Grand Triumph of "The Elephant of the Celebes" (was Spending time on the ugly
Bill Palmer
<artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Well, I must say that you have a rather odd
posting style, which seems to combine trite
snip-and-drool, quippy little "putdowns" with
an intelligent point now and then. Because
of your latter redeeming quality, I am taking
time to respond to a couple of your comments.
[...] Heaviy snippage.
>> Look at "Elephant of the Celebes" by Max Ernst.
>> Who will call this a beautiful picture?
>
> As I recall it is perhaps the least interesting of his works.
Sir, you are mistaken. "Elephant of the Celebes"
is a powerful work of art. [For those readers who
have not seen this painting, it was described in
THE HISTORY OF SURREALIST PAINTING by Marcel Jean,
as--in the translation copyrighted 1960 by George
Weidenfield & Nicolson Ltd: "...an indescribable
cauldren with thick legs, sprouting a pipe terminated
by the horns of a bull; in the foreground a headless
woman makes a melancholy gesture, of appeal or
farewell; high in the sky fishes are floating."]
It should be added that this work has an inter-
esting relationship to the collage itself, which
Earnst is often credited with having invented.
Not that the PAINTING "Elephant of the Celebes"
IS a collage, but it LOOKS strangely like a
painting of a collage.
Now, we were on the subject of beauty and
ugliness. Plainly, we have some Usenet
readers who prefer Norman Rockwell to Max
Earnst. I am sure some of them would say
of Earnst's famous work, "I think it's an
ugly old thing. What's it supposed to be,
anyway? Some ol' teakettle? Hee hee hee
hee." That's the shabby level of some of
commentary we have seen on this very thread,
anyway.
"The Elephant of the Celebes" should not be seen
as some sort of perverse victory of the ugly,
however. Max Earnst's painting IS beautiful,
because it represents a grand triumph of the
imagination. It has fascinated viewers for many
decades now, and it seems to grow more fascinating
with the passage of time, rather than less so.
Of course, exactly what one gets from "The Elephant
of the Celebes" depends upon what the viewer takes
to the picture. According to surrealism authority
Jean, in the work cited above, Andre Breton saw Max
Earnst images--certainly including the imaginatively
vast "Celebes" painting--as "unfolding like a moving
film of the inner life."
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
[...]
>
>> Yet, perhaps
>> because of the way the artist tapped into unconscious
>> forces, it is a very powerful picture despite a sharp
>> departure from classical ideals of beauty.
>
>
> Again you repeat the gesture of requiring those "worn out" ideals
just
>to get an inkling of the Surrealist project.
>
>
> That is not
>> to say that NO surrealist works reflect the
>> classical standards of beauty, yet many of
>> them violate those standards in ways that would
>> likely traumatize famous artists of older
>> generations.
>
> I doubt it. Look at Durer's engravings or any number of
Mannerist
>items (including whole architectural projects and gardens). Perhaps
you
>mean "would likely traumatize people who have not looked at much
art..."
[...]
Dale Houstman
Bill Palmer,
Everything you say about Ernst's painting is correct. "The Elephant..."
is easily one of the most famous (and justifiably so) works of
surrealist painting. It seems to be partly a re-mainfestation of a De
Chirco scene, although in this case the huge plaza structures have
turned into a being of some disturbing sort. At this stage of his work
he created many beautifully disturbing pictures. Ernst and Magritte were
the masters at precisely rthis sort of thing, creating vivid images yet
without resorting to the sensationalism and empty bravado of Dali. not
enough can be said for Max' work.
Dale
Bill Palmer
<Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com> writes:
Well, Mr. Hickman, what you have given your readers
represents "art criticism by snip-and-drool" (snip-
and-drool means merely adding a few putdowns after
every few lines of a writer's article and not doing
much else). Okay, you find "The Elephant of the
Celebes", as you say, "dull." Well, if you do a
word count on your last post and you add up the
times you have repeated "dull", you will find it
constitutes an appallingly high percentage of all
the adjectives you used in that post. Of course,
you are welcome to your opinion, and I suspect
that scarcely any work of art exists that someone
did not find dull for one reason or another.
Yet, when you consider it, just saying the
painting is "dull, dull, dull" does not offer
our readers much to think about. Could it be
you actually find "Elephant of the Celebes"
TERRIFYING and you deal with that simply by
blocking off your true feelings and pronouncing
Earnst's picture "dull", and then repeating the
rather meaningless adjective over and over like a
mantra to protect you?
>> In <37570C74...@worldnet.att.net> Sunbeam the Deacon
>> <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>> Well, I must say that you have a rather odd
>> posting style, which seems to combine trite
>> snip-and-drool, quippy little "putdowns" with
>> an intelligent point now and then. Because
>> of your latter redeeming quality, I am taking
>> time to respond to a couple of your comments.
>
> Why, thank you. I urge you not to become confused and reply by
mistake
>to anything non-redemptive.
>
>> [...] Heaviy snippage.
>>
>> >> Look at "Elephant of the Celebes" by Max Ernst.
>> >> Who will call this a beautiful picture?
>> >
>> > As I recall it is perhaps the least interesting of his
works.
>>
>> Sir, you are mistaken.
>
> Nonsense. Max is a third-rate painter (which puts him way ahead
of the
>other Surrealists)
Startling remark! And just whom do YOU proclaim
to be the first and second rate painters of the
Twentieth Century, pray tell?
and the Elephant is a pretty tedious exercise from any
>point of view except yours. In fact, I suspect it is the "tedious
exercise"
>aspect of Surrealism that you really identify with.
>
>> "Elephant of the Celebes" remains a
>> powerful work of art. [For those readers who
>> have not seen this painting, it was described in
>> THE HISTORY OF SURREALIST PAINTING by Marcel Jean,
>> as--in the translation copyrighted 1960 by George
>> Weidenfield & Nicolson Ltd: "...an indescribable
>> cauldren with thick legs, sprouting a pipe terminated
>> by the horns of a bull; in the foreground a headless
>> woman makes a melancholy gesture, of appeal or
>> farewell; high in the sky fishes are floating."]
>
> Tedious. I can't believe they bothered copyrighting that
late-50's hunk
>of Surreal History.
Nuttiest stetement I've heard this week! THE HISTORY OF
SURREALIST PAINTING by Marcel Jean is one of the more
scholarly, thorough and universally respected books of
the hundreds that have been written on the subject of
surrealist art. Sir, do you REALLY know what you are
talking about, or do you simply have a hang-up about
surrealism--as your indefensible remarks would seem
to suggest?
>
>> It should be added that this work has an inter-
>> esting relationship to the collage itself, which
>> Earnst is often credited with having invented.
>> Not that the PAINTING "Elephant of the Celebes"
>> IS a collage, but it LOOKS strangely like a
>> painting of a collage.
>
> Come on. The collages are interesting and the elephant thing is
just
>dull...dulll....dull...dull. It's very dull. Its the dullest thing
Max ever
>did.
>
>> Now, we were on the subject of beauty and
>> ugliness. Plainly, we have some misc.writing
>> readers who prefer Norman Rockwell to Max
>> Earnst.
>
> No way. I'm sure they all have precisely my taste in these
matters and
>like Rockwell but prefer Max.
>
>> I am sure some of them would say
>> of Earnst's famous work, "I think it's an
>> ugly old thing. What's it supposed to be,
>> anyway? Some ol' teakettle? Hee hee hee
>> hee." That's the shabby level of some of
>> commentary we have seen on this very thread,
>> anyway.
>
> No foolin'...its a very dull painting...Why couldn't you have
picked a
>decent work by Max? I always liked the collages and the sketches such
as
>"The Garden Airplane Trap".....
>
>> "The Elephant of the Celebes" should not be seen
>> as some sort of perverse victory of the ugly,
>> however. Max Earnst's painting IS beautiful,
>> because it represents a grand triumph of the
>> imagination. It has fascinated viewers for many
>> decades, and it seems to grow more fascinating
>> with the passage of time, rather than less so.
>
> It's a very dull painting. It always has been and it always will
be.
>
>> Of course, exactly what one gets from "The Elephant
>> of the Celebes" depends upon what the viewer takes
>> to the picture. According to surrealism authority
>> Jean, in the work cited above, Andre Breton saw Max
>> Earnst images--certainly including the imaginatively
>> vast "Celebes" painting--as "unfolding like a moving
>> film of the inner life."
>
> If you had a very dull inner life that might be true.
>>
>> Bill Palmer
>> alt.genius.bill-palmer
>> >
>> > Yet, perhaps
>> >> because of the way the artist tapped into unconscious
>> >> forces, it is a very powerful picture despite a sharp
>> >> departure from classical ideals of beauty.
>> >
>> >
>> > Again you repeat the gesture of requiring those "worn out"
ideals
>> just
>> >to get an inkling of the Surrealist project.
>> >
>> >
>> > That
>> >> is not to say that NO surrealist works reflect the
>> >> classical standards of beauty, yet many of
>> >> them violate those standards in ways that would
>> >> likely traumatize famous artists of older
>> >> generations.
>> >
>> > I doubt it. Look at Durer's engravings or any number of
>> Mannerist
>> >items (including whole architectural projects and gardens).
Perhaps
>> you
>> >mean "would likely traumatize people who have not looked at much
>> art..."
>> >
>> >
>
>
>Did you forget to snip? Or what?
>
>Prosaically...............................Pete
>