The Minefield Of The Nude
cypher
At the moment there is major exhibition of portraits and nudes by
Modigliani in London, and I have read every review by critics on the
exhibition with acute interest. Modigliani has been one of my all time
hero's since the age of 16. Quite apart from his dramatic debauched
life, his love of poetry and philosophy, I have loved his art. I have
only seen a handful of his paintings in various galleries around the
world. But never a major retrospective. But those individual paintings
I have seen are scared on my memory and thrilled me with their beauty,
colour, rich paint and elegance. So I was shocked by the dismissal of
his art by most of the critics, who called his work weak, over
stylized, and pornographic. His nudes - which I find truly beautiful
and not at all sexual, came in for the greatest amount of criticism.
Yes his nudes are smoldering erotic - yes they seem to have a sleepy
post-coital sensuality - but I don't see them as exploitative or
abusive. I feel they are poems to love in paint made by a man who
loved women and who women loved. On the other hand I must say that I
cannot condone his violence towards his lovers when drunk! But it
seemed that the greatest crime Modigliani committed was to retain a
love for the old masters, and the figure in a century when many artists
escaped into abstraction and conceptualism.
As I thought about it I was struck by how often I had read vicious
reviews of artists who painted the nude - for example Picasso, Schiele,
Freud, Saville. And many of these vicious reviews did not just come
from reactionary Feminists (in fact women on the whole in my experience
are far more comfortable with the nude and the sexual than men and it
is no coincidence that many of the greatest writers on the nude, the
erotic and even the pornographic have been women).
The fact of the matter is - the nude in art is a minefield! I can count
on one hand the number of critics who have openly acknowledged the
sexiness of a nude. In fact the nude, the erotic and the pornographic
are subjects of intense disgust for most art critics. Remember in many
ways the critic is more of a politician and social mover than an
artist. They seek respect and power through their 'refined taste and
judgment.' So much of what they write is political not personal. The
last thing they want is to let people know their dirty little sexual
peccadillo's. The artist on the other hand - if they are great artists
- expose to the world their inner soul. It might so happen that their
inner sould is perverted, or cruel or misogynistic - but that's the
risk the artist takes. It is not a risk the critic ever makes. This is
not the case for the art lover or collector. But it is a particular
problem for the public critic who holds a position of authority and
respect. The nude and the sexual should in theory be subjects that
bring people together in celebration of the human, but in fact the
opposite is the case. Quite apart from the major criticisms of the nude
- misogyny, abuse of power, voyeurism, the male gaze, the
objectification of the female or male body, homophobia, perversion -
there are other many subtle criticisms centered around what is
considered - beautiful, uplifting, or just plain normal.
In a sense this should not be surprising, because the human subject
provokes human interpretations. Depending upon the viewer almost any
reading is possible of a nude. This is what makes the nude quite the
most difficult of subjects. Because as humans, we know human body's far
more intimately that any other subject moreover we have far more
intellectual and emotional responses to the nude that we simple cannot
summon for a picture of a landscape or still life. The nude even in
photograph, is never just a neutral subject and the part of the artist
is never just artistic. Every artist brings different feelings to bear
on the subject. Often peoples disgust with a nude is not about the nude
- but how it has been seen an interpreted by the artist.
The beauty of the history of art is the sheer variety of
interpretations of the nude - both male and female. Starting with the
beautiful fat Venus of Wilendorf - which can be read as misogynistic
and cruel, or fantastic and celebratory of women. The pencil thin nudes
of Cranach which are both voyeuristic and strangely reminiscent of all
those present day anorexic celebrities. Then there are those beautiful
full figure Ruben women, which thrill me but disgust many today simply
because we cannot believe people ever thought this voluptuousness
attractive. Italian art is filled with elegant athletic and angelic
female nudes, strapping virile male warriors. And in the last century
the nude was dismembered by artists like Picasso and Bacon, coldly
anylised by Freud or sexualised by Schiele and Modigliani.
Because the nude is so explosive, divisive not to mention technically
difficult a subject - it is often avoided in art today. This is a great
pity. Because in a world glutted with fashion, glamor, soft-core and
hard core images of the body (mostly female bodies) art should try to
intellectually and emotionally help us to understand our responses to
these images. But art flees in terror. Sex and the nude might sell
everywhere else in the media world - but it does not sell in the art
world. So what we have is a sea of images which exploit or basic
instincts of lust, vanity, narcissism, self-loathing, or inadequacy but
which offer us no mental escape. Like Pavlovian dogs see respond to the
triggers that advertisers and pornographers know so well how to pull,
but we cannot understand what makes us respond. Weather it is a young
woman who thinks she is fat, being made to hate herself even more
because of the images of fashion, or the young man being made to buy
more and more porn because he is hooked on the high it produces we are
all in a way enslaved. I personally don't think art is enslaving - I
think it is liberating and one of the greatest ways to find
enlightenment. Which is why it is so shocking to see most art alienate
us even more with abstractions and theories rather than real human
stories and emotion.
Jewel Aye
cyp...@thepanicartist.com says...
>
>www.thepanicartist.com
>
>At the moment there is major exhibition of portraits and nudes by
>Modigliani in London, and I have read every review by critics on the
>exhibition with acute interest. Modigliani has been one of my all time
>hero's since the age of 16. Quite apart from his dramatic debauched
>life, his love of poetry and philosophy, I have loved his art. I have
>only seen a handful of his paintings in various galleries around the
>world. But never a major retrospective. But those individual paintings
>I have seen are scared on my memory and thrilled me with their beauty,
>colour, rich paint and elegance. So I was shocked by the dismissal of
>his art by most of the critics, who called his work weak, over
>stylized, and pornographic. His nudes - which I find truly beautiful
>and not at all sexual, came in for the greatest amount of criticism.
>Yes his nudes are smoldering erotic - yes they seem to have a sleepy
>post-coital sensuality - but I don't see them as exploitative or
>abusive. I feel they are poems to love in paint made by a man who
>loved women and who women loved. On the other hand I must say that I
>cannot condone his violence towards his lovers when drunk! But it
>seemed that the greatest crime Modigliani committed was to retain a
>love for the old masters, and the figure in a century when many artists
>escaped into abstraction and conceptualism.
STOP HERE and maybe someone will read this. The rest of
your essay is simply regurgitation of already tired and
time-worn opinions regarding nudity in the arts.
CB
The Times, for example, has quite an intelligent review of the show:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2101-2256967,00.html
as does the telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/07/04/bamod04.xml&sSheet=/arts/2006/07/04/ixtop.html
Even Bloomberg (the business newswire) is relatively tame:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aPJgYEZR4GxU&refer=
(the links may break in posting as they are long, if so make sure to paste
the whole thing into the address bar)
These are just the first few hits from a google news search on the show;
most of the others are similar.
As for nudes, the West has been relatively open about their acceptance, at
least under somewhat strict guidelines; for example if they are painted in a
commercial enough manner not to upset the moral applecart, but without being
glaringly tacky. So Manet came under fire for portraying Victorine Muerent
in "Olympia" because of the strength of the painting and the pose which
clearly suggested that she was anything but a submissive object, while
Cabanel received criticism from the opposite direction for excessively
cloying images like "The Birth of Venus". But most nudes from the Salon
period were accepted in their time, and ultimately forgotten. But nudes in
general will come under stronger criticism than most other styles simply
because the human visual system is more tuned to the interpretation of the
figure than any other subject; small inconsistencies in a nude figure can
destroy the effect of the work much faster than those in a landscape or
still life, or even a genre piece.
As for the artists you mention - the first three were always under fire
anyway because they challenged the canon of Western art, and the nudes were
just a part of that. Certainly Picasso & Freud are now well accepted (except
perhaps by the most dogmatic of critics, but who reads those anyway?);
Scheile is one of my favourites, and those critics that go after him tend to
focus on his behaviour (old story isn't it) rather than his art, they tend
to be critics with a moral drum to beat, rather than critics trying to
contribute to the development of art. So why bother with them? They are only
influential among people who aren't interested in art anyway.. (FWIW, I find
Saville pretty forgettable, and Picasso's erotic works more or less an
adolescent scrawl)
As for whether artists deserve some special dispensation because they are
opening their souls, or some such romantic nonsense, I find that argument
just doesn't wash. Hitler bared his soul (in a sense) in Mein Kampf; and
even if you try to read it as an absurdist-psychotic commentary on society
it's still just boring, the same way all pornography is (whether sexual,
like the trash that fills the Web, or political, like Mao's Little Red Book,
or just childish, like our Bill's rants). Art that depends on the debasement
of others for its impact is almost invariably done by bad artists, if for no
other reason than competence in art tends to open an artist to a broader
view of humanity. Cezanne is a case in point; check out the evolution of his
work from his early potboiler scenes of murder and mayhem to his later
paintings of landscapes, still lifes, and the people around him.
Certainly there are some people who have an aversion to the nude; one of the
larger galleries here wouldn't hang them at all (no matter by whom), and I
certainly have (usually older) friends who would not hang them in their
houses. But those are individual decisions; and if I am to expect their
respect for my right to work as I please, I have to accept their right to
define the parameters of their own life. Maybe Canada is just different than
Ireland, who knows?, in any case, while I do get criticism on the for my
technique & skills (fair enough), I've never had anyone complain about the
subject matter; in fact it was a gallery owner that introduced me to the
Shunga (erotic art) of Japan.
Cheers;
CB
"cypher" <cyp...@thepanicartist.com> wrote in message
news:1152587930.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
CB
"Jewel Aye" <jul...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:ubydnfFxL8kAAS7Z...@valortelecom.com...
It's good advice, I just wished you had posted earlier, now I've gone and
spent too much time reading & replying to the rest, Lol.....
Cheers;
Chris
Bill
years. But Modigliani was not one of them. Scorning the poor slobs who
worked for a living, he spent his time cadging free food and lodging
from his friends. Having contributed nothing of lasting value to the
world of art, alcohol and drugs helped lead him to an early grave. Any
one impressed with anything about him, especially about his nudes, (or
about nudes in general as you seem to be) suggest a personal life which
is needy and deprived. Go get laid for God's sake.
Regards, Bill.
cypher
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my message. I
agree with some of what you said such as;
As for whether artists deserve some special dispensation because they
are
opening their souls, or some such romantic nonsense, I find that
argument
just doesn't wash. Hitler bared his soul (in a sense) in Mein Kampf;
and
even if you try to read it as an absurdist-psychotic commentary on
society
it's still just boring, the same way all pornography is (whether
sexual,
like the trash that fills the Web, or political, like Mao's Little Red
Book,
or just childish, like our Bill's rants). Art that depends on the
debasement
of others for its impact is almost invariably done by bad artists, if
for no
other reason than competence in art tends to open an artist to a
broader
view of humanity. Cezanne is a case in point; check out the evolution
of his
work from his early potboiler scenes of murder and mayhem to his later
paintings of landscapes, still lifes, and the people around him.
However I would point out that what is considred beautiful in art was
radically challenged in the 19th century and often that ment artist
exploring the ugly - which in a sense was a debasement. Off hand I can
think of many great artists artists and writers who's work bebased
others - de Sade, Bataille, Nietzsche, Picasso, Bacon, Schiele, de
Kooning, Dubuffett, Bellmer, Artaud, Dali. I could go on but I won't
bother.
cypher
I have never responded to your stupid posts before, and I never will
again. But I just wondered who exactly you think you are fooling. You
have no profile, and hide behind your computor. The internet is a very
strange world. It seems full of small men with small lives who seem to
think people are impressed by their on line bravado. Having had
coutless fist fights in the real world, I find all this really stupid
and pathetic. I post on line once every few months. You on the other
hand seem to live by your computor talking yourself up by tearing other
people down. Just who do you think is impressed by this. But you have
given enough away despite yourself to show just how patheic you are.
You seem obessed by my sex life!!! LOL!!!!! Sorry Bill I'm 35 and in a
relationship I 'got laid' three times in the last three days! When was
the last time you got laid Bill! LMAO!!!!!! Have you ever been with a
woman!! You must have them pounding down your rental home! A man with
your charm must really be a hit with women!! Got many friends Bill! I
really doubt you have any!
No Regards, No Bullshit
CB
> Dear CB,
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my message. I
> agree with some of what you said such as;
>
{my blather deleted...)
.
> However I would point out that what is considred beautiful in art was
> radically challenged in the 19th century and often that ment artist
> exploring the ugly - which in a sense was a debasement. Off hand I can
> think of many great artists artists and writers who's work bebased
> others - de Sade, Bataille, Nietzsche, Picasso, Bacon, Schiele, de
> Kooning, Dubuffett, Bellmer, Artaud, Dali. I could go on but I won't
> bother.
>
Thanks (for the first part) and please do bother, when you get the chance.
Re debasement, I think it's important to separate what was causing the
scandal in the 19th century, and the later work you mention. Certainly
modern artists of the late 19th century raised the hackles of middle class
(and higher) critics, with images that were considered debased in one form
or another, but usually it was because they placed the images of people who
were not considered "suitable" on an equal or higher footing than those in
the whitewashed images that supported the status quo. Courbet's "Burial at
Ornans" is a classical example that was considered quite scurrilous at the
time; in it he takes a small town funeral and casts it in the same mold as
the history paintings that were considered the sine qua non of French art at
the time. To complete the insult, although he worked pretty much with the
limits of classical colour, his application of paint to canvas is heavy and
crude; the whole effect being to say that the most humble were the equals of
the most vaunted. Manet's Olympia - which quotes Titian's "Venus d'Urbino"
but then changes it to both directly portray the model as a prostitute and
then give her a commanding, rather than submissive or coquettish pose
(complete with little visual puns, like the black cat) - confronted the
soft-core porn mentality of French society and confronted it with its
greatest nightmares, individual strength, and non-compliancy.
A number of other artists in the same period worked along similar lines -
exposing the essential nobility of their subjects despite the debased
conditions in which they lived Daumier, Millet, and Degas come easily to
mind, though the last is a little more problematical because many of his
images are now taken as just pretty, or interesting; like the young ballet
dancers. Those in particular have to be read knowing the expected life cycle
of the dancers - after a number of years of brutal training and dancing, the
few successful ones would move on to careers as courtesans; the others would
generally fall through the cracks to prostitution, and if they survived
that, would end up slowly starving on washer-women's or seamstresses
wages.One moves on to (say) Lautrec's images of registered prostitutes (most
weren't), and life in the bordello; again images of debased lives, often
considered pornographic (particularly the ones of prostitutes comfortably in
bed with one another), and yet was able to make the dominant theme the
essential humanity of his subjects.
Artists like that - and their literary equivalents, like Zola or Collette,
and (another of my favourites) Whitman - were actively engaged in both
exploring and shaping what we now consider a fairly modern world view. In
their own time "humanity" was pretty much limited by birth to the wealthy,
the educated, the white, and the male, although others could at times buy
their way in. But I think most of the rest you mention faced completely
different issues de Sade and Artaud, and perhaps Bataille in their own ways
exploring the self-imposed futility of their existences; which is echoed
(though in a highly impoverished form) by ranters like Bill McCarty. I don't
think Schiele belongs on the list; although his work is often explicit and
enormously sensual, and he does at times play with the objectification of
his models, I don't get a sense of degradation from his work. Perhaps you
see it otherwise.
Nietzsche, Dali, Bellmer put me to sleep, usually, so I'll generally reserve
specific comment on them; in any case Dali seems more of a showman than
anything. But for the artists of the interwar period, particularly most of
the Surrealists, Dada, absurdists (whatever); I tend to seem them as simply
a reaction to the horrors of industrialization - particularly that brought
out by the industrialized warfare of the First War. Kind of an aesthetic
post traumatic stress syndrome, or maybe acne on a coming-of-age Modern era.
Perhaps I'm too hash :)
Anyway, interested in hearing your thoughts, and particularly what you find
of lasting value in the artists mentioned.
Cheers;
Chris
CB
"Biljo White" <biljo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20060711113238.103$o...@newsreader.com...
> college you won't name. In fact, Modigliani did get laid - a lot. He was
> handsome and charming and women flocked to him.
>
> Unlike Picasso, Modigliani *was* a Jew, which you also probably didn't
> know. Which gives you another reason to hate him.
It's not all bad news, though Biljo. Note that with a little slapping
around, he's moved from "Jews enjoying poking their finger in the eye of a
Christian Europe" to acknowledging the "Judeo" as in "Judeo Christian
heritage" and he's gone from "Sodomite" to "Queer". And one has to take into
account that his "education" must have truly been limited, since it couldn't
include anything gay (like Michelangelo, or Tchaikovsky), or
non-Judeo-Christian (like our Hindu-based numerals), or both (like Plato).
One of the great advantages of being educated by the Aryan Brotherhood must
be getting his degree real quick; after all, it's not much of a syllabus :)
Cheers;
Chris
Thur
> everywhere else in the media world - but it does not sell in the art
> world.
That is the female point of view.
I put it to you that a Modigliani nude is an open book to a man.
The artist is celebrating a number of things besides the simple
aspect of idealised female form.
I see he has them as his conquests, as one might keep a trophy
to remind us and others of the 'heights' he has achieved as a
conquering lover.
The attractions to men are his clever assemblage of the erotic
whilst at the same time reducing the image to a subhuman,
stylised and minimalised form. Even cartoon-like in it's use of
line, enclosing flat fields of colour.
Quite a safe and unchallenging comparison to Monet's Olympia
for example.
I see his faces and see stylised Japanese geishas, pliant and servile,
as for example by Utumaru.
Monet's woman challenges men, especially about sexual matters.
Modigliani's women are safely satisfied, and look not to challenge
but accept. What more could male hormones desire in a female?
--
Thur
cypher
Thank you for your thoughtful ideas on art. I appreciate
them very much. Unfortutely I do not come across many thoughtful people
on the net, just a lot of male loud mouths who mistake abuse for
critism. Anyway, yes I agree with a great deal of your anylisis of art.
Though I would not write off the opionions of critics at the times
these artists where alive. I am sure they too felt they were being
honest in their reactions to the work. One of the very odd things about
art is the way things that were revolutionary, obscene or ugly in the
past, comes to be seen as beautiful and even passe in the future. One
quick example I can give is Bacon - when I saw his retrospective in
Dublin I was struck most by just how beautiful his work was, despite
the often horrific content. As for de Sade, Batialle, Artaud etc, - I
mentioned them because they reflect my intrest in anti-social models of
thinking and while I greatly admire them, I must agree that their work
reflects a partial, imcomplete kind of personality. I agree with your
point about great art being fuller and deeper and thus rarely about the
debasment of others. Although I also feel that that kind of artistic
genius that art was all about up to the 19th centuary has now gone. For
example I love Lucian Freuds work, but in terms of personailty - Freud
is limited, that is what makes his work so modern and telling but also
what makes it look rather crude and inadquate when compaired say to the
Shakespereian range of humanity in Titian.
But as you surely know, the conditions of work of the likes of Titian
and Delacroix have gone. Art does not hold there centre stage - and has
fragmented into the expression of very individual concernes and right
or wrong gimmicks, lunacy and perversion have come to be rewarded.
Anyway thanks again for the exchange of ideas without venom- thats all
I seek on the net - not much to ask for is it! Lol
cypher
I am all for art that confronts male and female
expectations. But I also think there is a place in the world for
beauty. Maybe my responses are very male to a Modigliani but so be it.
Moreover I would say that there is a truth in his work. A truth of love
between men and women away from the public battle fields of moralists
and femmisinist. And who's to say if this truth is any less true than
the truths of Manet and Degas and other painters of prostitutes. Yes
the world is full of exploitation, degradation and abuse and sex war.
But humanity and the relations between men and women would not survive
if life was all about that. Yes Modigiliani radically distorted his
images of women to suit not only his own tastes but also the tastes of
his Italian pedgree, but these are not 'perfect' women in any sense of
the world. What he manages to do is make imprefect looking women -
looking beautful.
When did beauty become a crime in art?
Jewel Aye
caldwell...@gmail.com says...
>It's good advice, I just wished you had posted earlier, now I've gone and
>spent too much time reading & replying to the rest, Lol.....
>
>Cheers;
>Chris
Hey Chris, did you see this nicely illustrated article
yet?
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/frontpage.asp
The show is about to close - July 16, as I recall. And
the article originally appeared some time ago in
The Village Voice, but without four of the illustrations.
Bill
You seem to be outraged that anyone would DARE to challenge your
sophomoric endorsements of smut, pornography, and filth. I don't know
what traditions exist in your country regarding free speech, bozo. In
my country the right to free speech is written into our Constitution.
If that disturbs you, you may wish to consider turning away from THIS
particular Internet (to which you are an uninvited guest) and creating
an ALTERNATE Internet where you can indulge your perversions to your
heart's content. Without interruption. In the meantime, Paddy, get
used to the idea that here, your free speech is protected. And so is
MINE !
Have a nice day. Bill.
CB
> Hey Chris, did you see this nicely illustrated article
> yet?
>
> http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/frontpage.asp
>
> The show is about to close - July 16, as I recall. And
> the article originally appeared some time ago in
> The Village Voice, but without four of the illustrations.
>
Thanks Jack. Now if you would be kind enough to send the plane fare to New
York :) The (somewhat) contradictory nature of Veronese's work that Saltz
puts forward - the moral lessons cast in opulence - is also intriguing;
Ancient Greece meets de Mille.
And speaking of contradictions, putting the review of the Veronese work with
the review of the "Two Friends and so on" show is quite a juxtaposition. I
can't see much of the work in the photos (even the blown up ones), but most
of what I can see reminds me of the throw-a-way, very casual work that's
popular, at least up here.Sort of from one end of the art spectrum to the
other. There must be a philosophical message in there somewhere; maybe its
in how officially sanctioned work counterpoints what is happening in the
painter's time. Veronese's work is magnificent and idealistic, it's art to
linger over and think about. I couldn't imagine breezing by a Veronese
without giving oneself time to take it in. But life at the time (for all but
a few) was short and miserable; life was a throw-a-way period on the road to
eternity. OTOH, these days Westerners, and North Americans in particular,
revel in a general wealth that's unmatched in history; we are beginning to
understand the value of all individual lives; while our art often tends to
be simple and direct and addressed to the moment. I don't know how many
shows I go to - or even museums - and think, oh, that's nice, or that's
pretty, and then move on. Curious :)
Cheers;
Chris
Jewel Aye
caldwell...@gmail.com says...
>I don't know how many
>shows I go to - or even museums - and think, oh, that's nice, or that's
>pretty, and then move on. Curious :)
>
>Cheers;
>Chris
I agree Chris. I don't know how many times I've had the
notion to attend "yet another gallery opening" only to
decide it wasn't worth the effort, knowing I was going to
see even more trite "southwestern" art subjects. Of course
that's a regional curse, but I use it as an example of
how repitition dulls the senses just as does mounting
installations that bear no resemblance to entertainment.
For in the final analysis, the only reason MOST of us
bother with attending art events is to be "entertained."
Not to have our senses dulled with witless displays.
CB
Re your comments on Artaud, etc; you bring forward an important point I
missed - examining art at the margins is just as important as examining art
at the center. One of the luxuries developed only in the last century or two
is the ability to understand the cross currents in art that historically may
have been discarded. Were there equivalents to people like Bataille back in
(say) da Vinci's time? I don't know, but one would certainly imagine that
there were (humanity is pretty broad), at least until they got burned at the
stake. But even if they survived, it isn't likely their work would have,
because it would contradict the acceptable. As well, I think our view of
difference has metamorphosed since earlier times.; I think now we are
generally more willing to see what happens at the periphery as a reflection
of ourselves, rather than as a terrifying indicator of the unknown. So
perhaps I was reacting too strongly; on second thought I also think that -
having come of age in the late 60's - my immediate reaction to some of the
artists you mention is coloured by the fact that their work was often
irritatingly misused by students of my own generation as a provocation, but
without any desire to understand what they were trying to achieve. Artaud in
particular, who was a very complex person.
Anyway, thanks for something to think about.
Cheers;
Chris
"cypher" <cyp...@thepanicartist.com> wrote in message
news:1152645198....@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
cypher
Yes I can understand your reaction to much of the 1960's
youth culture and the myths it created about creativity. The use of
drug I think was one of the worst myths. Certiantly in my experience
drugs help creativity very little. But as to the history of art while
not being a marxist - I cannot help but see it as a history of power
expressed and endorsed by very talent lackies and a few geniunie
geniuses who manged to express something fundamental to life and not
just the totalitarian regime they were paid to glorify and justify.
The history of art is a censored and edited history. For example I am a
student of child prodigies in art. The earliest work by a child is
Durers silverpoint drawing of himself at thirteen. Durer preserved it -
part of his narcisism. But the early efforts of other great masters do
not exist. Working under masters, their childsih work was simply not
considered 'art', never mind worth preserving. Only in the 19th century
- a result of ideas like Roussseaus did the origins of creativity seem
important. With the result that we have hundreds of works by young
artist like Lautrec and Picasso preserved. In the 16th century Guido
Romano (Rapheals star pupil) produced a series of oil paiintings of
hard core copulating couples - the paintings are destroyed but the
engarving based on them survive. Romano had to flee Rome in fear of his
life when the scandle of his work emerged. Then of course there is the
pornogrphic frecos in Pompiee which of course would not exist today
(locked away in the Hidden Musuem in Naples) had it not been for the
fact that they were buried under lava for so long - Victorian prudence
classified them as porn - in the same miticluios way they classified
butterflies - and they preserved them, if not endorsing them. As for
mentally ill people - I can only say God help them. Even today the
stigma and treatment of mentally ill people is far from perfect. But
before modern psychiatry they were treated like animals or evil spawns.
If they did make art it was consiend to the rubbish tip. Of course this
changed in the 20th centuary - when their efforts were seen as clues to
menatl illness and later as clues to the secrets of human conciousness
in general.
CB
We've got the same problem up here with seascapes and quaint fishing
villages as you seem to with southwestern art subjects; at times its enough
to make one want to leave the province! maybe I'd find some of those
southwestern scenes refreshing :)
Not that even great art avoids those things; after all, one of the big
themes in Impressionism was a nostalgia for a mythologized countryside,
fresh breezes and flowers, etc...
Segueing into a somewhat related theme, I came across this article
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/arts/television/12watc.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
in the NY Times, about the new reality show "America's Got Talent". (You may
have to login/register to read it, but it is free). An interesting subtext
to the article is the increasingly precarious state of the American middle
class, and how it relates to TV entertainment. Personally I wonder how it is
going to play out in art - in another decade or two are the hot sellers
going to be creating nostalgic portraits of the SUV, parked in vast expanses
of manicured lawns rolling out before McMansions, recapping the old English
horse & country home picture? Or perhaps the soccer mom portrayed as Diana,
blithely crushing pedestrians beneath her all-wheel drive family van as she
wends her way to the kid's orthodontist, sipping latte, gossiping on her
cell? Will programmers decorate their cubicles with Veronesian pictures of
Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates locked in mortal combat? Maybe I hope I won't
be around to see it :)
Cheers;
Chris
Jewel Aye
caldwell...@gmail.com says...
>Or perhaps the soccer mom portrayed as Diana,
>blithely crushing pedestrians beneath her all-wheel drive family van as she
>wends her way to the kid's orthodontist, sipping latte, gossiping on her
>cell?
Since I live in a resort area, the status symbol
here is the HUMVEE! You can drink your latte, talk
on your cell phone, and watch TV or the GPS screen
while driving without worry since you know you're
only going to roll right over any lesser vehicle
you might otherwise crash into. In this case you're
going to "crush it into" a bent pile of scrap metal.