Type: Review
Pages: 10 | Words: 2871
Reading Time: 12 Minutes

This essay represents a critique of Blenheim Palace, in Woodstock, Oxfordshire. This is a baroque architecture made by John Vanbrugh and Nicholas Hawksmoor. The paper will rely on an expansive information and knowledge concerning the ancient monuments conservation in terms of working with historical and art buildings. It will, thus, contain the essentials for conserving these ancient buildings, including their architecture. In this manner, the paper will take a formalistic perspective, in line with physical cohesion. The buildings and art facts contain quite a long history, but the conservation emergence in a positive way as a career or rather a profession can originate from the IIC, which is the International Institute for the Conservation of Museum Objects, in the year 1950. Institute and conservation, which are the title’s last 2 words, were then altered to “˜Historic and Artistic Works’. The change was followed by the appearance in the beginning of the year 1952 as a part of Conservation journal studies.

Blenheim Palace is a remarkable and outstanding country house, located in Woodstock, Oxfordshire, England. It is also the home to Marlborough dukes. It is the only non-royal country house without bishops in England to become a palace. This palace, which is one of largest houses in England, was constructed during the period between 1705 and 1724. It was recognised by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site in the year 1987.

It was initially built as a gift to John Churchill, who was the first Marlborough Duke, from a nation that was grateful for his military triumph against the Bavarians and French at the Battle of Blenheim. On the contrary, it gradually became the political infighting subject. This resulted in the exile of Marlborough, his duchess power fall, and damage that was irreparable to the architect Sir John Vanbrugh’s reputation. Blenheim Palace was constructed in a short-lived and rare design, which has a style of English Baroque; its architectural appreciation is as torn apart even in the present as it was in the 1720s. It is different in its combination of a mausoleum, family home and national monument. Blenheim Palace is commonly known as the ancestral home, as well as the birthplace of Sir Winston Churchill, who was a Prime Minister.

The palace building was a political intrigue minefield of Sarah Churchill, who was the Marlborough Duchess. After the completion of this palace, it soon became the Churchill family home for the 300 years that followed, and different family members have made diverse changes during that time, namely in the garden, park and interiors. At the end of the 19th century, Blenheim Palace was almost ruined, but it was saved by the funds got from the 9th Marlborough Duke’s marriage to railroad heiress, Consuelo Vanderbilt. Blenheim Palace is still being in repair in the best way possible.

The conservator as a person role is different from the role of scientist and the one, who is restoring, which emerged in the 1930s with more emphasis on Harvard University, as well as the Fogg Art Museum.Conservation studies had a precursor, Field of Fine Arts Technical Studies (1932—42). Since becoming the Cultural Heritage Division and its publications by UNESCO, it has adopted a leading role in the foundation and conservation via the use of its auspices of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property, in Rome, Italy. This was a positive step in the conservation advancement. The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) was created in 1959 with the objective of giving advice in relation to international problems of conservation, thereby contributing towards a co-ordination between establishing standards of training courses and conservation activists. A vital professional advancement was the change, which took place in New York in 1966 within the International Council of Museums, with the inclusion of the 2 teams of committee. These 2 committee teams are scientific (founded in the mid of 1950s) and curatorial (established in 1949) ones, which focused on the paintings care. Both teams were involved into the Conservation team.

In the book Principles of Art History by Heinrich Wolfflin, there is a concern in terms of how to conserve nature, where the writer says,

“¦.all four resolved not to deviate from nature by a hair breadth. Although the subject was the same, and each quite creditably reproduced what his eyes had seen, the result was four different pictures. As different from each other as the personalities of the four painters considering these historians in the field of art, there is no much surprise in this observation. To conserve these different perspectives of the Tivoli landscapes set in the paintings by the four, one can take it from different perspectives like one being fuller, other being set at a certain angle.

In this way, the writer tries to show the landscape painting of the four can be related to different human bodies. In the model of the human body, one quality, which can be related in terms of proportions, such as slimness, tallness and weight, may be appealing to one person, while for another, a different quality, such as curves or hollows, will be appealing to him or her. These qualities are viewed by the beholder of the eye with a lot of the economy in balancing these admirable qualities with the others. This case applies with the colour and light observation by the eye.The honest intention of observing accurately will permit a cooler, warmer and softer shadow. In this way, the light can also be viewed as more languid, even more stunning and vivid, in addition to being harder.

In case, people are no longer connected to the nature common subject, the set distinct nature disciplines are of the essence of persons. For example, the writer takes a comparison of 2 painters, Lorenzo di Credi and Botticelli, in terms of their drawing of the body of a female. The two painters have a race and epoch relationship, since they are from Florencia of the Quattro cento. For Botticelli, his female body drawing has its shape and stature viewed in a way that is only unique to him and is not mistaken, as well as radically distinct from the Lorenzo’s nude female paintings. This can be viewed as a line base of an oak. In this line, Botticelli’s drawing encompasses each form with a unique animation and verve. However, in the modelling of Lorenzo, vision is vitally satisfied by observing object as a response. Comparing the arm curves in the 2 paintings is even more illuminating. The 2 paintings of Lorenzo and Botticelli have different effects on the observer, who then has a different response to the 2 painter’s paintings. Lorenzo is shown to produce a shallow effect in relation to Botticelli’s painting of the same female building. Botticelli is shown to produce a lively forearm, well defined elbow, illuminated fingers spread on the burst, together with energy charge in each and every line of the painting. On the other hand, Lorenzo gives just a small effect on the painting. Despite this shallow effect, his painting is well made, only that it is hidden in the painting itself. This means that Lorenzo drawings lack the curves and the elaborate features shown on Botticelli’s drawing. These differences in the abovementioned features of the female body are definite or general as can be observed from the two paintings.

It is indisputable that Lorenzo’s way of thinking implies that any individual should pose. This is of course not the case for Botticelli, who has put his drawing in a formal way. In the same way, it is notable that the two artists have a common objective of giving their drawings an appealing motion sense and form to the eye.In this light, Botticelli has put much emphasis on this appealing part by making his drawing idealistic in his slender upright figure; still Lorenzo has made his drawing look real to an observer. In this way, Lorenzo has used his realistic way of presenting the painting to control his feelings in the image proportions and pose.

In the Terborch’s painting, there is even more details in the images created. The images in this regard reflect the accuracy in showing the individual clothes’ density, as well as their textures and formation.In this manner, the artist gives the clothes a rather ridgeless, well formed look, without much elegance. This makes the drawing image to be appealing to the eye, when Terborch’s picture is considered as a group, rather than as an individual image part.. The bare arm of the lady making music is portrayed in this picture as drawn with a lot of skills; thus, it gives one a distinct feeling. Terborch gives the picture’s groupings more visibility and lives, while making them. On the other hand, Metsu’s pictures lack skills in his drawing. However, in Metsu’s drawing, there is mass and compactness in the figures. This can be accounted on the folds bundles of the massive clothing, as well as on the table with the materials for writing. This is missing in Terborch’s painting. In this light, Terborch’s drawing as a group fails to show some reality in relation to Metsu’s drawing, since it gives the effect of an audible singing voice from the observation.

A critical look at the tree painting of Ruysdael and Hobbema allows distinguishing some similarities and differences. The two artist’s paintings of the trees imply a sense of reality in that the trees are portrayed to be in existence. There is also a similarity in that the two paintings have the same species of trees. However, in spite of the trees being of the same species, Ruysdael’s painting is freely outlined, much lighter as the trees image rise elegantly in the free atmosphere above. Ruysdael’s style encompasses much more emphasis, as he enjoys giving in a slow manner the outside shape. It is in this line that he portrays the trees foliage in a compact way. His painting has a sense of togetherness of each individual constituent. In the same light, Ruysdael shows the natural features, such as contours of the mountains and trees, to be in togetherness. On the other hand, Hobbema’s painting has boundary, grace, incorporated dense, appealing vistas and vignettes, defined terrain. This way his drawing gives an effect of subdivision, whereby it feels like a picture within a picture.

The Photo of Blenheim Palace, at Woodstock, Oxfordshire in England. Part of Britain Express Travel and Heritage Picture Library. The gates are produced using cast iron coated with bronze covering. The gates are unique and act as a symbol of security to the palace and identification to the palace. They are constructed in shape of a crown to indicate the centre of power of Blenheim.

A critical analysis of the 3 paintings of the 6 artists above reveals that the vital thing in any art is an interconnection of an individual part with other parts. In this way, one is able to draw a relevant conclusion. It is through the relations of the two artist’s drawing that the individual style is being emphasized. This style is profound in colour, lighting and design. The art development path can never be disintegrated. The different art constitutes lie in larger art sections. Lorenzo and Botticelli, in spite of their contrast, have a profound similarity, when compared amongst themselves, in addition to being Florentines. This is a particular similarity, when compared with Hobbema, Ruysdael and Venetian, regardless of their difference. This aspect makes them to be part of the artist group. It creates a sense of togetherness or unity in the artwork. It is in this respect one will expect the same art ideas being applicable to the buildings model.

The sense of unity portrayed by the artists above is also critical in the building designs as will be seen in the architecture work of Blenheim Palace design by John Vanbrugh and Nicholas Hawksmoor, his associate, who later completed the palace construction on his own. The two architects demonstrate a sense of compatibility in the palace design. Vanbrugh modelled the place of Blenheim in view that it will be appealing. His plan on Blenheim Palace is that of a large block of rectangular shape.On the east side, he put the Duke and Duchess private apartments suites, while on the west side, he placed a lengthy gallery with a picture gallery hidden in it.The court on the east side has the laundry, kitchen and any other office for domestic use, while the court on the west consists of the stables, the chapel and riding school indoors. These 3 blocks combine to make the “Great Court”, which is specifically designed to astonish any palace guest. Pillars and pilasters are bound, while the roofs are like the ones of a small town; monumental statues are designed in the Renaissance manner of St Peter’s in Rome.The rest of the unique statuary in the guise of martial trophies decorate the roofs, namely with Britannia being on top of the pediment entrance with 2 chained French captives in front that are sculpted in the Michelangelo style.

The Photo of Blenheim Palace, at Woodstock, Oxfordshire in England. Part of Britain Express Travel and Heritage Picture Library. The chapel within the palace provides a spacious environment for worship purposes. The interior of the chapel is decorated with images constructed with bronze. The outsides paintings and decorations of the chapel also provide additional scenic beauty to the palace.

In terms of Blenheim Palace, the great 18th-century design houses gave much convenience and comfort, as well as the sense of magnificence.Vanbrugh’s mission was to design a home, in addition to a national monument in order to portray the superior nation development. With the purpose of designing the monumental construction, Vanbrugh decided to model in a Baroque style, while incorporating stone masses to represent strength.Furthermore, By tapering on the East Gate, the architect gave an impression of tallness. The entrance of the portico was designed large and massive, while being more like the entrance to a pantheon rather than a home.Vanbrugh used a specific technique, which he termed as the “castle air”, It consists of building a low tower at every corner of the block, which is situated centrally, and placing crowns of massive stone belvederes with mysterious finials decoration on the towers.

The peculiar perspective of Vanbrugh was like that of being omnipotent and is still portrayed in the palace interior design. In addition, its centre has also some of the particular park characteristics. It was designed in such a way that when the Duke would be dining in his honour place in the saloon, he was in a position to be heightened to the appealing architectural mass procession, rather facing him, instead of it being a proscenium.Over the portico in the south is the pediment, which is a discontinuation of the convention. The flat top has decorations represented by the marble bust of Louis XIV, which was looted by Marlborough in 1709. This marble bust has a weight of 30 tons. Its positioning was a particularly innovative design method in the pediment decoration.

The layout of the interior rooms of the central block of Blenheim Palace was shaped by the day etiquette of the court. Apartments were designed with an idea of increasing value of diverse rooms, which gradually led to the principal room. The larger houses, such as Blenheim, had two types of state apartments each reflecting each other.The most public, grandest and vital house was the saloon in the centre. The saloon’s purpose was to serve as the communal state dining room. On each side of this saloon, there were the state apartment’s suites, descending in significance, but ascending in privacy. First room was the audience chamber to welcome the truly distinguished visitors. Second room was meant for a private withdrawing. Third room was supposed to be the resident’s suite bedroom; therefore, it was the most private. The small rooms situated between the bedroom and the internal courtyard were designed to serve as the dressing rooms.This arrangement of rooms is the similar one on the other side of this saloon. The state apartments were supposed to be used by the truly significant people such as a sovereign, who is visiting for specific purposes. On the east side of Blenheim Palace, there is the bow room, followed by the Duke and Duchess suites . Therefore, the bow room is similar to the saloon in terms of its significance to the 2 suites that are smaller in size.

The Photo of Blenheim Palace, at Woodstock, Oxfordshire in England. Part of Britain Express Travel and Heritage Picture Library.

The pillar is situated outside the palace and provides additional beauty to the palace. It is mainly constructed using concrete materials and coated with paint. The pillar is a statue representing human figure as a sign of regard for humanity.

In conclusion, the essay has succeeded in taking a critical view of Blenheim Palace, in Woodstock, Oxfordshire. This baroque architecture made by John Vanbrugh and Nicholas Hawksmoor has been shown to be the unison of the two architects. The paper has also relied on the expansive information and knowledge concerning the ancient monuments conservation in terms of working with historical and art buildings. The paper has shown the essentials for conserving these ancient buildings, including their architecture.

Copy-pasting equals plagiarizing!

Mind that anyone can use our samples, which may result in plagiarism. Want to maintain academic integrity? Order a tailored paper from our experts.

Get my custom paper
3 hours
the shortest deadline
original, no AI
300 words
1 page = 300 words
This is a sample essay that should not be submitted as an actual assignment
Need an essay with no plagiarism?
Grab your 15% discount
with code: writers15
Related essays
1 (888) 456 - 4855