Absolutely fascinating. Thanks so much for shining a light on these pieces, which I might otherwise have passed by.

She is a perfect narrator presenter of art because she speaks very clearly she uses words everyone can understand she knows where to make pauses in between words and points and not once does she stammer. Very very professional. 👍

Excellent description of the art piece. But what is truly wonderful is the way she makes the connection with the gospel and translates it into our every day life. Fascinating way of interpreting this masterpiece.

Another little "masterpiece" from the good folk at the National. These uploads are priceless, thank you for sharing.

I love these short videos from the National Gallery. They always explain things in a really accessible way. Hoping to go soon and see some of the paintings for real 🤞

I am so glad that in this woe-some world we inhabit, someone, somewhere is able pursue the study of art and so enthusiastically and well explain it to the rest of us.

Excellent presentation- more inspiring than some sermons I've heard.

Music was used very subtly but effectively at the end; kudos to the editor. Very powerful talk, thank you.

The first panel also relates to the series. God in the form of an angel comes to a woman in blue. Our spiritual blindness to God’s saving power in the world is also unmasked. Thank you for such a wonderful presentation. It was my morning prayer

What a magnificent explanation and meaning of this painting, It is so special when we can understand more about the narratives, and messages that are in paintings. Absolutely fantastic. Thank you

what a wonderful and passionate narrative by this young woman. Thank you.

This is fantastic!!! Thank you for the accessibility of your explanations. Congratulations 👏👏👏

Thank-you so much for sharing this painting - I really enjoyed your commentary!

i would LOVE to see the reverend doctor lepine in an ongoing series exploring the gospel through art.

Great presentation Dr. Lepine. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. 👏🌹🇺🇸

Thank you for explaining so beautifully about these paintings and community. Your wording is so perfect, truly a gift from God. Blessings.

Thank you so mucho for your extraordinary description!!

What a beautiful narrative and interpretation! Thank you so much !!🥰

Utterly beautiful and captivating commentary and delivery!

Excellent "review/talk through" of some very beautiful paintings, thank you very much for fleshing out some of the details. 🙂

I thoroughly enjoyed this presentation. Looking forward to many more. Thank you. Dr Levine I incredibly fascinating.

Duccio = one of my favorite painters of all time !!!❤️❤️❤️. I just love how he paints faces that looks very diferent one of other....very individualised ones....It's belive that Duccio studied in Constantinopole !!!!

Amazing insights explained by a very professional narrator! ❤

After that wonderful story of a miracle it convinces an unbeliever to believe - teaching us all not to judge but to look only for the good in everyone - thank you 🙏

Great explanation! Thank you!

Excellent presentation!

Impressive! You pose challenging questions in a very open way, excellent excellent.

as always the national gallery provides us excellent video to get us know the masterpieces

Great explanation thank you. Love and peace. Tim

Thank you. I love these videos

Very well done video and description of the Christian scripture. I had never thought of the concept that mountains are the liminal space between earth and heaven. I need to give that some thought.

So good. Thank you.

Don’t know how anyone would miss that it was the same bloke… I do like that she leads us to look across the paintings in the man’s line of sight and the link made between physical and spiritual blindness that she has made is masterful.

Thank you National Gallery. Fascinating stuff for those of us from the English Diaspora

Very interesting, thank you for these excellent lessons on art and how ro read a painting.

She explained that really well, thank you. I enjoyed it.

What a great video thank you so much is so beautiful and informative

Thank you ! 💕

My daughter was blind. This was very poignant for me. Thank you. 💕🐝💕

And now I want to know if the other 9 predella (?) paintings exist and where. What about the altarpiece itself? How did these come to be here.

Thank you❤

Beautiful commentary! Especially at 09:20 .

Che dipinto prezioso .Come prezioso è il vostro lavoro .

Very insightful interpretation, that transcends the boundaries of the picture(s). ;o) I wonder about the Christ-like figure in the crowd, though: He is looking straight at us as if he was traying to communicate directly. Why is he part of the crowd? Ans what does this imply about us?

Ein interessanter Vortrag, lebhaft vorgetragen (thank you so much). Wundervolle Malerei, köstliche Farben, sichere Einteilung der Bildfläche ... Duccio malt wie ein Illustrator. Großartig, wie Jesus das Auge sanft berührt. Kurze Linien in Gold umreissen geschickt die blau gewandete Figur Jesu.

When I first read the title, I thought "Because he ran around behind the scene after the panorama was begun and got to the other end before it finished." ;-) richard --

very compelling talk, many thanks !

@nationalgallery

Жыл бұрын

Glad you liked it, Craig!

so nice explanation

Duccio grande pittore. Grazie

Fascinating details! Thank you .

Thank you ! 😊

@the2ndcoming135

2 жыл бұрын

Ikr? Can actually talk about religious art on this channel without a bunch of Pookies and Ray Rays behaving like mouth breathers😅

Always good to hear explanation of these early religious paintings. Is there a reason the blind man is shown so much smaller than the other figures? Thank you for these wonderful videos.

@VenancioPineda

2 жыл бұрын

The bible explains: the pharisees did not believe that the man was actually blind. So they went to see and ask his parents. Out of fear, the parents told the pharisees "you should ask himself directly, he is already an adult" which suggests that the blind man looked somehow younger than he really was, probably due to two important facts: first because he was small and second because he was beardless what was forbidden for adult Jews at Jesus time.

@user-od1hv1si5d

2 жыл бұрын

Medieval artists prevalued the religious message over perspective and proportions, so in many cases figures of saints are shown more bigger than figures of mortals. So I guess in this particular painting Jesus and his disciples appear to be bigger than the blind man to highlight their sacredness and general superiority:)

@onbearfeet

2 жыл бұрын

Might be hierarchical scale -- basically, more important figures are portrayed as bigger than less important ones. To a medieval viewer, Jesus and his disciples (most of whom became saints) would be more important than a nameless blind man, so the sizing might help viewers identify who was who. Just a guess, though.

@sourisblanche753

Жыл бұрын

Size in paintings used to be an indication of status in society. The smaller the person, the lower their status in the community, probably the point being made here.

@eskimberly7424

Жыл бұрын

I wonder if the blind man is shown as smaller in order to convey to the viewer that he is vulnerable, devalued, and oppressed and is not considered by the community to be equal to them. I love that the art historian talks about blindness as a metaphor for the community’s refusal to see a disabled person as a beloved child of God, equal in value to them in the eyes of God. In effect Jesus is addressing the peoples’ belief that disability is a sign of immorality or something shameful by instead providing what we would call today a social justice perspective where disability is not seen as a defect or a moral failing, but as based on context, especially in terms of the attitudes of the community towards the blind man.

Interesting. I enjoy seeing art from this era, when prospective and proportions are still being mastered. It's like following the learning, and rediscovery of principles of art. I wish the guide had spent more time on the principles and techniques, besides the biblical interpretations. Duccio's use of color, for example, would have been fascinating to hear.

Totally .awesome sense.

That was excellent.

That's not just any crowd. It's the TWELVE DISCIPLES

@101mosioatunya

2 жыл бұрын

So Jesus is preaching to the converted, in other words?

@dawnmichelle4403

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly!

@the2ndcoming135

2 жыл бұрын

@@101mosioatunya teaching the converted. Because Peter as you know got scared and denied “knowing” Jesus well after conversion😁

12th century sequential art, nice! AKA, first issue of "Jesus, the comic book". Thank you for keeping it in mint condition National Gallery.

It's a well spoken and interesting explanation of the work. I wonder if the creator would agree. It sounds very much as though the lens of today is being used to view the piece and not necessarily one that represents the views of the time. Would it not have been possible for the artist to depict reaching the hearts of others? I see the twelve disciples but no other people outside of the blind man; who is he giving the lesson to? Why change the blind mans eyes if the problem is in the minds of others and not the function of his body? Wouldn't it be more probably that this is a recounting of a perceived miracle? The concept given as explanation is beautiful, historically it feels lacking.

@JJONNYREPP

2 жыл бұрын

Why does this man appear twice in the same painting? | National Gallery 1728PM 20.5.22 i was thinking the: my evil twin scenario... i must say today has been jampacked with the notions you call religion. it has been somewhat disconcerting... the guy being "cured" is, no doubt, judas. p.s i cant say i am religious. but i quite like and enjoy the artistic interpretations. they must learn to leave things be in that respect.

@tomsparks6099

2 жыл бұрын

I think the artist was expressing the immediate cure or miracle where the man was touched, turned and was restored of his sight. It doesn't need a lot of over-analysis.

@nicolepettit5120

2 жыл бұрын

Jesus doesn't say in the account that blindness isn't a problem, as this woman claims; he says that it isn't the man's FAULT, nor is it his parents' fault.

Ancient artists had a different point of view on composition on the shit or in the space of the picture . They were as usual in general telling the story / So in icons the person could appear several times /

` 🌹 Fascinating.

Very interesting . A shame the commentator is not looking at the camera in the close up. Easily remedied next time.

So Jesus was literally like "rub some dirt in it"? LOL

❤🙏

It also makes me think of comics with movements of character

So we’re just going to ignore that western Christianity and Duccio used the language of Byzantine painting? Unbelievable. I suppose that fits the popular narrative of “the foundations of western painting started in Italy.” Anyway, for those who are interested, in this rather late Christian painting duccio puts the blind man in twice. This is not rare. It’s not in every painting but it is not uncommon. And while it has to do with narrative it has more to do with the violation of physics, the miraculous, and the spiritual, and what goes contrary to the world we see. This is why duccio’s buildings in this painting and in Byzantine painting are painted in reverse perspective. It is not because “they didn’t know what perspective was until Brunelleschi”, which is hilariously ludicrous not to mention offensive, but because duccio and the Byzantine painting or painting done in this reverse perspective was depicting something ethereal and inclusive. Three point and two point perspective leave the viewer outside of the picture plane. Reverse perspective does the opposite, it includes. It is done to transport you to, in this case, the time of Christ. This is a supernatural miraculous image, this is why, you see Paul sitting in Byzantine icons of Pentecost, an event he was not present during. In fact Paul had not even been converted during the time of Pentecost. Mathias took the place of Judas, but you’d be hard pressed to find a Byzantine Pentecost icon with him in it. This is of course the tip of the iceberg. Why is Christ the newborn child wrapped in the manner of Lazarus during the birth? It is because his sole purpose was to die, and in doing so sinless, redeem and save humanity. This is why Moses, in the Paris psalter located in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France Paris is shown twice, he is receiving the law on the left and listening to god’s instructions on the right. In Byzantine painting you will often find Saints who lived centuries apart depicted together. If you look at Cimabue or Giotto you will see a deviation from the strict Byzantine style, but it is not by any stretch “the invention of the wheel.”

What is an Ahmanson? or Ahmanson Fellow?

@nolanmiller4744

Жыл бұрын

Also, your lecture was very insightful. I love the history and method of storytelling that is created through great art.

Fascinating details, but I think it could be described in a shorter video; the painting speaks for itself emotionally..I don't understand why the narration needs to be so dramatic. It's like explaining a poem in a dramatic tone..

These paintings are a beautiful example of Renaissance art with heavy Byzantine influences. It's depressing though that the Byzantine influence was not mentioned. Not even once. This is the problem with Western art historians, they always forget their roots.

Not what Jesus said about the man born blind. He didn't say he was perfect and beautiful just the way he was. Jesus said the man was born blind so that God could be glorified. And the people weren't spiritually blind because they didn't accept the blind man how he was; they were spiritually blind because they didn't acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah, the Redeemer who was promised by God. This wasn't a story of inclusion. This was a story showing the divinity of Jesus.

interesting outfit choice

Medieval before and after

Yeah right.

Hallelujah! You are great in telling the core of the true gospel in this painting!

This is a fabulous explanation of the painting. I must say, Jesus appears a tad perturbed.. all his "bros" breathing down his neck while hes trying to work. If there aren't any bible stories of Jesus snapping his neck at his tag-a-longs [definitely not as awesome as the GS cookies].. "ugh, Connor, you _need_ to eat an _entire_ tin of Altoids, please! For the love of my dad!"

it's his twin!

@the2ndcoming135

2 жыл бұрын

Well, I was gonna say perhaps it has something to do with reflection or a mirrored state. Meaning, the blind man is unable to see his former state upon now being granted sight and leaves his former state behind.

If Jesus is *not* saying that blindness is a problem, why did he heal the blind man?

I hate this trend for appeasing speech patterns like those of a nursery school teacher.

because the artist had only booked one model?

@kevingodding9316

2 жыл бұрын

Two they were identical twins 😜👍

Watch the whole video but 9:20 is relevant to this video. kzread.info/dash/bejne/eJiuqbNxm8W4oZM.html

Twin?

I find it strange to see Jesus wearing a cloak with gold threads.

Identical twins? 🥹🥹

It’s his twin duh

😂😂😂😂😂

🙌⛩️🕉️☯️⚛️⛩️🙌.

The episode in the Gospel is about showing that Christ makes miracles (therefore he's the Son of God) and to introduce a metaphor about those who are blind but "see" (they can see the Revelation, which is so called because it is something that you have to "see") and those who see but are "blind" (because they don't accept that Jesus is the Messiah etc.). The bit about Jesus being "inclusive" is quite hilarious, because that was absolutely not the question here. The question was whether a person can have sins when he is born, such as to deserve some *punishment*, and whether those sins can come from the parents, or, more likely, from "those who came before" which means the same person in previous incarnations. The Pharisees accuse the blind man of being "all full of sins" expressing the widely held belief that if somebody was born with such an ailment it must have been as a result of previous sins. The episode revolves about the idea that sins can be forgiven through faith in Christ etc. and absolutely not about the idea that being blind is something not wrong! The idea is that he is blind because that is the *punishment* for some sins. Jesus says "he has no sins and all this happens just because God wants it" and doesn't mean "he's perfectly fine, where is the problem?". And Jesus curing the blind (which could also mean curing him for these sins in a different lection of the text) is in line with the general idea of Jesus taking away sins or making miracles and not about being blind not being a problem. There is nothing different from what everybody would understand and there is no need of giving politically correct readings which would be totally out of sync with the common understanding. What I mean is that this politically correct reading of the episode is BS, in plain terms, also because the end of the chapter (verses 40, 41) shows the clear metaphoric value of the "blindness" which is cured by Jesus. And, by the way, I am not Christian in the least, but I do consider political correctness and re-interpretation of ancient scriptures to make them fit the modern way of thinking an intellectual sin. It's introducing modern hypocrisy into a text which did not mean it at all. It's as if one takes the episode of the stoning of the adultery to mean that Jesus is in favour of sexual promiscuity and out of sex marriage. I can be in favour myself, but that's clearly not the meaning of the text, and it would be clearly hypocrite to give it to it.

I don't like paintings with religious themes-it's sophistry of a childlike imagination devoid of honest feelings.

Stop using these wonderful works of art to promote their ideological discourses that have nothing to do with the motivation and beliefs of the artist. "Inclusion and diversity" (understood from a progressive political perspective) were not, and are not now, Christian values ​​that the artists of the time tried to express in their works. At least have the decency to say that it is her personal interpretation as an lgbt+ activist of a work of art.

As much as I like Duccio, I think, this picture is very poor and so is the myth it portrays.

Drawing God's apostle and trying to glorify it is a work of paganism and sacrilege.

nice painting... it boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent people believe this religious mumbo jumbo.