Where Did It All Go Wrong?

David Bowie: Musician, Idol, Icon. In March of this year he surprised everyone with the unexpected, yet welcome, news that he was releasing his 24^th album, The Next Day – the first to be released since 2003. So, bearing this in mind, as well as giving a big shout-out to London’s Victoria & Albert Museum for hosting a spectacular exhibition based on this rock legend, what has Bowie’s legacy been thus far?

Let’s look at today’s popular music – Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Adele, One Direction, Justin Bieber, Mumford & Sons, Muse, Marilyn Manson, and The Script, to name but a few.  With some of these artists, it is relatively easy to spot how the influence of Bowie may have helped to mould them into what they are today: Marilyn Manson, Muse, Lady Gaga (to some extent), etc. However, there are others who seem to have gone off in a completely different tangent. Justin Bieber for example. I am in no way, shape, or form a “Belieber”. In fact, it would not be a lie to baldly state that I despise that label. Whilst it may be unfair of me to simply state my opinions and then carry on with the rest of this article, I think that if I were to rationally explain my dislike in a somewhat analytical fashion, then I could get away with it!

David Bowie
Photograph by Mick Rock, 1972, 1973.
Copyright Mick Rock 2013.
Courtesy of the V & A Museum, London.

“Give a Girl the Right Shoes, and She Can Conquer the World.”

-          Marilyn Monroe*

Shoes! Glorious Shoes! (If I may be as bold as to twist Oliver’s words a little...) As nearly every teenage girl and woman will tell you, shoes are fantastically important. Mainly, because they’re just fantastic. But think about it, the love of a good or pretty shoe (the best combine beauty and comfort) is reflected throughout history. For the purposes of this blog, history includes fairytales...


See the joy on those women’s faces? Look guys, the man on the left: he’s happy as Larry! Maybe he is Larry...The point is, there is more joy in giving than receiving. Take note, and apply to shoe-giving.

Where would Cinderella be without her glass slipper? Where would Puss be without his boots? Hermes would have been a great deal less effective as a messenger god without his winged sandals. And the Old woman who lived in a shoe? Well, she would be out on the streets for certain!

But as well as providing fodder for fairytales and mythology, shoes also help us to track sociological changes with the help of evolving fashions through the centuries.

For example, did you know that the first recorded images of shoes are 15,000 years old? These are in the form of Spanish cave paintings, and it can easily be imagined that fashions have changed somewhat along the way. The materials from which shoes were made indicated the wealth and perhaps lifestyle of the owner; rawhide was the cheapest and most common a few thousand years ago, providing a sturdy and protective shoe. Leather was later used, creating a more malleable shoe, but one which was still plain. The use of silk for shoes indicated wealth and penchant for style – this was for shoes which were made to be admired, not practical.

Shoe styles through the centuries and millennia have changed, it is true. However, we clutch on to the past through our current shoe fashions. You must remember the Roman gladiator-sandal that was (is?) so in vogue only a couple of summers ago. Then, we revisited the love of the platform as so openly loved by ABBA in the seventies. As for the Ugg boot, who knew that Australian farmer shoes would become the big thing? But seriously, enough is enough, let’s move on please.

Italian Renaissance Chopine
Venice
16th century

But what types of shoes would we LIKE to see making a comeback? There are conflicting opinions on moonboots it is true. Personally, I am in the NO camp. Perhaps Galoshes? If Lady Gaga were to wear them, I am sure they would catch on in a heartbeat. Or, perhaps if Victoria Beckham were to design a contemporary ‘Mary Jane’? I bet that’d catch on pretty fast too. But what I’d really like to see making its way back onto the High Street are Italian Renaissance (Chopine) shoes. Or, as I like to call them, Horse-hoof shoes. After all, who hasn’t wanted to legitimately clomp down the street, whilst looking fabulous? Move over Mr Tumnus!

* Marilyn wasn’t a fan of left shoes.

For an iron-clad excuse to drool over shoes (c’mon guys, not literally!) head over to The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Decide for yourselves which shoe style YOU want to see become popular again. The permanent exhibition Shoes in The Costume Institute will entice you again and again (if you’re anything like me).However, if that isn’t enough to tempt you outdoors on a chilly winter’s day, cosy up to a copy of Klaus Carl’s Shoes.

Naughty but … Nice?

Michelangelo da Caravaggio – what a drunken, jealous, hot-headed mess. I’m sure if psychiatric hospitals existed in the late 1500s, he would have spent time in one – and probably lived a bit longer because of it. Today it seems artists (mostly actors and singers) encourage us commoners to “feel our crazy”, you know, to see where it takes us. But Caravaggio wouldn’t have even made it to even 39 were he alive today if he kept up his shenanigans. Fun to party with, perhaps, but no one you could possibly (read: should) take too seriously.


Caravaggio, Judith Beheading Holofernes, c. 1598.
Oil on canvas, 145 x 195 cm.
Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica di Palazzo Barberini, Rome.

Upon discovering Caravaggio, you generally learn about his tumultuous behaviour and mis-behaviour. We’re all aware that he wasn’t a very well-liked person, yet we manage to appreciate his major contribution to the art world – even if he only had 15 years to pull it off. We also all know that his art and name essentially dropped off of the face of the earth after his death until the 20^th century. BUT! There were people from before and after his death that greatly admired his strong contrast between light and dark – chiaroscuro – and quickly followed suit – copycats.


Caravaggio, Christ at the Column, c. 1607.
Oil on canvas, 134.5 x 175.5 cm.
Musée des Beaux-Arts, Rouen.

Highlighting the face, hands, ::cough:: bosom, of the characters in a painting draws viewers in. It’s dark, it’s sexy, it’s alluring – okay, maybe not Caravaggio’s The Tooth Puller (1608-1610). It’s almost like anyone in a chiaroscuro-styled painting is up to something that we may not want to see in the light – which, face it, Caravaggio probably was. Viewing one of these paintings is like being in on a dark secret, and who doesn’t like gossip?


Georges de La Tour, The Magdalen with the Smoking Flame, c. 1638-1640.
Oil on canvas, 117 x 91.76 cm.
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles.

I wouldn’t suggest following your crazy too far (cue in my strong distaste for Lady Gaga). Rather, see eight of Caravaggio’s darkest and most alluring paintings along with 48 others by artists whom he inspired now through 10 February 2013 at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Can’t get to LA? Order this equally dark, but well-illustrated, ebook and learn more of his secrets: Caravaggio by Felix Witting and M.L. Patrizi.

-Le Lorrain Andrews