Bouguereau, a picture analysis
Lauri Levanto
In art history class I had to write a picture analysis of
Bouguereau: Le ravissement de Psyche. See the URL above. Following is
a shortened translation:
"My first impression is that here is a really beautiful painting.
Among any collection of images it will meet the first criterion
of an artwork; A bypasser stops to look at it.
The painting represents two carnal figures raising up and right.
The background landscape is depicted lying far, leaving an impression
of flying heavenly high. In spite of the narrow framing
the picture has lots of air around the figures.
The light handling of the topic seems to point to rococco era,
together with the strong asymmetry of composition. The color sceme
could fit to rococco, too. The surroundings are however less emphasized
than in rococco paintings.
Even without knowing the story, it easy to see that the narrative
has been only an excuse to the artist. This is most clear
in the depiction of the female figure. Reference to classic
permits the display of nudity. Her hands cover the breast
as if shy while she has a faked orgasm on her face. Together with
proper draping this points to the Fin-de-siecle bourgeous
hypocricy.
The picture is from the era of the defeat of Salon de Paris.
Against that time frame one reads it in a novel way.
In this painting is focused the transition in French art, which
forced Cesanne and Matisse - a pupil of Bouguereau - to search for
something else. While in art history the internal expression
and external representation have rivalled, here the motif seems
to be displaying virtuoso.
I try first to look at it on the terms of the era. Painting
was appreciated art, but class-conscious and controlled by
a small circle. This circle selected what was presented
in Salon and so dictated the limits of their contemporary art.
The subject is adequate for the Salon. The classic narrative
allows commercial representation of nudity. The piece is
big ( 209x120 cm) and gorgeous. The painting technique is flawless.
Something subtle has been captured. The same virtuoso
technique is applied in the pompous drapery as well.
The flying mass of purple fabric behind the figures
is added mainly for the show, and to save the composition.
It has almost nothing to do with the depiction.
The draftmanship is excellent, but there is something
problematic how the pelvises meet. Is the male without
buttocks? The petty drawing works against the movement.
It is stopped like a flashlight photograph. Degas and Tolouse-Lautrec
surely regarded the movement as wrongly represented here.
In a Salon painting the accuracy in details was more appreciated
than truthfullness.
The brushstrokes are carefully faded. It is, however,
far from Trompe l'oel painting where the illusion
is created with proper use of light and shadow.
This piece is a typical atelier-painting.
This is evident in the skillful but inconsistent use
of light. The source of illumination is sunlight
emanating behind the heads and softened by clouds.
The figures are however illuminated by light
from upper left. That light is soft too but more intense
than the sunlight. This is done to give the flesh a
supernatural glow.
The male's grip around Psyche is special, as if
only her elbow that happens to rest on his groins
prevents her falling off.
This is the culmination of the French academic art.
The virtuosity of the layer painting technique is
the goal. Everything - the subject, colors and shadows
are subordinate to it. This is what Cesanne was
fighting against at St Victoire, when he searched for
real form with colors and shadows. The beauty that
has been searhed for centuries has here faded to lifeless,
pompous prettyness. All one has to do, is to look
two generations back, to Manet and Goya to see
the difference.
* * *
Our way to look pictures has changed in the past century.
Bouguererau's work seems lifeless, powerless. One expects
more drama in action. One wants to see people
having a character, having life. The language of this painting
is now property of the advertising business, in the domain
of artificial dreams. We expect art language to touch us,
to make a point.
A modern observer stumbles to some disturbing details.
The aerodynamically silly wings have been long
in the history of painting, and during that time
degenerated to nonsense decorations depicted here.
The flying is expessed in the legs, not with the wings.
The pillowing draping does not follow or enchance the movement,
It looks more like some airborn debris, clinging to the figures.
Bouguereau is significant even today, because the fundamentalistic
Art Renewal Movement has idolized him to be the Master of All Ages.
In this piece culminates their opposition to modern art.
What is in this picture then, that appeals
to a present day observer. Is it only beauty.
In my eyes the plentiness of fashion photography
has emptied this kind of representation in painting.
If something is done with such a cumbersome way as
painting with oils, mere beauty is not enough for
motivation.
Erik A. Mattila
> http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/ page1.html
>
> In art history class I had to write a picture analysis of
> Bouguereau: Le ravissement de Psyche. See the URL above. Following is
> a shortened translation:
Lauri, you missed your calling as an art critic. A very good essay, in
my opinion.
Did you ever read Walter Benjamin's essay "Edward Fuchs: Collector and
Historian"? I recommend it. On the first page is a very succinct
statement about historical materialism that seems to address your essay
in certain ways.
Benjamin admired Fuchs for several reasons. But it was his insight in
collecting and publishing volumes of European pornography as an object
of cultural study that was important - in lieu of the 'cultural
treasures' such as Bouguereau's works. The question is, what is a
better source to study the meaning of a culture: its "treasures," or its
marginalized, subversive forms?
Erik
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
k
Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3DDE93B5...@netti.fi...
Richard
That "analysis" was mostly bullshit. The idiot who wrote it is just a
weasle. Cezanne's paintings STINK. It's an utter joke to say he was
better at painting figures than bouguereau. But go ahead and believe
in nonsense and keep making crappy paintings.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Mani Deli
wrote:
I'll bet that if she ever shows her artwork here you will know exactly
why she has this opinion about B.
>http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/ page1.html
>
>In art history class I had to write a picture analysis of
>Bouguereau: Le ravissement de Psyche. See the URL above. Following is
>a shortened translation:
>
>"My first impression is that here is a really beautiful painting.
>Among any collection of images it will meet the first criterion
>of an artwork; A bypasser stops to look at it.
Shocking, we don't want any of that. Beauty, no sir! We want real
ugliness right away and a load of Artspeak to convince us of the
intellectual merits of that.
>The light handling of the topic seems to point to rococco era,
>together with the strong asymmetry of composition. The color sceme
>could fit to rococco, too. The surroundings are however less emphasized
>than in rococco paintings.
Its about as rococo as Mondrian.
>Even without knowing the story, it easy to see that the narrative
>has been only an excuse to the artist. This is most clear
>in the depiction of the female figure. Reference to classic
>permits the display of nudity. Her hands cover the breast
>as if shy while she has a faked orgasm on her face. Together with
>proper draping this points to the Fin-de-siecle bourgeous
>hypocricy.
It is unlike Picasso's sloppy assholes and naughty parts which
fascinate 20thC artzy fartzies.
>I try first to look at it on the terms of the era. Painting
>was appreciated art, but class-conscious and controlled by
>a small circle.
this is Modern art school BS.
> The painting technique is flawless.
We don't want any of that!
>Something subtle has been captured. The same virtuoso
>technique is applied in the pompous drapery as well.
>The flying mass of purple fabric behind the figures
>is added mainly for the show, and to save the composition.
>It has almost nothing to do with the depiction.
>
>The draftmanship is excellent,
None of that either!
>but there is something
>problematic how the pelvises meet. etc Is
Its OK if everything is schmiered and cockeyed as in Cezanne but if
the artist takes license with the subject and does it with excellent
"draftsmanship" and "technique." to give an enhanced impression of
beauty than its suspect.
>The brushstrokes are carefully faded. It is, however,
>far from Trompe l'oel painting where the illusion
>is created with proper use of light and shadow.
Is it supposed to be?
>This piece is a typical atelier-painting.
To someone who has never seen an original B.
>This is evident in the skillful but inconsistent use
>of light. The source of illumination is sunlight
>emanating behind the heads and softened by clouds.
>The figures are however illuminated by light
>from upper left. That light is soft too but more intense
>than the sunlight. This is done to give the flesh a
>supernatural glow.
"Supernatural glow," gee how shocking.
>This is the culmination of the French academic art.
>The virtuosity of the layer painting technique is
>the goal. Everything - the subject, colors and shadows
>are subordinate to it.
Most B.s work is alla prima. If you ever saw some original B.s you
will see a balance between impasto and a rather staccato blending. B's
blending is never smooth like Ingres.
>This is what Cesanne was
>fighting against at St Victoire, when he searched for
>real form with colors and shadows.
Cezanne couldn't draw he didn't know a damned thing about shadows and
how to achieve form. His composition is mediocre and his subject
matter utterly conventional. What made his work stand out was his
massive incompetence.
>The beauty that
>has been searhed for centuries has here faded to lifeless,
>pompous prettyness.
No, it is a beauty that especially irritates all who don't know their
craft. Doubly so, because the particular painting is reproduced all
over the place and its reproductions saught after in spite of a
century of artzy fartzy critical dismissal.
>All one has to do, is to look
>two generations back, to Manet and Goya to see
>the difference.
They, unlike Cezanne could draw.
>Our way to look pictures has changed in the past century.
How?
>Bouguererau's work seems lifeless, powerless. One expects
>more drama in action.
What's drama in action?
>One wants to see people
>having a character, having life.
Like Picasso's bathroom scrawl!
> The language of this painting
>is now property of the advertising business, in the domain
>of artificial dreams. We expect art language to touch us,
>to make a point.
Like Picasso's bathroom scrawl and Cezanne's schmiery nudes. And I
thought that advertising art was supposedly taken over by Mondrian.
>A modern observer stumbles to some disturbing details.
>The aerodynamically silly wings have been long
>in the history of painting, and during that time
>degenerated to nonsense decorations depicted here.
>The flying is expessed in the legs, not with the wings.
>The pillowing draping does not follow or enchance the movement,
>It looks more like some airborn debris, clinging to the figures.
I didn't know art required proper "aerodynamics."
>Bouguereau is significant even today, because the fundamentalistic
>Art Renewal Movement has idolized him to be the Master of All Ages.
Even though their names are relatively unknown , the best 19th century
artists are very popular and avidly collected in spite of a century of
neglect and critical denigration.
B. and others are all over the place and popular for the positive
reasons you mentioned; technique draftsmanship, beauty and subject
matter and artistic license. Hardly anyone among the population is
aware of Art Renewal opinions or that the thing even exists.
>In this piece culminates their opposition to modern art.
>What is in this picture then, that appeals
>to a present day observer. Is it only beauty.
Beauty again!
>In my eyes the plentiness of fashion photography
>has emptied this kind of representation in painting.
>If something is done with such a cumbersome way as
>painting with oils, mere beauty is not enough for
>motivation.
>
---but not in most of the public's opinion.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
his big "B" graphic. Afraid the playboy graphic will look better.
k
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:i360uu0qsijfu7col...@4ax.com...
Mani Deli
>Well if it isn't mani the coward. Afraid to put a playboy graphic up beside
>his big "B" graphic. Afraid the playboy graphic will look better.
>
Nothing to say as usual o'connor!
We know you're' a slum bunny Keith but Please! Please, do yourself a
favor. Try to be creative. Just try to add some Artspeak zest to your
insults. It might just impress those who agree with you.
Even a Buttero type like Marilyn is creative enough to call me Mrs.
Haversham in order to impress us that she once read Dickens and to
impress me of the fact that she can read at all. Try to put a similar
effort into your insults.
As Marilyn our favorite yente wisely proclaimed "Fuck off, Keith,
you pompous-ass-non-artist-hobbyist-jerk-resident-blow-hard."
And she just blew kisses at Fox's latest.
Lauri Levanto
The reason I published my essay here was that
I expected ARC fans to prove me wrong
point by point.
Both Richard and Mani disappointed me
-lauri
www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
You chauvunist pig. Take a hint
of the self-portrait on the first page
-lauri
Mani Deli wrote:
>
> I'll bet that if she ever shows her artwork here you will know exactly
> why she has this opinion about B.
>
> Shocking, we don't want any of that. Beauty, no sir! We want real
> ugliness right away and a load of Artspeak to convince us of the
> intellectual merits of that.
> Isn't that another artspeak? Mani
>
> >The light handling of the topic seems to point to rococco era,
> >together with the strong asymmetry of composition. The color sceme
> >could fit to rococco, too. The surroundings are however less emphasized
> >than in rococco paintings.
>
> Its about as rococo as Mondrian.
I expected that you could tell the difference between rococo and B!
Seems like you failed.
> >but there is something
> >problematic how the pelvises meet. etc Is
>
> Its OK if everything is schmiered and cockeyed as in Cezanne but if
> the artist takes license with the subject and does it with excellent
> "draftsmanship" and "technique." to give an enhanced impression of
> beauty than its suspect.
>
Mani, you really think artistic licence equals neglicence of anatomy?
>
> >This piece is a typical atelier-painting.
>
> To someone who has never seen an original B.
>
I have never seen this one in original, but I have some original B.
You think it was painted outdoors, from real life?
>
> >This is evident in the skillful but inconsistent use
> >of light. The source of illumination is sunlight
> >emanating behind the heads and softened by clouds.
> >The figures are however illuminated by light
> >from upper left. That light is soft too but more intense
> >than the sunlight. This is done to give the flesh a
> >supernatural glow.
>
> >This is the culmination of the French academic art.
> >The virtuosity of the layer painting technique is
> >the goal. Everything - the subject, colors and shadows
> >are subordinate to it.
>
> Most B.s work is alla prima. If you ever saw some original B.s you
> will see a balance between impasto and a rather staccato blending. B's
> blending is never smooth like Ingres.
Finally a piece of information.
Thanks, Mani
>
> No, it is a beauty that especially irritates all who don't know their
> craft. Doubly so, because the particular painting is reproduced all
> over the place and its reproductions saught after in spite of a
> century of artzy fartzy critical dismissal.
Like Keith mentioned, the editions compete with Playboy centerfolds.
There is not only painting by numbers. You have introduced
art criticism by numbers.
>
>
> I didn't know art required proper "aerodynamics."
Art doesn't, "realism" does.
>
> B. and others are all over the place and popular for the positive
> reasons you mentioned; technique draftsmanship, beauty and subject
> matter and artistic license. Hardly anyone among the population is
> aware of Art Renewal opinions or that the thing even exists.
>
I did read ARC a lot for the essay. That was my main source.
>
>
>
> >In my eyes the plentiness of fashion photography
> >has emptied this kind of representation in painting.
> >If something is done with such a cumbersome way as
> >painting with oils, mere beauty is not enough for
> >motivation.
> >
> ---but not in most of the public's opinion.
>
>
> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities
then don't read Mani
>
Richard
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:08:25 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>Cezanne couldn't draw he didn't know a damned thing about shadows and
>how to achieve form. His composition is mediocre and his subject
>matter utterly conventional. What made his work stand out was his
>massive incompetence.
Brilliant summary, Mani! I agree with every word. I've seen many of
Cezanne's paintings. He sucks ASS!!!
G*rd*n
| http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/ page1.html
| ...
| Art Renewal Movement has idolized him to be the Master of All Ages.
| In this piece culminates their opposition to modern art.
| What is in this picture then, that appeals
| to a present day observer. Is it only beauty.
| In my eyes the plentiness of fashion photography
| has emptied this kind of representation in painting.
| If something is done with such a cumbersome way as
| painting with oils, mere beauty is not enough for
| motivation.
Given some of the inconsistencies of the lighting, modeling,
and so forth, I believe it would be most productive to treat
this work as a piece of surrealism -- a dreamlike image which
represents a seriously skewed and yet texturally faithful
vision of the "real world", something not obliged to put
its feet on the ground, so to speak -- literally or
figuratively.
However, the billowing purple garment gives free exercise for
an excursion into pure form which enables the painter to juice
up the formal values of the work without having to go through
some elaborate ritual of arranged objects, and the disposition
of cloth calls attention to the figures' genitals in a peek-a-boo
manner worthy of the best cheesecake; and so I get the idea that
besides the earnest surrealist there is a Modernist cynically
cracking jokes just offstage. The painting subverts itself,
but very prettily.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
Lauri Levanto
What it has to do with the subject whether Cesanne could draw or not.
As I pointed out, Cesanne could see through the faux prettyness,
and was searching for something better.
It is wishfull thinking that Cesanne, Vincent and impressionists
were all mislead by artspeak - which was invented almost hundread years
later.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
abuse your comments in my essay.
Thanks anyway
-lauri
G*rd*n
| I'm awfully sorry it is too late to
| abuse your comments in my essay.
| Thanks anyway
Well, I thank you for your calling my attention to this
particular painting, which I had not really looked at very
carefully before. Bouguereau is an interesting painter and
I am not at all surprised that his work has been somewhat
resuscitated in postmodernity.
John Ng
Before I go further, I must say that Psyche et L'Amour is only a
mediocre Bouguereau painting. Why it is more popular than his other
works, I don't know.
> The light handling of the topic seems to point to rococco era,
> together with the strong asymmetry of composition. The color sceme
> could fit to rococco, too.
Yes, this is as true... as true as a Rococco fitting into a
Renaissance... they have the same colour scheme too. I don't think
you understand Rococco too well.
> Even without knowing the story, it easy to see that the narrative
> has been only an excuse to the artist.... Reference to classic
> permits the display of nudity
True isnt it. And true as well for Rubens and all the artists that
precede him.
> In this painting is focused the transition in French art, which
> forced Cesanne and Matisse - a pupil of Bouguereau - to search for
> something else.
Maybe quite so. Cezanne and Matisse would have known that they are at
the end of the road and going nowhere. They are such bad painters so
obviously they would have to come up with something new or they
wouldn't be able to bring home the bacon.
> The flying mass of purple fabric behind the figures
> is added mainly for the show, and to save the composition.
> It has almost nothing to do with the depiction.
Composition as to your standard? Drapery and seemingly unassociated
objects is exactly what I try very hard to introduce. This adds a
wholeness and beauty to the composition just like wearing jewellry --
a lady like you should know these things -- for beautification or do
you never wear them?
> The draftmanship is excellent, but there is something
> problematic how the pelvises meet. Is the male without
> buttocks?
Maybe I am not good enough to see it, but is there really something
wrong? Even so, you are comparing Bouguereau with a camera. That is
the problem with good art... there is a benchmark. Maybe you are
right… he should stick to Picasso or Matisse art which are more
accurate.
> In a Salon painting the accuracy in details was more appreciated
> than truthfullness.
Exactly... idealization not convention... this should be the
philosophy of today's art. Art is not about real every day boring
life.
> The male's grip around Psyche is special, as if
> only her elbow that happens to rest on his groins
> prevents her falling off.
Idealization not convention.
> Our way to look pictures has changed in the past century.
> Bouguererau's work seems lifeless, powerless. One expects
> more drama in action. One wants to see people
> having a character, having life.
Bouguereau's painting is full of life, in fact more real than real.
However, I agree that his figures tend to have no expression. This is
the problem with having real model because you can expect the model to
hold his or her grin for hours (this is also the reason why Bouguereau
couldn't have painted from photograph). The cheapest models is
imagination like Matisse who paints not what he sees!!!
> The aerodynamically silly wings have been long
> in the history of painting, and during that time
> degenerated to nonsense decorations depicted here.
You are only reproducing what people have said about Bouguereau's
work. You are taking only one painting and writing about his life.
You make a wonderful modern art critic... be very bias.
> In my eyes the plentiness of fashion photography
> has emptied this kind of representation in painting.
Yeah, like plenty of cartoon series on TV and children’s art has
"emptied the kind of representation" found in Matisse, Picasso and
Kadinsky. Wake up, look at the real thing as a painting, not the
painting as a photograph.
Very arty review. Keep up the sour grapes. :-)
John Ng
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Updated 25Nov2002
John Ng
> The reason I published my essay here was that
> I expected ARC fans to prove me wrong
> point by point.
>
> Both Richard and Mani disappointed me
Make sure you read my message. Note that you missed describing the
general purple look of the painting and I missed telling you that in
your face.
I understand you did a pretty good job of wording your misguided
message such that it outraged some people. But try to outdo the
arty-farty critics by having some substance.
Lauri Levanto
John Ng:
> Before I go further, I must say that Psyche et L'Amour is only a
> mediocre Bouguereau painting. Why it is more popular than his other
> works, I don't know.
lauri2:
Unfortunately my rask was to write about this painting.
What does it tell that ARC has chosen a not-so-good piece on the front page.
Is it because it soovertly commercial, calculated to titillate people?
John:
> You are only reproducing what people have said about Bouguereau's
> work. You are taking only one painting and writing about his life.
lauri:
In that essay I didn't write a word about his life.
Now you mentioned it, he was so commecial, he claimed that
it costed him 5 frangs to stop ainting and pee.
lauri1 >> The light handling of the topic seems to point to rococco era,
John > Yes, this is as true... as true as a Rococco fitting into a
Renaissance... they have the same colour scheme too.
lauri2:I see a side trend in art; from renaissance, thru barocque (mannierism) and rococo
leading
to more and more gallantry, superficial prettiness until with B! the world got enough.
The main stream seams fortunately flow elsewhere.
John: > I don't think
you understand Rococco too well.
lauri2: I know rococo mainly from architectur, music and furniture.
lauri1 >> Even without knowing the story, it easy to see that the narrative
> has been only an excuse to the artist
John: > True isnt it. And true as well for Rubens and all the artists that
precede him.
lauri2:Goya needed no excuse for Nude Maja.
>> In this painting is focused the transition in French art, which
>> forced Cesanne and Matisse - a pupil of Bouguereau - to search for
>> something else.
John: > Cezanne and Matisse ...are such bad painters so
>obviously they would have to come up with something new or they
>wouldn't be able to bring home the bacon.
lauri2:
As you can read from any art history, the novelty was not appreciated
at that time. It is more or less a byproduct of
modern mass media and star cult.
lauri1: >> The flying mass of purple fabric has almost
>>nothing to do with the depiction.
John:
> ...a lady like you should know these things -- for beautification or do
> you never wear them?
> I never wear jevelry, not even a watch. And I really hope I never meet
a past-middle age male lady like me :-) In my artwork I have a ballast
of fucntionalism.
John> Even so, you are comparing Bouguereau with a camera.
lauri2:I was not comparing to a camera, as I replied to Mani, I was comparing
to anatomy.
lauri2:
Why on earth you and Mani insert Picasso everywhere?
At least when you lack an argument.
> In a Salon painting the accuracy in details was more appreciated
> than truthfullness.
Exactly... idealization not convention... this should be the
philosophy of today's art. Art is not about real every day boring
life.
How is accuracy in details, excluding anatomy and wings idealisation?
Isn't the drapery -as G*rd*n mentioned- an example of conventionalism?
For me idealisation has mo a Platonic sense - to get into the essence,
avoid beautification.
> Our way to look pictures has changed in the past century.
> Bouguererau's work seems lifeless, powerless. One expects
> more drama in action. One wants to see people
> having a character, having life.
lauri2:
mani asked about drama in the action. If he looks at the Seated Scribe
( Egypt 2400 b.C. he can see what I mean.
John: >Bouguereau's painting is full of life, in fact more real than real.
lauri: Compare that to Botticelli: The Bith of Venus. It has a similar pair of
flying figures, with character, with movement, flying with wings, not
jumping like Superman.
proceed with Poussin's Cephalus and Aurora
John:>>However, I agree that his figures tend to have no expression.
Lauri: Did you miss the faked orgasm on her face?
The Gothic art has strong expressions, One does not need a model,
all one needs is to have something to express.
john: > You are only reproducing what people have said about Bouguereau's
> work.
lauri2:He is not even mentioned in any of my art history books.
I had to read carefully the ARC pages, my only source.
John: > Wake up, look at the real thing as a painting, not the
painting as a photograph.
lauri2: So you have read your Greenberg? He had a lot of say about a
painting as a painting.
Thanks to You (and G*rd*n). Unlike the other two, you tried
to contribute to the discussion.
-lauri
John Ng
> What does it tell that ARC has chosen a not-so-good piece on the front page.
> Is it because it soovertly commercial, calculated to titillate people?
Do you mean, "to titillate you"? Are you that easy to titillate
because I surely don't get turned on? You sound offended by nudity,
if that is so, I think you are right to look only at abstract art.
Please don't look at Botticelli or Jacques David (nude men fighting a
war???) as you might come off with an orgasm. You took this painting
to review as it suits your biased bile but I guess that is OK.
> lauri2:I see a side trend in art; from renaissance, thru barocque
>(mannierism) and rococo leading to more and more gallantry,
superficial
> prettiness until with B! the world got enough.
Prettiness of Bouguereau’s art... I agree :-J.
So you are saying that Renaissance art is superficial and petty as
well, along with all art that deals with sensuality and enjoyment?
Well, if Mozart insults your intelligence, than I can't argue with
that.
> The main stream seams fortunately flow elsewhere.
Not for long Lauri, your nightmare is about to begin. Surely and
steadily, Bouguereau is returning from the brink (like Freddy).
> John: > I don't think you understand Rococco too well.
> lauri2: I know rococo mainly from architectur, music and furniture.
But you really don’t seem to understand Rococo when you said
"The light handling of the topic seems to point to rococco era,
together with the strong asymmetry of composition". In what way is
the lighting pointing to Rococo? So obviously Henri Matisse "Le luxe
I" is also pointing to Rococo as it is asymmetrical?
http://www.matissepicasso.com/matissepicasso.us/02confrontations/page01.html
> lauri2:Goya needed no excuse for Nude Maja.
Dirty man this Goya. No pretext... just plain rude nude.
> As you can read from any art history, the novelty was not appreciated
> at that time. It is more or less a byproduct of
> modern mass media and star cult.
Yeah, but they had to start something new or else their untalented
hands would have created nothing either. At least if they do
something new, luck might come along (alas too late -- good for them
-- Bouguereau made millions during his lifetime).
> John:
> > ...a lady like you should know these things -- for beautification or do
> > you never wear them?
>
> > I never wear jevelry, not even a watch. And I really hope I never meet
> a past-middle age male lady like me :-) In my artwork I have a ballast
> of fucntionalism.
I guess jewelry is incongruent when you are not looking for beauty.
> John: >Bouguereau's painting is full of life, in fact more real than real.
> lauri: Compare that to Botticelli: The Bith of Venus. It has a similar pair of
> flying figures, with character, with movement, flying with wings, not
> jumping like Superman.
> proceed with Poussin's Cephalus and Aurora
(Botticelli!!! Don't mention that name. Are you getting an orgasm
now? Venus is so provokative don't you think -- what on earth is
Botticelli trying to do with this pretext for nudity -- burn the
painting).
Botticelli’s Venus levitates. Anyway, I really don't see the
Bouguereau's figures as jumping. It is just another view. Perhaps
you are trying hard to pick on the painting... nice try but I wouldn't
agree.
> Thanks to You (and G*rd*n). Unlike the other two, you tried
> to contribute to the discussion.
Welcome. It would be nice to hear you talk about "Nymphes et Satyre".
Mani Deli
major 19th century academic painter.
Pick out an artist who could draw on a master level whose skill and
ability to create complexity is immediately obvious.
Complain, if strikes you as beautiful and technically superior.
Complain when they distorted anything.
If its nudes complain that they are erotic.
Complain if there is even a hint of telling a story; that's evil
illustration
Complain that it looks smooth and there is no presence of flat looking
schmier.
Complain if the artist was highly successful.
For extra added effect equate anyone who happens to like these works
with bourgeois philistines and suggest that they are fascists who
likes Hitler
All modern academic art students should, together with the required
Artspeak, learn to complain about the 19th cent academic art by seeing
about three slides and listening to warnings about 19th c. academic
evil. Particular attention should be paid to the lurking dangers of
illustration, kitsch, commercial in politically correct art history
courses.
You must learn to never be fooled into being impressed by fine
draftsmanship, craftsmanship, technique and beautiful subject matter.
You might just get the impression that you would like to do something
like that and then where would all those incompetent art teachers end
up?
Mani Deli
>A modern observer stumbles to some disturbing details.
>The aerodynamically silly wings have been long
>in the history of painting, and during that time
>degenerated to nonsense decorations depicted here.
Lauri is very modest about her scientific sensitivity as she credits
"any modern observer " with this subtle observation.
>The flying is expessed in the legs, not with the wings.
Aerodynamically impossible I presume!
I suggest that any classical painting which shows a person flying
around without the benefit of large wings should, on the basis of
Lauri's brilliant aerodynamic observations, have a large propeller
added on. Preferably coming out of the ass, unless you consider jet
propulsion.
It is unfortunate that most art students don't possess the skill
necessary to make this important addition.
Lauri Levanto
Mani Deli wrote:
> Lauri Levanto (Bouguereau and aerodynamics expert) wrote:
>
> >A modern observer stumbles to some disturbing details.
> >The aerodynamically silly wings have been long
> >in the history of painting, and during that time
> >degenerated to nonsense decorations depicted here.
>
> Lauri is very modest about her scientific sensitivity as she credits
> "any modern observer " with this subtle observation.
>
> >The flying is expessed in the legs, not with the wings.
>
> Aerodynamically impossible I presume!
>
> I suggest that any classical painting which shows a person flying
> around without the benefit of large wings should, on the basis of
> Lauri's brilliant aerodynamic observations, have a large propeller
> added on. Preferably coming out of the ass, unless you consider jet
> propulsion.
When I see a picture of a fly or bee, I get an impression of a buzzing flight.
When I see a picture of a seagull, I get an impression of majestetic soaring.
* * *
For what reason the advocates of romantic beauty like Mrs. Deli
accompany it with such profane language?
-lauri
Erik A. Mattila
He is as fluent in anal fetish issues as he is challenged by Finnish
gender issues:-)
Erkki
chris
below....Our era has often been termed"The Age of Resentment", and I think
that Lauri's 'paper' is a perfect example of why this is so...
Chris
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:rdt5uu425h26lbehr...@4ax.com...
Richard
>Lauri Levanto (Bouguereau and aerodynamics expert) wrote:
>
>>A modern observer stumbles to some disturbing details.
>>The aerodynamically silly wings have been long
>>in the history of painting, and during that time
>>degenerated to nonsense decorations depicted here.
Geeze. Bouguereaus wings are beautiful and that's all they need to be.
It's your commentary that is silly. Maybe you're jealous of people who
have TALENT!!! Maybe your artistic ability is degenerated into
nonsense. Yep.
Richard
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:38:51 GMT, "chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca>
wrote:
For people with an attitude like that, the final and biggest joke is
on them, because they end up with little or no artistic skills and
they are only pretending to be artists. They are just kidding
themselves. But they may keep kidding themselves for an entire
lifetime. Perhaps abstract art is the refuge of the untalented. They
are still not denying ME from knowing what the truth is and from
acquiring substantial skills.
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Lauri Levanto wrote:
>> For what reason the advocates of romantic beauty like Mrs. Deli
>> accompany it with such profane language?
>>
>> -lauri
>
>He is as fluent in anal fetish issues as he is challenged by Finnish
>gender issues:-)
>
Yes I actually think of Finnish gender issues about half as much as
you do.
I hope you always skipped the shockingly anal stuff in all the comics
you like. I also advise you to avoid modern art galleries as you might
just run into one with paintings with shit dripping off the canvas.
Perhaps I should add a parental warning that an ass etc. might be
mentioned in my message so that sensitive souls like you, Lauri and
o'conner may avoid these shocking revelations.
On the other hand, it might have the opposite effect on Fox who could
be inspired to add some of his enlightening psychobabble for the group
to peruse.
At least Marilyn, who claims to never read my messqages, had no
comment on this shocking matter. She did send me a "fuck you". as
criticism of my review of Fox's masterpieces. I hope both you and
Lauri managed to avoid this "profane language" which might also be
taken as an American gender issue.
Erik A. Mattila
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 01:46:32 -0800, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Lauri Levanto wrote:
>
>
>>>For what reason the advocates of romantic beauty like Mrs. Deli
>>>accompany it with such profane language?
>>>
>>>-lauri
>>
>>He is as fluent in anal fetish issues as he is challenged by Finnish
>>gender issues:-)
>>
>
> Yes I actually think of Finnish gender issues about half as much as
> you do.
>
> I hope you always skipped the shockingly anal stuff in all the comics
> you like. I also advise you to avoid modern art galleries as you might
> just run into one with paintings with shit dripping off the canvas.
But you're jumping to conclusions, Mani. I fully support your right to
the fetish of your choice. The way I see it, it is an unalienable human
right.
> Perhaps I should add a parental warning that an ass etc. might be
> mentioned in my message so that sensitive souls like you, Lauri and
> o'conner may avoid these shocking revelations.
Revelations? You were fantasizing about propellers sticking out of a
persons ass. How is that a "revelation."
> On the other hand, it might have the opposite effect on Fox who could
> be inspired to add some of his enlightening psychobabble for the group
> to peruse.
Not me. I would use Marxian econobable.
> At least Marilyn, who claims to never read my messqages, had no
> comment on this shocking matter. She did send me a "fuck you". as
> criticism of my review of Fox's masterpieces. I hope both you and
> Lauri managed to avoid this "profane language" which might also be
> taken as an American gender issue.
Heehehehheh.
Erik
John Ng
didn't have a photo of Botticelli's in front of me when I replied
yesterday. Now I have, and oh boy!!!
Botticelli's Wind (but with wing) DRIFTs at one mile an hour so every
slowly towards the shore. Bouguereau's dances in the sky like two
ballerinas.
People, I need your opinion on this one... am I right or Lauri who
said that Botticelli's looks as if it is actually flying while
Bouguereau's look as if it is jumping (like gymnasts).
Roob
means you haven't done enough reading about the subject. not to diss
rococo, but bougeureau is definitely more rococo than any matisse.
it's just an obvious fact.
"Art is coming face to face with yourself. That's what's wrong with
Benton. He came face to face with Michelangelo--and he lost."
-Jackson Pollock
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote in message news:<d1bb492a.02112...@posting.google.com>...
augart
> didn't have a photo of Botticelli's in front of me when I replied
> yesterday. Now I have, and oh boy!!!
They copulate when they are flying! Try to imitate that!
> People, I need your opinion on this one... am I right or Lauri who
> said that Botticelli's looks as if it is actually flying while
> Bouguereau's look as if it is jumping (like gymnasts).
They look as if they had a bad case of constipation.
> John Ng
> FART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
Lauri Levanto
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
most of Mani's postings are repeating ad nauseam or simply pejorative.
Sometimes he *has contributed* with soberly expressed opinions.
Whenever I have seen one, I have replied with thans,
even if I disagree with the opinions.
-lauri
>
Mani Deli
>I told Mani to 'fuck off' not 'fuck you.' He IS getting senile,
>can't even read.
I apologize for this grave error.
I'm must be getting senile as you can tell by not reading my messages.
I was contemplating whether you might get a replacement for your
tight panties for Christmas at the moment and failed to read your
comment exactly as written. I'll try not to skim your long messages
next time.
>I was responding to the header, believe me I didn't read
>the crap he wrote. Why bother, Mani hasn't
>had a new idea since he got kicked out of art school.
Always glad to hear your important opinions on matters which you
haven't read about.
Roob
Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message news:<3DE48D60...@netti.fi>...
Mani Deli
wrote:
>When you spell rococo like "rococco" a bunch of times, it obviously
>means you haven't done enough reading about the subject. not to diss
>rococo, but bougeureau is definitely more rococo than any matisse.
>it's just an obvious fact.
And Matisse is about five times as stupid as Picasso.
>
>"Art is coming face to face with yourself. That's what's wrong with
>Benton. He came face to face with Michelangelo--and he lost."
>-Jackson Pollock
>
And Pollock came face to face with booze and he lost.
John Ng
> rococo, but bougeureau is definitely more rococo than any matisse.
> it's just an obvious fact.
What idiotic statement is this? How is Bouguereau more Rococo then Matisse?
augart
> > it's just an obvious fact.
>
> What idiotic statement is this? How is Bouguereau more Rococo then Matisse?
I would like to add that Bouguereau is only more rococo then Matisse
but he is not as baroque as J.Pollock. Bouguereau is also less
happening than Allan Kaprow. One can also assume that Bouguereau is
less fauve then Matisse. Some art critiques point out that Bouguereau
was a complete failure when it came to cubism and he could not even
grasp the tenets of impressionism. We can also be quite certain that
Bouguereau had nothing to do with Duchamp and Dada cohorts. He can
also be sure that he had never heard about abstract art. He was also
unaware about syphilis and other diseases ravaging his contemporaries.
He also didn't notice the industrial revolution. It appears that he
was not well informed about the world he lived in. But ignorence is a
bliss and he lived happily for 80 years.
John Ng
> He can also be sure that he had never heard about abstract art
I disagree. Bouguereau painted ONLY abstract art, but because he was
such a bad painter, they all turned out the way we see them today. He
also preceeded Picasso in Cubism as, under the microscope into that
pigments level, there lies the proof that his cubes were very tiny
indeed.
Wrong on two counts there. You better buck up on your art history!
augart
>
> > He can also be sure that he had never heard about abstract art
>
> I disagree. Bouguereau painted ONLY abstract art, but because he was
> such a bad painter, they all turned out the way we see them today. He
> also preceeded Picasso in Cubism as, under the microscope into that
> pigments level, there lies the proof that his cubes were very tiny
> indeed.
All painters are abstract artists only some try to lie about it and of course
Bouguereau was an abstract painter only he didn't have balls enough to be
honest about it.