On The Day We Remember the Flight into Egypt

Caracci 1663

We take for granted, I think, that the Holy Family traveled places.  They went to Jerusalem all the time, traveled to Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, came back....  But, what we might not think about is how they did all this traveling. For us, it's just a matter of hopping in a car, or  a plane or on a train maybe to take a trip, but it was not so easy for folks at the time of Christ.  Pretty much everywhere they went they walked.  If someone had a little money, a donkey might be used to carry belongings on a trip, but seldom was it used to ride the whole journey.  And,since they were very poor, Mary, Jesus, and Joseph would likely not have had a donkey most of the time and would have had to carry the necessities for a journey on their backs!

Wm Hole 1500s

There is an amazing man named Arthur Blessit who became fascinated with the actual day-to-day realities of the travels of Jesus and Mary, so much so that he made it his life's goal to travel in their footsteps -- and beyond.  He's traveled the world carrying an eight foot cross on his back.  On his website, he calculates the mileage walked by both Our Lord and His Blessed Mother.  Following is the information he tallied on the travels Our Lady made on foot in her lifetime -- conservatively based on the information we have solely in the Bible:

Mary the Mother of Jesus

Ansaldo 1620s

* Mary was probably carried to Jerusalem till she reached 3 years of age. Mary would have walked from Nazareth to Jerusalem and back ‘at least’ once a year from the age of 3 till the Jesus when she may have been about the age of 20. The one way mileage was about 120 (193) each way and thus it would be about 240 miles round trip (386 km). Mary Walking: 240 miles (386 km) per year from Nazareth to Jerusalem round trip x 17 years = 4,080 miles (6,565 km)!

(This would mean walking roughly the distance from DesMoines, Iowa to Omaha, Nebraska  and back -- once a year) 

*After she conceived by the Holy Spirit of God she ‘walked’ traveled from Nazareth to south of Jerusalem where Elizabeth her cousin was pregnant with John the Baptist (130 miles, 209 km). She then ‘walked’ traveled back to Nazareth (130 miles, 209 km). Then with Joseph she ‘walked’ traveled back south of Jerusalem to Bethlehem (130 miles, 209 km). During all this walking travel of 390 miles (627 km) Mary ‘was’ with Child!

(This is roughly the distance between Washington D.C. and New York City.  Imagine walking that roundtrip pregnant!)

* Mary, Joseph and Jesus must have lived in Bethlehem for about two years. Jesus was taken at least twice to the Temple in Jerusalem by Mary and Joseph for Circumcision and then again for Him to be ‘presented to the Lord’. (Luke 2:21-24) Let us count these two visits to Jerusalem for a total of 25 miles Mary walked.

(This is roughly the distance across the entire city of Denver)



Philip Otto Runge 1805
To learn about the legend of the Sycamore tree under which the Holy Family rested in Matariya, Egypt, go here.


* With Herod the King seeking to kill Jesus an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and he was told to flee to Egypt and they lived there till the death of Herod. Then he was told again by an angel to return to Israel and they came to live in Nazareth. (Matthew 2:13-23) The normal mileage from Bethlehem down to the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, through Gaza across the Sinai Desert and into Egypt to the Pyramids along the Nile would be about 350 miles (563 km). Mary traveled with the infant baby Jesus at about the age of two for 350 miles (563 km) through the desert.

(This would be roughly the equivalent of a walk from Boston to Philadelphia -- and back the long way)

Dore. Click and print for a lovely coloring page!



* Mary, Joseph and child Jesus at about the age of 4 or 5 walked (traveled) from Egypt across the desert past Gaza and Joppa along the Mediterranean Sea to Nazareth. Mary walked about 400 miles (643 km) from Egypt to Nazareth with Jesus and Joseph.

(It's about 400 miles from Chicago, Illinois to Minneapolis, Minnesota)

* Living in Nazareth Mary would have gone at least once a year to the Temple in Jerusalem and back. This would surely have been at Passover or at least one of the Temple festivals. Jesus begins His public ministry at about the age of 30. Let us say they came back to Nazareth when Jesus was 5. For 25 years, Mary would have made round trips to and from Jerusalem once a year. Mary walked 240 miles (386 km) round trip from Nazareth to Jerusalem for 25 years, this = 25 x 240 = 6,000 miles (9655 km)!

(240 miles is about the distance from Baltimore, Maryland to Norfolk, Virginia)

* During the public ministry we find Mary in Cana with Jesus. (John 2:1-11) Mary was with Jesus in His ministry (Matt.12: 46-47; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19)She was present as Jesus was crucified. (John 19:25-27) The disciple John was asked by Jesus to take care of Mary. (John 19: 27) Mary stayed to live with the early believers in Jerusalem. (Acts 1:14) We do not know the full extent of her travels with Jesus during this three year period but she surely went to the Passover three times, traveled to Cana round trip (12 miles, 19 km) and Capernaum round trip from Nazareth (60 miles, 96 km). The three Passovers including a one way from Nazareth to Jerusalem = 240 x 2 = 720 + 120 (one way to Jerusalem) + 72 = 912 miles (1,467 km). Mary walked at least 912 miles (1,467 km) during the 3-year public ministry of Jesus.

Total miles walked by Mary the Mother of Jesus!

Albrecht Durer.  Click and Print
for another great coloring page!

•4,080 Nazareth to Jerusalem and return. (Age 3 till 20)

•390 While with Child.

•25 From Bethlehem to Jerusalem twice.

•350 Bethlehem to Egypt

•400 Egypt to Nazareth.

•6,000 From Jesus age 5 till 30.

•912 During the public ministry of Jesus.

•Total: 12,187 Miles (19,612 km) Mary the Mother of Jesus Walked by the time she was about 50 years of age!

The distance around the world at the equator is 24,901.55 miles (40,074 km).

This means the Mary the Mother of Jesus Walked almost ‘HALF’ the distance around the world!

 The Flight into Egypt, as well as the Riposo -- or rest -- of the Holy Family, has been a favorite subject of artists since the beginning of Christian art.  There have been countless depictions! Many paintings are highly stylized and not very realistic, but this is a tendency we can easily forgive as they were graceful studies of a weary and gritty journey -- but a journey lit  with the beauty of the Divine Presence -- the Child Jesus safe in the haven of His Mother and St. Joseph's obedient care.

 Here are a few more paintings we've enjoyed looking up this morning:

Can't find the painter of this beautiful depiction.  Love the rich color and the pyramids in the distance.  Where is their baggage, though?

George Hitchcock - 1892  This is a lovely pastoral view of the Flight - but we wonder if it really would have looked like this in the desert between Bethlehem and Egypt.  And why is St. Joseph lagging so far behind?

George Hitchcock - 1895 A very different take on the same subject by Hitchcock, who seems to have moved onto Impressionism.  This one feels lonely and cold to us, compared to the other.  And again, St. Joseph lags way behind.

Luc Olivier Merson 1879.  This painting captures the desert starkness, we think, and is very beautiful in its simplicity, but we have a hard time imagining Our Blessed Mother crawling up to sleep in the arms of the little sphynx.. 

What do you think? Do you have a favorite?
*Repost from 2011 (Incidentally, one of the best research projects I ever got to do!  Putting facts and mileage to the history made it more than just a story for me...)

Make No Mistake...

He's everywhere.

Check out this fresco in the Basilica of St. Francis in Assisi. 

Can you see him?

There now. Can you spot him in this close-up shot?  The artist, Giotto di Bondone, an Italian painter of the Middle Ages, hid a profile of the devil in this painting, and now, over eight hundred years later, it's only just been noticed.  We may never know what Giotto's real motive was in hiding Beelzebub there in the clouds, but it serves as a good reminder to us, regardless, to look out for the devil's "wickedness and snares" everywhere we might be.  Heaven knows, the Prince of Lies would rather we didn't notice him!

Low-tech Woman in a High Tech World



Petra --Book art by Brian Dettmer.
You've got to go check this guy out!



We've been using Google since the nineties here at our homeschooling household, and, let me tell you, it was a heaven-sent replacement for our garage-sale-set of 1959 World Book Encyclopedias*.  But I have to admit I do miss leafing through those musty pages, following the reference leads from book to dusty book.

 I have a cell phone, too, of course and am always grateful for the security of instant contact in an emergency -- not to mention the ease of communicating with our far-flung family.  And,  no kidding, texting is the bomb!  But, man oh man, is it hard now to really remove myself from distraction; focus on anything from prayer to following a recipe is almost always interrupted by a text or phone call. (Bless you, though, children, this does not mean I want you calling or texting less!  I'm just sayin'...)



A prenatal MP3 player...
Get yours here!

  I have an MP3 player, but have fond memories of record albums and 8-track tapes.  I had a wonky 8-track player in my first car that played everything in high speed;  Monster Mash is hysterical when the  Beachboys sound like chipmunks.  And I still enjoy listening to music on the radio -- just for the unexpectedness of it.  The MP3 player never plays songs I don't like, but it also never serves up anything new, either.


It's an amazing technological world our children are growing up in.  And it's wonderful and exciting, but I have to admit that it worries me, too.  Though we have Blue Ray players and laptops and wireless Pandora at our house....  we've tried hard to keep things real, too.  We've brought our children up in a farm setting so that they would understand the cycle of life and the beauty of God's providence in nature.  We've tried hard to instill a good work ethic and a core of creativity and practical ability.  All the kids know how to cook, for instance, and can figure out how to corale an escaped cow into the barn if needed.  They can play for hours with nothing but chalk and rocks and jumpropes.   And time to curl up with a good old-fashioned book is a luxury they all enjoy.


Here.

  But they are still children of the digital age. There's no getting around the fact that the world is spinning around our babies very, very quickly and it's all very enticing.  Everything is instantaneous and loaded with fireworks.  Anything a child could possibly want is at his fingertips -- a click away.  If a kid wants to be a ship's captain and sail the seven seas, he doesn't have to read a book or play pretend with his Leggos, or learn how to sail so someday he can own his own boat--  all he has to do is click a couple buttons, fly through Paypal, skip the tutorial, and he's off in an amazingly detailed and exciting adventure on the high seas -- in a video game.  Easy.

And, sure it's fun, but is this high tech, high speed environment really good for "growing up"  our next generation? Is it good for the psyche of our nation that these things are taken for granted? Since I'm an "old-timer,"  I can Google my research but still remember how to use an encyclopedia; I can enjoy my cell phone and appreciate not being lassoed by a phone cord to one room in our house; I can slip in my earbuds and power walk to Jack Johnson, but remember the hours of Statler Brothers spinning on the turntable of my parents' stereo when I was a kid...  And I like having that history.  This next generation doesn't have the comparisons and appreciations that my peers and I do.  Children today arrive in this world on a Disney digitally-simulated rocket ride into space -- and don't remember the rickety old wooden roller coasters of my youth... 



No babies really inhaled nicotine
in the making of this image --
we certainly do hope...

 And I haven't even touched on the topic that worries me the most: the sad fact is that a lot of what's "out there" is not as wholesome as the high seas adventure computer game I mentioned -- but it's just as easily accessed.   How do we work around not only the innocent diversions of our high tech world, but the dangerous temptations and the evil that is also just a click away?  How can parents and educators compete with it all -- and teach children enough focus that they can really apply themselves to anything amidst all the distraction?

Our second son, Kevvy, has a blog where he discusses a lot of these issues dealing with education and technology and it's interesting to see his take on these things.    He recently linked to an educator in a high-tech high school who  lamented:

Not long ago, students would ball up scraps of notebook paper and pass them around the room. They now instant message three friends at once. Boys would tuck copies of Sports Illustrated under their textbooks — now they open another tab at SI.com. They no longer fold elaborate fortune-tellers out of loose-leaf; instead they go online to check horoscopes or play role-play games. When I spoke at a conference last year on being a young teacher in a progressive technology school, the most important understanding shared was that I was not as interesting as what they could pull up on their screens.  (Find the link to the rest of the article here.)



Cartoon taken from Paul Silli's blog post
 "Why Should School Districts Invest in
Technology."



It's a puzzle, isn't it?  What are ya gonna do?  It's not like technology is just here for a trial run and we can decide against it....  We don't have too much trouble in our world keeping tabs on things, though; our Catholic school kids' experience is low tech for the most part and closely supervised, and we can easily control our homeschoolers' use of the computer, --but it's easy to see how gadget control in the classroom could be a problem in the larger world.  If it's not laptops, it's cell phones; and if it's not cell phones, it's ipods...  Kids these days!  =sigh= 

I guess there's consolation in the fact that every new "modern day" has its unique problems.  Our great grandparents worried about the dangers of electricity and our grandparents watched the effects of television with a wary eye (and rightly so, imho) -- and the effects of these inventions have been enormous -- but most of the world  now takes them for granted. For better or worse.

If only the better part of discrimation came with the worst part of all the access; if only wisdom came with the knowlege. Like most new things, we always have been and always will be able to choose how much -- and whether or not -- we use technology.  It's not all bad.   I'm convinced that there are ways of harnessing the use of modern technology to enhance education and further our society in good and wholesome ways.  And I know that there are teachers and parents out there right now who are working toward this goal...  But it does seem like a the very nature of the problems with our day's new inventions makes them difficult to control.  Information is everywhere!  And it's not all good, either.  It scares me for the upcoming generations.  Too often our worst instincts take over and before we know it, the lowest common denominator becomes the norm. 

Horse and Buggy Days -- Paul Detlefsen

 But don't get me wrong -- I'm not living like the Amish here in Western Colorado; I'm as addicted to technology as anybody. (Check it out: I have a blog!)  But I still wonder if we weren't really better off in the days of the horse and buggy when we provided our own entertainment -- by writing letters and sending them by snail mail, by playing our own music instead of listening to someone else's recording, by reading stories aloud instead of watching television, by enjoying nature instead of playing the wii, and by talking with each other in person instead of texting.  I wonder if we weren't happier when we had less.  When we saw and heard less and perhaps understood more.  I mean, when life was slower don't you think enjoyment may have been sweeter?

Wouldn't you like to live in a Jesse Wilcox Smith kind of world?

I would.

But, then,  before I had internet access, I don't think I knew who Jesse Wilcox Smith was...  And in less than ten minutes, I was able to download seven of her beautiful paintings and share them with others who might not have ever heard of her. 

So, hmmm... Technology: good or bad?

I don't know.  It's complicated.


*  Just an interesting aside:  Check out how to repurpose old encyclopedias:  Hints from Heloise, June, 2010

To kick off the week before Drawing Saturday

OK... So, Marie, over at MeMarie Lane drew a self portrait, deep in symbolism, and invited us to share ours, too. So, here's mine. That's me up there, with my glasses on. My nose looks a little weird, but then, my nose is a little weird. And I was doing most of this sketching with a two-year-old on my lap, and under my feet, and on my shoulders, and sticking pencils in my ears...

So that explains the hands, and explains away the poor drawing... The rest of it is pretty easy, I think. The drawing is cluttered, but the symbolism is pretty simple. I remember in college a poetry professor telling me I wasn't obtuse enough. I guess I'm still not obtuse enough. ( Is that a bad thing?)

You see how I can't quite get my hands on that jeep or that book there? I'm thinking maybe somewhere near retirement (in 16 or 18 years or so) I might actually get ahold of both of those dreams.

Notice how the big kid's hands are only represented by a finger or two, or are not even in evidence? Letting go of those growing up fingers one by one is one of the biggest challenges of parenthood!

But the Littles' hands are all right there? Bless 'em. Their hands were right there when I was trying to draw this. And, as frustrating as those little fingers are sometimes, I'm happy to hang onto them for a while.

Run over and see Marie's drawing and her other links, and maybe add one of your own!

National Drawing Day and Other Cool Art Stuff

We're always looking for new and interesting artists. Some of our favorite art, bar none ~ Even better than Thomas Kinkade ~ is the work of children's book authors. We love the work of:
Jan Brett,
Tasha Tudor
Sarah Davis
Doron BenAmi
Troy Howell
Ron Berg
Brynn Barnard

...And many others ~ but these are the ones I found jogging my memory online.

Remember Taro Gomi, the author/illustrator famous for the ground-breaking children's book Everybody Poops? He's published something new called Doodle All Year featuring 265 pages of doodling inspiration. A must-have, I'm thinking.

I don't care for the content in all her pictures, but you just gotta love the creative idea behind the New York Times Crossword Drawings by Emilyjo Cureton. She does one a day. View them cautiously, though.





And for something really interesting, go check out Yeondoo Jung's work... Children's drawings brought to life! Isn't that a creative twist? We thought this would be fun to try to do with some of our Littles' artwork.



Also, you may have noticed in my sidebar that June 7th ~ next Saturday ~ is National Drawing Day! I'm going to have my youngins doodle up some of their best work and post it that day. It would be wonderful to see other work, as well, if you want to join in the fun! Let me know if you'll be posting some and I'll link it here! Just let me know by Friday night. I'm so excited to see lots of drawing going on!~

I like Thomas Kinkade and here's why

I was going to start off this post by listing out my credentials, how I can sit here and justify my right to bore you with my opinion about art. Except I haven't got any credentials.

I took the basic art history and art theory courses in college (20 some years ago), just because I'm interested in the subject. My parents took us to museums as children and have collected works of amateur artists over the years. Nothing particularly brag-worthy, just oil paintings of landscapes and seascapes that caught their eye. My son works in oils. I prefer to sketch and dabble in watercolors. We have quite the crayon art collection on the refrigerator. That's about it. See? No credentials.

Do I know the difference between good and bad art, though? Hmmm... Do I? I think I do.

There's no question, of course, that there is a large subjective dimension to all art. But is there a real objective measurement that applies to all art?

Everyone knows the art that is considered classic, and therefore good: DaVinci, Renoir, Caravaggio, Vermeer, Cassat, Rembrandt, Monet... All of these we immediately connect with good art. Some would add Van Gogh, Picasso, Matisse and their type to the list, if for no other reason than for their fame. Certainly there seems to have been some theory behind their art and some people appreciate this.

But, what is good art? Is it famous art? Not necessarily. Many, if not most artists did not become famous until well after their deaths, and their art was just as good before it became well known. Some artists became famous through no fault of their art. I take a chance by presuming to name any of these artists, but I just have to say Jackson Pollock is one that falls into this category for me.

Is good art that which exhibits a mastery of technique, though? Yes, very often, this is so, but not always. DaVinci defines mastery, of course, but would you say the same about Fra Angelico? Caravaggio's skill certainly qualifies his work as great art, but what about Grandma Moses? Fra Angelico and Grandma Moses can't hold a candle to the Old Masters, or can they?

Could you not say that the value of art lies in how well it evokes a response from the beholder? And that a good artist, therefore, is successful in manipulating a chosen response? Fra Angelico specifically designed to lead the heart and mind to God through the eyes, and succeeded. Grandma Moses succeeded in capturing a lively and unique vision of rural American life, a sort of visual onomatopoeia that needs no translation for the viewer. And, while someone whose taste tends more toward Caravaggio may consider Grandma Moses' work "little," it is art, nevertheless. Even if it's not your style, you have to have a certain appreciation for it.

A lot of people admire Grandma Moses' art due to the mere feat of its accomplishment. Her painting career didn't even begin until she was in her seventies, but once she got started, she was prolific. She toured the world exhibiting, and was proud that some of her paintings made it onto Hallmark cards. It's a tribute to her that she was such a success during her lifetime.

Norman Rockwell gained the same fame and notoriety, and was able to make quite a successful living during his life through his art. Like Grandma Moses, he intended to make money from his paintings. And, like Grandma, his paintings were intended to have mass appeal. Are these two individuals less artists than DaVinci and Vermeer who traveled Europe hawking their talents to the only market available at the time? Sure, the techniques are very different, but the intent is much the same: to produce something meaningful to the artist, to evoke a response from the viewer, to sell the work, to make a living.

Because something appeals to the masses and is marketed by the artist for the masses, does that necessarily mean that it loses credibility as art? I think we'd all agree that it doesn't

But, just because a lot of people like something, does that make it good art? I think that depends upon what response is evoked by the art. A lot of people view pornography and it is the antithesis of good art. It's a simple fact that not everyone has good taste and sometimes the lowest common denominator has vast appeal. The devil promotes that inclination.

So, where does this leave us? If technique, acclaim, and popularity are not reliable indicators of good art, what is?

I submit that art is good when it lifts the heart and mind to God ~ that subject matter and execution combine in good art to lift the soul. The Old Masters mentioned above became old masters, made livings, and became famous by doing this, each in his own way. Grandma Moses and Norman Rockwell do the same thing by holding up their own interpretations of idealized home life in the twentieth century western world. Their paintings do not duplicate reality, but take a light and shine it on the best parts of reality.

You have to admit that reality sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. It's kinda messy, sometimes overcast, too often brutal and unkind. There is good art out there that paint with these shadows, and art that "challenges" certainly has an important place in our world. But artists like Rockwell and Moses, who take all this out in their paintings, and show us what goodness, tenderness, and joy look like, have just as important a role. They comfort us.

I think Thomas Kinkade does the same thing. While his idealized landscapes may seem sticky sweet for some, and his technique may not be up to Hudson School standards, it is his stated intention to glorify Christian home life and family values. He literally paints a halo around those ideals in his paintings. And the masses respond to it. It's pretty art; it makes people feel good about good things.

In our world the goodness of old fashioned Christian home life needs all the positive PR it can get.

I have a little copy of a Kinkade painting in my sidebar underneath the quote: The most important work that you and I will ever do will be within the walls of our own homes. We're very picky about what we hang on the walls of our home. And though he's one of the Great Artists, I can't imagine hanging a Caravaggio over our living room couch.

But I would display a Kinkade there.

Paintings top to bottom: Leonardo DaVinci, Jackson Pollock, Grandma Moses, Norman Rockwell, Thomas Kinkade, Michelangelo Caravaggio.

Quiz Results

When I was pairing up these paintings, I had a definite idea of what I thought my little ones would like. I expected they would prefer light over dark, soothing over intense, real over abstract, familiar over unfamiliar. And, for the most part this did prove true. Their answers were pretty much a split between A's and B's, but the choices did not fall as I expected them to.

God gives each of us such a unique perspective. Even the youngest child! This quiz proved to me more than anything else that taste is a purely personal thing.

Nevertheless, even with "unsophisticated" critics there are a couple of lines in the sand. None of my children wanted a thing to do with the abstract art, and, even when choosing between the Cassatt and the Picasso pictures of "Mother and Child" in the last group, every one of them chose the more realistic of the two (Even though Picasso was behaving himself in this painting, shown above). Every one of them considered Jackson Pollock's work laughable at best.

They seem to need their art to represent the real world in a realistic way, but it didn't have to be perfect. Every one of the children, for instance, liked Grandma Moses' snow picture and had a hard time choosing between it and the more realistic snowscape painted by Monet. Perspective and lighting were not as important to them as the feeling they got by looking at the painting. Subject matter appears to be most important to them, followed by color.

One of my theories was that the little ones would always pick pretty over plain and soft over harsh. This did not always prove to be true, though. My five year old consistently picked the brighter colors, whether the picture was prettier by conventional standards or not. She picked the Monet bridge (3A) over the Kinkade bridge (3B), for instance, and she picked Van Gogh's The Scream (7A) just because she liked the color of the sky behind the screamer. Go figure!

My nine year old picked whichever picture she thought was funnier. She was sure The Scream was a joke, and picked it for that reason. She also liked the Norman Rockwell self portrait because it was funnier, while my 12 year old chose Vermeer's self portrait because of its sumptuous colors and feeling of richness. Michelle (12) also liked Caravaggio's Judith Beheading Holovernes (9A), because she thought it looked more realistic than a photograph. But she wouldn't want it hanging in her house! The rest of the children, however, thought that Caravaggio was awful and much preferred the harvest picture. Not too surprising.

After we finished the quiz, we scrolled around the internet looking at various artists, and all the children (ages 3-12) LOVED the the marjority of the works of Monet, Cassatt, and Adolphe Bougureau (not pictured in the quiz, but pictured above), but they also LOVED everything by Norman Rockwell and Thomas Kinkade ~ both artists who have generally been considered hacks in the elite art world. But do the children care? Heck no! Their qualifications and expectations are simple. Is this a bad thing?

What is a child's opinion worth?

Tomorrow: Why I like Thomas Kinkade, even though anyone who really knows art thinks he's over commercialized and trite.

Here is the list of the paintings and artists from Friday's quiz:

1 A . The Absinthe Drinker, Pierre Auguste Renoir

B. St. Philomena, (Couldn't find who painted this! Does anyone know?)

2 A. Photograph from free images

B. She Wolf, Jackson Pollock

3 A. Japanese Bridge at Giverny, Claude Monet

B. Bridge of Hope, Thomas Kinkade

4 A. Cafe Paix Opera, Antoine Blanchard

B. San Francisco Lombard, Thomas Kinkade

5 A. Self Portrait, Norman Rockwell

B. Self Portrait, Jan Vermeer

6 A. The Fortune Teller, Norman Rockwell

B. The Arnolfini Marriage by Jan Van Eyck

7 A. The Scream, Picasso
B. Laughter by Mary Louise Scappaticci

8 A. The Cart at Snow Covered Road at Hoifieur, Monet

B. Frosty Morning, Grandma Moses

9 A. Judith Beheading Halofernes, Michelangelo Caravaggio

B. * The Gleaners, Jean Francois Millet (Thank-you, Bia!)

10 A. The Delphic Sibyl, Michaelangelo

B. Marie Therese Walter, Picasso

11 A. Autumn, Norman Rockwell

B. *See below.

12 A. The Bath, Mary Cassatt

B. Mother and Child, Picasso

* I'm missing these titles and artists, unfortunately... Once again, I had to travel this past weekend to finish up work on our house on the Western Slope. I brought a slip of paper with the titles and artists of all the paintings that I posted on Friday's quiz with the intention of typing them from our digs in Montrose and posting them Saturday. Alas, I never had the chance to sit down at the computer, and then, of course, I left the slip of paper at my in-laws' house. (They're snowbirds of a sort and are in California now, so I can't call them and ask them to read the list off to me, either.) I reconstructed all of it the best I could, but had trouble finding a couple of the artists. If anyone is familiar with either of these paintings, please let me know! It about drove me nuts this afternoon trying to find them again!

Art Quiz

Typical phrase of a morning around here: Eat your cereal, kids: I'm going to go see what Simcha is up to.

I love to check in on what's going on over at I Have To Sit Down. Simcha, a good Catholic Mom of great insight and humor, always has something fun to share. The other day she presented us with a lesson in art. And, while her class was a good time as always, I had to disagree with her on the conclusion of her thesis.

I told her I'd respond. So here it is folks. I'm in the classroom across the hall from Simcha.

But, before I take the podium, I'd like to administer a quick quiz. A quiz with a twist.The twist is that you don't take it ~ you ask a child (any child you have handy at the moment) to take it for you.

All you have to do is ask your child which of the following pairs of paintings he or she likes better. There's no right or wrong answer, and they shouldn't try to figure out which one you want them to say. See which ones you like, as well, and see if you can figure out why you like them.

I'll get back with you tomorrow to explain and share my thoughts on this subject. I'll be curious to see if you come to the same conclusions from this quiz as I did.

* How many of the artists do you recognize? Bozo button to anyone who can get all of the artists without looking them up!

Which Do You Like Better?

Choose between:

*********************************************

1. These two paintings of solemn young girls...

*********************************************
A.

B.

**************************************************

2. These two pictures of nothing in particular...

**************************************************
A.

******************************************************

3. These two paintings of bridges...

******************************************************

A.

B.

*************************************************

4. These two cityscapes...
**************************************************

A. B.

*********************************************

5. These two self portraits...
*********************************************

A.

*****************************************

6. These two paintings of young couples...
*****************************************

A.

B.

************************************************************

7. These paintings of people whose hands help show emotion

*************************************************************

A.

B.