To: dsc
What do you disagree with? It is true that Bouguereau is underappreciated, but the feminine beauty that he depicts is but an aspect of truth. His art is a good example of sexualized beauty leading away from larger truths. Bouguereau wouldn't paint this:
The Gleaners
Jean-Francois Millet
Musee d’Orsay
46 posted on
02/20/2008 7:44:23 AM PST by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: annalex
Bouguereau is underappreciated, but the feminine beauty that he depicts is but an aspect of truth. His art is a good example of sexualized beauty leading away from larger truths.Very insightful. It's true that men like to look at pretty women - especially if there's an "artistic" excuse to show the women partly or totally undressed - but it's not exactly a deep truth!
48 posted on
02/20/2008 7:56:54 AM PST by
Tax-chick
(If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't shoot! It might be a lemur!)
To: annalex
“What do you disagree with?”
That ugliness qualifies as art simply because someone thinks it conveys a truth.
That is propaganda, not art.
63 posted on
02/20/2008 9:42:04 AM PST by
dsc
To: annalex
“Bouguereau wouldn’t paint this: “
No, he wouldn’t paint a Millet, but he did paint The First Mourning, The Flagellation of Christ, Dante and Virgil in Hell, Little Beggars, and a magnificent Pieta.
There are “larger truths” in Bouguereau, but one has to look.
65 posted on
02/20/2008 10:11:52 AM PST by
dsc
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson