<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Dutch Treasure Comes To The Met</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gcadvocate.com/2009/11/a-dutch-treasure-comes-to-the-metropolitan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gcadvocate.com/2009/11/a-dutch-treasure-comes-to-the-metropolitan/</link>
	<description>The Student Newspaper of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:09:38 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jon B</title>
		<link>http://www.gcadvocate.com/2009/11/a-dutch-treasure-comes-to-the-metropolitan/comment-page-1/#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:08:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gcadvocate.com/?p=729#comment-17</guid>
		<description>Michael Busch&#039;s critique of the Metropolitan&#039;s Vermeer&#039;s Masterpiece show is right on target. One hopes that curators of future exhibitions will take note. Walter Liedtke did not need to hype the &quot;salacious&quot; aspects of Vermeer&#039;s beautiful Kitchenmaid in the over-the-top fashion he chose, although much of this commentary stemmed from Liedtke&#039;s recent book; it wasn&#039;t produced just to sell more tickets for this show. 

Vermeer surely intended for knowledgeable seventeenth century Dutch viewers to take note of the sexual cues imbedded in the painting, including the footwarmer, the cupid tile, and the various anatomical referents in the form of open pitchers and erect pitchers--all in the context of the Dutch entertainment trope of sexually promiscuous female servants. Nonetheless, as others have said, Vermeer generally subverted these elements by his powerful portrayal of introspective equipoise, creating in the process a conjuring a complex poetry of reciprocal images, not a simple caricature. Here, Vermeer extends the theme of action and its consideration beyond what he captured in his Diana and Christ in the House of Mary and Martha, which he then explored throughout his career. Note especially how the psychology of the Kitchenmaid anticipates the Astronomer and the Geographer.

And, yes, why didn&#039;t the Met hang the Kitchenmaid alongside the Young Woman with a Water Pitcher, for all the reasons Busch suggests? And why not exit the show with views of the Kitchenmaid, Vermeer&#039;s &quot;perfect painting,&quot; which in so many ways embodies the artist&#039;s creative raison d&#039;être?

All things considered, it was a pleasure to see the Kitchenmaid once again on this continent. It&#039;s a work that really must be seen in situ, for reproductions don&#039;t do it justice. For enabling this experience, the Met is to be sincerely thanked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael Busch’s critique of the Metropolitan’s Vermeer’s Masterpiece show is right on target. One hopes that curators of future exhibitions will take note. Walter Liedtke did not need to hype the “salacious” aspects of Vermeer’s beautiful Kitchenmaid in the over-the-top fashion he chose, although much of this commentary stemmed from Liedtke’s recent book; it wasn’t produced just to sell more tickets for this show. </p>
<p>Vermeer surely intended for knowledgeable seventeenth century Dutch viewers to take note of the sexual cues imbedded in the painting, including the footwarmer, the cupid tile, and the various anatomical referents in the form of open pitchers and erect pitchers–all in the context of the Dutch entertainment trope of sexually promiscuous female servants. Nonetheless, as others have said, Vermeer generally subverted these elements by his powerful portrayal of introspective equipoise, creating in the process a conjuring a complex poetry of reciprocal images, not a simple caricature. Here, Vermeer extends the theme of action and its consideration beyond what he captured in his Diana and Christ in the House of Mary and Martha, which he then explored throughout his career. Note especially how the psychology of the Kitchenmaid anticipates the Astronomer and the Geographer.</p>
<p>And, yes, why didn’t the Met hang the Kitchenmaid alongside the Young Woman with a Water Pitcher, for all the reasons Busch suggests? And why not exit the show with views of the Kitchenmaid, Vermeer’s “perfect painting,” which in so many ways embodies the artist’s creative raison d’être?</p>
<p>All things considered, it was a pleasure to see the Kitchenmaid once again on this continent. It’s a work that really must be seen in situ, for reproductions don’t do it justice. For enabling this experience, the Met is to be sincerely thanked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
