I immediately recognized the name from the magnificent painting by Velasquez. I had no idea that he was a painter himself. This is, of course, the first time I had seen this beautiful work of art.
I have been admiring the Velazquez portrait of Juan de Pareja since high school, not long after The Met acquired it, so seeing his The Calling of Matthew was a real treat.
Wow, thank you for explaining this painting, it was very interesting. I wonder how many paintings did Juan de Pareja paint. He is obviously a great painter.
Another wonderful video thank you. I had barely seen a work of art until starting as a volunteer with The National Trust at Kingston Lacy where there is a copy of Las Meninas thought to have been painted by the son in law of Velasquez. My journey into the amazing world of art has made me a total fan of your channel and content. Thank you so much for all your fantastic insights
What an interesting piece! I found myself very curious about where everyone was looking - particularly Jesus. He's calling Matthew, but appears to be glancing at the document in the hands of fellow seated in the foreground. I can imagine that conversation, where the man is focused on the temporal and Jesus is focused on the eternal... I was surprised to hear about de Pareja's cameo, but that's kinda the point of this moment - anyone could've been called, including you / me. Some of us have been. In fact, I had another dream about him last night reminding me of my own calling... I don't think the speck of light in front of the black person was coincidental, so that detail was appreciated.
I just got to see the great painting of Pareja a month ago. I'm from Alaska and have wanted to see it for 40 years. Your commentary was pretty balanced, but erred on the side of current populism. The exhibition in the Met however was obnoxious. Pareja was a very great painter: his works in the exhibition were from the Prado, which puts him in the company of all the great Spanish painters. Velazquez taught him the craft and assured for him a fine career which he would never have had otherwise. Another painting there was of the King. Pareja painted THE KING! There are stories of even greater honor about him but somehow that exhibition decided the most important thing about Pareja was his enslavement. The exhibition book was all about it. I thought it criminal to reduce the history of this great man to being a victim.
Wonderful that you had a chance to see the painting! We thought this painting was very well presented, given the architecture of the Lehman atrium. To characterize the show as criminal seems just a tad hyperbolic and its thesis is, we think, more nuanced. For example, the investigation by Schomburg was an important addition to our understanding of the reception of this work in New York. Similarly, the focus was largely on the hierarchy of race in 17th century Spain and of course slavery was an important aspect. Our focus was on the painting, if you want to criticize the curatorial work, please write The Met, our platform isn't the right place for this.
@@smarthistory-art-history forgive me. I've been angry about the reason he was presented and unfairly included you in my anger. It was wonderful to have those paintings together and I deeply appreciate your covering them here, as I look forward to every video of yours. Thank you.
This painting leaves me with many questions. My feeling - I am not an art historian but a theologian - is that it is not only about the question of secular versus spiritual life, but also about the question of time. The right part of the image represents antiquity, while the left part represents the 17th century. Is the decision of faith a decision about which time one wants to live in? Returning to the sources? Departing from the rules of the current time and conforming to the rules of biblical time?
Caravaggio's Calling is one of my favorite paintings, didn't know this one. Thanks for sharing.
Ours too!
I immediately recognized the name from the magnificent painting by Velasquez. I had no idea that he was a painter himself. This is, of course, the first time I had seen this beautiful work of art.
I have been admiring the Velazquez portrait of Juan de Pareja since high school, not long after The Met acquired it, so seeing his The Calling of Matthew was a real treat.
Thank you for your content on this channel! I love your voices so much.
Loved this! Please consider a Part II! Thank you for sharing 💛💛💛
thank you so much for introducing us to this masterpiece I hope you continue doing this!
Wow, thank you for explaining this painting, it was very interesting. I wonder how many paintings did Juan de Pareja paint. He is obviously a great painter.
Another wonderful video thank you. I had barely seen a work of art until starting as a volunteer with The National Trust at Kingston Lacy where there is a copy of Las Meninas thought to have been painted by the son in law of Velasquez. My journey into the amazing world of art has made me a total fan of your channel and content. Thank you so much for all your fantastic insights
Thank you for the kind words, we are delighted that you find our work helpful.
What an interesting piece!
I found myself very curious about where everyone was looking - particularly Jesus. He's calling Matthew, but appears to be glancing at the document in the hands of fellow seated in the foreground. I can imagine that conversation, where the man is focused on the temporal and Jesus is focused on the eternal...
I was surprised to hear about de Pareja's cameo, but that's kinda the point of this moment - anyone could've been called, including you / me. Some of us have been. In fact, I had another dream about him last night reminding me of my own calling...
I don't think the speck of light in front of the black person was coincidental, so that detail was appreciated.
I just got to see the great painting of Pareja a month ago. I'm from Alaska and have wanted to see it for 40 years.
Your commentary was pretty balanced, but erred on the side of current populism. The exhibition in the Met however was obnoxious. Pareja was a very great painter: his works in the exhibition were from the Prado, which puts him in the company of all the great Spanish painters. Velazquez taught him the craft and assured for him a fine career which he would never have had otherwise. Another painting there was of the King. Pareja painted THE KING! There are stories of even greater honor about him but somehow that exhibition decided the most important thing about Pareja was his enslavement. The exhibition book was all about it.
I thought it criminal to reduce the history of this great man to being a victim.
👏👏👏👏
Wonderful that you had a chance to see the painting! We thought this painting was very well presented, given the architecture of the Lehman atrium. To characterize the show as criminal seems just a tad hyperbolic and its thesis is, we think, more nuanced. For example, the investigation by Schomburg was an important addition to our understanding of the reception of this work in New York. Similarly, the focus was largely on the hierarchy of race in 17th century Spain and of course slavery was an important aspect. Our focus was on the painting, if you want to criticize the curatorial work, please write The Met, our platform isn't the right place for this.
@@smarthistory-art-history forgive me. I've been angry about the reason he was presented and unfairly included you in my anger.
It was wonderful to have those paintings together and I deeply appreciate your covering them here, as I look forward to every video of yours.
Thank you.
Thank you for the kind words.
This painting leaves me with many questions. My feeling - I am not an art historian but a theologian - is that it is not only about the question of secular versus spiritual life, but also about the question of time. The right part of the image represents antiquity, while the left part represents the 17th century. Is the decision of faith a decision about which time one wants to live in? Returning to the sources? Departing from the rules of the current time and conforming to the rules of biblical time?
❤
Doesn't the sword belong to the figure sat in the chair?
Look closer and you will see another sword.
Why are we not talking about the fact that Mathew lived in 1D not the 16th century lol. stylised for the time
Art is always an expression of its own age, rather than the age it represents.