is facing; or 3) They are trying to escape whatever the giant is confronting, leaving him to take care of the problem. In any of these cases the giant, be he friend or foe, is having a terrific impact on these people and their animals.

Selecting a suitable format

- The picture is in the shape of a vertical rectangle, though not far from being a square. That is, it's "squat." This format reinforces the stocky, sturdy, powerful look of the giant.
_____

Although I have not seen the original painting, and I have probably not even seen a good reproduction (the picture shown here is the only one I've studied; I chose it because it was explicity said to be in the public domain), the ways in which it appears to me that this picture makes the giant look tremendously huge and powerful are still valid. My point is to reveal ways in which to make something look immense and fightfully strong and energetic. Certainly techniques such as these have been, and are, used not only in stories and drawings, paintings, photographs, etc., but also in other art "products"...from architecture to advertising...to make something - anything - appear to have similar qualities.
_____

NOTES:

1) The thoughts presented above on how the artist has made the giant appear to be so huge and powerful are my own, based on what I have read and understand; I am not pretending to be an expert, but I am very interested in composition and study the subject constantly.

2) I'm aware that The Colossus is now considered by some (most importantly, the Museo del Prado) to be the work of Goya's apprentice, Asensio Julia, yet it is very much in the spirit of what Goya himself would have done and some experts still believe it was painted by him. It doesn't matter here (in this post) who the artist was, as we're talking about how the composition makes the giant look gigantic, but it's interesting.

Here are some articles on this subject that you might want to read:
Wikipedia article on The Colossus (El Coloso), in English

Wikipedia article on El Coloso (The Colossus), in Spanish - This one is much longer and more interesting than the one in English.

"Does it matter who painted The Colossus - Goya or his apprentice?", Article in The Guardian (U.K.),

January 27, 2009, by Adrian Searle

Museo Nacional del Prado on the attribution of El Coloso
This is in Spanish, though Google will translate it. It's a long, very detailed, illustrated explanation of why they consider that El Coloso was not painted by Goya.


3) Rudolf Arnheim

Books by Arnheim consulted for this post:
--- The Power of the Center
--- Visual Thinking
--- Art and Visual Perception

To subscribe to the Thinking About Art Monthly Newsletter, see toward the bottom of the page.

A Discussion About Creativity

THIS POST includes a half-hour (audio) discussion about "the creative mind in science and in art." The participants were Rudolf Arnheim, Margaret Mead, and Milton C. Nahm, and the moderator, Lyman Bryson.

This is a radio program produced in 1958 from a series titled The Creative Mind in the Twentieth Century, from the PBS-NPR Forum Network.

The "player" is embedded below on this page. There is no picture, as it is from a radio program, but you can listen to it. You can skip now down to the embedded program, or first read (just below) some information on the participants and on the subject they discuss, plus some excerpts I've extracted from the discussion, if you are interested.

PARTICIPANTS IN THE DISCUSSION

RUDOLF ARNHEIM
(1904-2007)
Professor of the Psychology of Art at Harvard University
American, born in Germany
Photo of Rudolf Arnheim

MARGARET MEAD (1901-1978)
American Cultural Anthropologist
Photo of Margaret Mead

MILTON C. NAHM (1903-1991)
Professor of Philosophy at Bryn Mawr College, and author of many books, at least one of which you can read online (The Artist as Creator)
Photo of Milton C. Nahm
MODERATOR
LYMAN BRYSON (1888-1959)

_____

FROM THE INTRODUCTION GIVEN BY LYMAN BRYSON, MODERATOR:

"We're going to look at the problem of how in a society like ours -- how in any society -- we can discover the conditions that make creative work more likely ... a little better harvesting of whatever genius we can produce in our population, and I suppose that problem...can be put this way: Since we know that in other times and in other places, there has been a high productivity of creativeness in art and science and other forms of expression, can we locate those conditions and describe them, and if we can describe them have we any real confidence in our capacity to reproduce them in our own society?" -- Lyman Bryson in the Introduction

SOME EXCERPTS FROM THIS DISCUSSION

(These are from my own notes that I took while listening to the conversation and any comments in brackets are mine - J.V.)

"I think that the greatest advantage you can give to your creative child...is to treat every child with the expectation of his creativity. You need an atmosphere of the expectation of creativity for all children, so that those few children [who are indeed capable of being creative] can flourish." - R. Arnheim

"One thing which I welcome very much is that we are beginning to think when we talk about creativity of something which is beyond the arts and even beyond the sciences. That is, that when you see nowawadays businessmen getting interested in creativity, and trying to train their executives in creativity. Now they are not after the arts, obviously. They may be using the arts or they may think they can get their cues from the arts, but what they are really after is a kind of alertness of mind, in a very general sense, which is not even served very well by technique. I don't think we ought to emphasize technique too much. What you need is that openness of response and that accessibility of your resources, which somehow doesn't seem to be there. You train these children about all sorts of techniques and they're technically very good about all sorts of things. What you don't have is that access to their spontaneity which make their work different from the work of other people." - R. Arnheim

"It seems to me that what we ought really to do is to subject them all to the same kind of technical discipline (or within the areas of their interest), and from this hope that the originality would come." -- M. Nahm

"[I]n the arts and in the sciences and so on, what we are not asking for is imitation. What we're asking for is in some sense for the creative mind to go past the mere copying, past the mere imitating, past the mere technique, although we all agree, I think, that this would be a condition for it." - M. Nahm

"There's a great danger in the misinterpretation of the word "spontaneity," to mean that somehow one should be "untrammeled" by tradition.....We tend to see tradition as something that's limiting, instead of being the thing that makes it possible to create." - M. Mead

"If we can make people see that the core of a society is genuine originality -- and this, it seems to me, is the primary function of fine art....That is, what the fine artist does is really very interesting because he does give us a picture of his society, but he does so much more -- and if we could take our audience and our critics and the people who have, to use a technical phrase, who have possibilities for aesthetic experiences...If we could make them see that originality is a value in itself, and then can be used to make other people creative, and use this technique in another way, then I think we could solve it....." - L. Bryson

"What is truly creative must come out of the experience of the creator -- his own experience, not something he got second-hand. That makes it valid. This is artistic honesty." - L. Bryson
_____

HERE IS THE PROGRAM
This is a radio program produced in 1958 from a series titled The Creative Mind in the Twentieth CenturyFrom the PBS-NPR Forum Network
Audio Only. 29 minutes,19 seconds
(Note: The woman, of course, is Margaret Mead, the man with the German accent is Rudolf Arnheim, and the other man is Milton C. Nahm)

Hold your mouse pointer at bottom of the above black rectangle to see controls (if they should disappear)
_____

There are videos on Creativity in the Thinking About Art Library.

To subscribe to the Thinking About Art Monthly Newsletter, see toward the bottom of the page.

Centric Systems

I have no illusions about someone happening upon this post, seeing the title, and thinking "Oh! This sounds like a fun read!"

However, for someone who is just now trying to understand just what centric (or concentric) systems are, it might be a sight for sore eyes (okay, maybe I'm stretching things a little!). At any rate, it's not very long, there are several examples, and it's something artists need to know about.

The Introduction to The Power of the Center, by Rudolf Arnheim, begins with this sentence: "This book derives from a single idea, namely that our view of the world is based on the interaction of two spatial systems." Those two spatial systems are the centric system and the Cartesian grid system. They are both gravity-based systems, one (the centric system) natural and one (the Cartesian grid) constructed by humans.

Centric System

The Cartesian Grid

Combined Centric and Grid Systems

I've written about the Cartesian grid in a post called Art, Gravity, Life, and the Cartesian Grid. Also, in a post on Round Artworks I showed examples of how the two systems are used together in art. The post you're reading now is a (very) basic introduction to centric systems, but it should be kept in mind that the two systems work together (I will write more about that in the future).

DEFINITIONS In case you wish to refer to them as you read CARTESIAN GRID: A system of straight lines meeting at right angles, either on a two-dimensional surface or in three-dimensonal space. (The Power of the Center) CENTRIC: Having a center. (thefreedictionary.com) CENTRIC SYSTEM: A system organized around a center, either two-dimensionally or three-dimensionally. CONCENTRIC: Having a common center. (thefreedictionary.com) COSMIC: immeasurably extended in time and space; vast. (dictionary.com) GALAXY: A massive, gravitationally bound system that consists of stars and stellar remnants, an interstellar medium of gas and dust, and an important but poorly understood component tentatively dubbed dark matter. (wikipedia.com) GRAVITY: The fundamental force of attraction that all objects with mass have for each other. (thefreedictionary.com) HIERARCHY: Any group of objects ranked so that every one but the topmost is subordinate to a specified one above it. (dictionary.net) PAROCHIAL: very limited or narrow in scope or outlook; provincial (dictionary.com) SYSTEM: An assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system. (dictionary.com)

I include the definitions above because the two systems are called so many different things by Arnheim. Centric systems are also called by Arnheim cosmic systems and concentric systems -- and at least once he refers to a centric system as a cosmic onion. (He also refers to the Cartesian grid as a parochial system.. .not to impress you with his extensive vocabulary, as there is a very good reason for calling it that and also for using the other terms rather than just one for each of the two systems ... but it can be confusing nonetheless to encounter all these names for just two spatial systems, and this is why for the most part I have only used the term "centric" to describe the one system that this post is about.)

TO BEGIN.....

Let's take just the most important definition out of the above table and look at it here. CENTRIC SYSTEM: A system organized around a center, either two-dimensionally or three-dimensionally.

And look at this simple diagram of a centric system again:

Centric (or Concentric) System

Holding that definition and the diagram in mind, read on.

OUR SOLAR SYSTEM - EXAMPLE OF A CENTRIC SYSTEM

Possibly the best example of a natural centric system, held together by gravity, in this case with the sun at the center, is our solar system (aka planetary system): Earth, Mars, Venus, etc., and the sun [star] they travel around).

"Our Solar System...showing the Sun, Inner Planets, Asteroid Belt, Outer Planets, the largest object in the Kuiper Belt - Pluto (originally classifed as a planet), and a comet."

A CENTRIC SYSTEM IS USUALLY (IN NATURE) AND OFTEN (WHEN HUMAN MADE) PART OF OTHER CENTRIC SYSTEMS (and sometimes has centric systems within itself)

Just as in our solar system there is the sun (a star) that is orbited by planets some of which are orbited by moons (all of which together make a centric system), in a galaxy there are an incredibly huge amount of stars, some of which are at the center of their own centric systems that include planets (some of which are orbited by moons). In other words, there are what seems to me at least (not being a scientist) probably a huge amount of solar systems (which are centric systems) within galaxies that are centric systems themselves. Centric systems within centric systems, that is. And so on...this not being a science blog nor I a scientist ... but the point is that centric systems often have smaller centric systems within them and, as well, they are often parts of other, larger, centric systems.

GRAVITY IS WHAT HOLDS A CENTRIC SYSTEM TOGETHER

Gravity (roughly defined as the attraction of a smaller mass by a larger mass) is what holds a natural cosmic (centric) system together. You will already know that moons are held in place by the gravitational pull of the planets they orbit, and the planets are held in orbit by the gravitational pull of a star that we call a sun (the center of a solar system), and so on.

A SOLAR SYSTEM IS PART OF A GALAXY, A LARGER CENTRIC SYSTEM

We call the galaxy that contains our own solar system (the solar system is also called a planetary system) the Milky Way. Galaxies do not all have the same shape, but they are all centric systems, even though the "center" of these systems may not be one object but a cluster of many very dense objects (a black hole, stars, dark matter...) all of which add up to an immense gravitational pull on everything further away in the galaxy.

The Sombrero Galaxy

The Sombrero galaxy is about the size of our Milky Way galaxy. It probably contains hundreds of billions of stars, many of which are probably orbited by planets. Not only is a galaxy a centric system, but any planetary systems it contains are also centric systems.

EFFECTS OF GRAVITY THAT WE CAN SEE HERE ON EARTH

We and everything around and under us is affected by gravity in many ways. One example of how gravity works is the quite observable (though probably seldom thought of) fact that the pull of gravity of our own planet is holding us to its surface thus preventing us from floating off into space (we feel the pull of gravity on our bodies as weight). The pull of gravity from the center of the earth is the reason it takes energy for us to rise from our beds, to lift our arms (especially when carrying something heavy), to walk uphill or even to walk downhill if the incline is steep as we must expend energy to keep from falling ("falling" means being pulled by gravity). It even causes our nose and ears to grow longer as we age (they sag toward the center of the earth).

Another example, which most of us probably do relate to gravity, as it is fairly common knowledge, is the moon's gravitational pull and (to a slightly lesser extent because it is so far away) the sun's gravitational pull which cause the tides here on our planet. "Tides are the rise and fall of sea levels caused by the combined effects of the rotation of the Earth and the gravitational forces exerted by the Moon and the Sun." (Wikipedia article on tides)


Mount Orgueil at low tide

CENTRIC SYSTEMS ARE HIERARCHICAL

A centric system is hierarchical and what's at the center is at the "top" of the hierarchy. As you move away from the center, objects are, generally speaking, less affected by the center, and eventually you get to a point where objects belong to another centric system. However, of course, all objects within a centric system are by definition a part of it and affected to some degree by its center no matter how far away they are.

THE SHAPE OF A CENTRIC SYSTEM IS NOT ALWAYS ROUND

"Centric" systems are not always round (natural centric systems are round, or at least symmetrical, only when there is enough space to achieve their ideal shape and when there is no interference by agents -- chemical, physical, or etc. -- that are able to deform them; and certainly centric systems are not usually round in works of art).

The "Network Tree Diagram," above, is a good example of a centric system that is not round, nor even symmetrical, yet is a hierarchical system like any centric system. It also shows how a centric system can be a part of other centric systems, as there are actually several centric systems within the large one here.

BIG THINGS, SMALL THINGS -- ALL ARE HELD TOGETHER IN THE SAME WAY

The same thing happens in nature even in systems that are much, much smaller than planetary systems, as all matter attracts other matter, the matter with more mass attracting with greater effect and from a greater distance. However, when it comes to very small objects (compared to planets and moons and stars) gravitational attraction is hardly if at all perceptible. Yet it is there. The pictures below show some examples of smaller centric systems in nature.

"Even in the crowded world of our direct experience, inorganic and organic matter occasionally has enough freedom to follow its inclination and form symmetrical structures -- flowers, snowflakes, floating and flying creatures, mammalian bodies -- shaped around a central point, a central axis, or at least a central plane. The human mind also invents centric shapes, and our bodies perform centric dances unless this basic tendency is modified by particular impulses and attractions." -- Rudolf Arnheim in the Introduction to The Power of the Center.

CIRCLE DANCES ALSO CONFORM TO A CENTRIC SYSTEM ARRANGEMENT


American Indian circle dance

"The circle is probably the oldest known dance formation." Wikipedia article on the circle dance

Bird's eye view of Avebury, in Wiltshire, England.
(Image from fromoldbooks.org)

Avebury is about 5,000 years old, even older than Stonehenge. You can easily see the centric systems involved in these man-made structures.

WHY DO WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CENTRIC SYSTEMS?

Knowledge of how centric systems work in nature (along with knowledge of how the Cartesian grid system that we have imposed upon centric systems in order to organize and understand what we see works) is essential for artists, and often is understood intuitively, if unconsciously. It is likely that we already "know" much of how these spatial systems work just from what we have observed in the world around us and what we have learned from school and books and so on -- and in the case of the centric system, we may even have been born with a tendency to arrange things hierarchically in circles and possibly even to find round or spherical patterns and places comforting (especially when we are at the center) and "complete" (thus satisfying) -- but we may easily mistrust and/or ignore, or even have no conscious awareness at all of this "knowledge" nor any interest in knowing about the spatial systems we live with, not realizing that such knowledge can have any use in art, or how to use it in art. So if we are not already fully aware of how these systems work, and why, it seems like a good idea to learn about these things consciously in order that we can make good use of all this in the art that we produce. And once we have it all in mind, then we need to understand how this knowledge can be useful to us - which I haven't written about here, but will in future posts.

Meantime, if you haven't already, you can read more about the Cartesian grid, and about how gravity influences our perception of the world and even the structures we make to live in, among many other things, in my post called Art, Gravity, Life, and the Cartesian Grid.

_____

NOTE: All pictures used in this post are in the public domain.

To subscribe to the Thinking About Art Monthly Newsletter, see near bottom of the page