Posted on 08/22/2005 8:22:58 AM PDT by Republicanprofessor
He's in another league altogether . . . maybe in a league of his own. I'm just shagging fly balls in the Industrial Association (a rough league, if you remember it. I knew a fellow who was a Texas Ranger and an Industrial League umpire -- said the latter job was far more dangerous.)
You hardly know where to begin, but Thetis's neck is the obvious starting point . . .
That's because the proportions are wrong.
I was astonished when art historian and nun, Sister Wendy Beckett, postulated the idea of why Ingres distorted the lower backs of his nude women. I had thought the same thing for years. She thought it was because that was the part of the female body that he thought was most exciting. I agree: he's not into Rubenesque buttocks (who is nowadays?), but he did like that long, flat lower back.
What I'd also heard was they he was a bit dense and never really realized the extent of his distortions. But compared to Delacroix, he was quite a "realist."
I don't know Pascal's work, but Eakins is definitely a realist. I've never seen him called a classicist, although some of his works, like the swimming hole below, do have a classical feeling to it. He was aware of classicism, since he taught at the Penna Acad of Fine Art, but I see his work as too dark to be truly classical.
That's an interesting hypothesis. That Ingres peculiarity should be contrasted with Bouguereau's depiction of the Nymphs with Satyr.
That one on the bottom right is going to get a sunburn if she isn't careful!
Looks like she's already got the beginnings of one . . . a little pink around the edges, at least on my computer.
As the Frenchwoman said to the flasher, "But, M'sieur, won't you catch cold?"
Oh how I have missed our art appreciation threads this hot August summer. This thread I thought would bring out all the naysayers about modern art but instead it has brought a great discussion about classical art, hmmm. I love this place!
I can't believe I had never seen that "strategic" bit of cloth before. My eyes always go to the bottom of the girl on the "bottom."
And I know this painting well. I have seen it since I was little at the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, MA (a wonderful museum, with many Renoirs, Monets, Sargents, Homers, etc.). The photographic realism always blew me away: especially the "special effects" of the satyr. That was before I grew up and saw the sexism of the whole thing. (Yeah, I know; I'm not a strong feminist, but this does indeed portray women as only sex objects....)
Yes, I wonder why the naysayers didn't come out more. I was also expecting that. But any intelligent discussion of art is awesome, so I'm not complaining.
Thank you, Professor!
Well, I have tried to appreciate abstract art, but I was never able to cross-over. I do believe it is successful in its interpretation, because the purpose is to make the audience react. I find some of it disturbing, some of it soft, but mostly I find it makes me anxious and annoyed. Just my personal (learned, probably) taste is to seek art that brings me joy, makes me contemplate (which is why I like portraits), or appears to have somber or mysterious qualities. Abstract does not do any of that for me.
Some of the difficulty perhaps lies in definitions. I see abstraction as any work that moves away from complete realism to stress other qualities, like simplified shapes, brighter colors, messier brushwork, etc. I feel you might be talking about non-objective art, which has no basis in reality (and may see more distant and less mysterious).
See, now I like abstraction because I see it as more mysterious, often more joyful, and because it causes me to think within more levels of meaning.
For pure joy, I can't beat Matisse's cutouts. Because I see some plant-like forms, I don't see it as completely non-objective (although nearly so).
And Picasso can be very mysterious in his abstraction.
And I have always been entranced by Sean Scully's paintings: they are non-objective, but I think they are quite mysterious. They are beautifully painted, with layers of glowing color, and they are also richly textural and asymmetrically composed. The internet does not do them justice.
Wow! Quite a tour. I’ll definitely check out some of your other threads.
Thank you so much.
Now here is a ping....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.