Women's fashions in Renaissance Italy
Simon Pugh
16thC Italy. A mannerist artist Parmigianino painted three Madonnas with
unusually revealing clothing. They are "The vision of St Jerome", "The
Madonna with the long neck" and "The Madonna with the rose" which can be
seen at the URLS at the end.
This is what the eminent art historian Frederick Hartt wrote about "The
Vision of St Jerome":
"The picture has all the preternatural clarity of a dream, but in
contrast to the eroticism of Correggio, this dream seems lascivious and
perverse. Parmigianino has emphasised the Child's genitals and with
unprecedented daring has shown the virgin's nipples erect against the
tight, sheer fabric of her tunic."
Similar comments could be made about the other pictures, so my question
is: Did the clothing of the Madonnas simply reflect women's fashions of
the time or were these pictures "daring" as Hartt suggests?
Watch the line wrap:
http://tvm.tigtail.org/TVM/M_View/X1/c.Mannerism/parmigianino/M/parmigian
o_vision_of_st_jerome.1527.jpg
http://tvm.tigtail.org/TVM/M_View/X1/c.Mannerism/parmigianino/M/parmigian
ino_long_neck.1534.jpg
http://www.jonessquare.com/eoa1/AE7130.jpg
--
Simon Pugh
Heather Jones
>
> I wonder if anyone can help with a question on women's fashions in early
> 16thC Italy. A mannerist artist Parmigianino painted three Madonnas with
> unusually revealing clothing. They are "The vision of St Jerome", "The
> Madonna with the long neck" and "The Madonna with the rose" which can be
> seen at the URLS at the end.
>
> This is what the eminent art historian Frederick Hartt wrote about "The
> Vision of St Jerome":
>
> "The picture has all the preternatural clarity of a dream, but in
> contrast to the eroticism of Correggio, this dream seems lascivious and
> perverse. Parmigianino has emphasised the Child's genitals and with
> unprecedented daring has shown the virgin's nipples erect against the
> tight, sheer fabric of her tunic."
>
> Similar comments could be made about the other pictures, so my question
> is: Did the clothing of the Madonnas simply reflect women's fashions of
> the time or were these pictures "daring" as Hartt suggests?
If having nipples show through fabric is "daring" or "lascivious and
perverse" what does he say about all those Madonnas that have one or
both breasts completely bared -- often with the Virgin holding the
nipple between her fingers to offer it to her baby?
I'm not saying that portrayals of the Virgin & Child were never used as
a forum for a little visual titillation, but the entire genre has a
noticeable breast fixation which is _usually_ interpreted symbolically
as referring to nourishment rather than sexuality.
That a particular example of this breast fixation in interpreted by a
viewer as sexual strikes me as a function of the viewer rather than
necessarily of the art. Or conversely, whether or not a particular
artist had lascivious intentions while creating a particular work,
within the context of this genre, a viewer is still prompted to
understand the breasts first as symbols of love and nourishment.
Addressing the narrow question -- comparing Virgin & Child paintings
with portrayals of "ordinary" women, it's clear that the motif of bared
or accessible breasts is specific to the Virgin, and there is sometimes
a tendency portray her (like other Biblical figures) in "archaic" or
"classical" fashions, but ordinarily (setting aside color-symbolism) she
usually wears "normal" clothing.
Heather
--
*****
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*****
Michael Farthing
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes
Que? Is this an attempt at ad hominem?
Well it's at least two viewers because it struck me that way (though I
cannot say the picture actually succeeded in arousing me). We have six
madonnas lining our staircase and none of them have ever struck me as
sexual - but the first of those referred to by Simon definitely has
overtones. The nipple is actually NOT VISIBLE which is the first
significant difference. The breast is clearly erect and stretching the
fabric that covers it, revealing the shape of the nipple though not the
actual nipple. I am less convinced by the child's genitals since the
Christ figure is manifestly a boy and not a baby and the genitals are
not to my mind provocative.
However, by this stage is it not the case that Madonnas were often no
more than an excuse for a woman to have her picture painted with her
child? In which case, though the picture may have been intentionally
provocative, this may say more about the sitter than the artist?
I have been unable to link to Simon's other pictures (or rather too lazy
since the address scrolled on to two lines so I couldn't get there with
just a single click - and life's simply too short...)
>Or conversely, whether or not a particular
>artist had lascivious intentions while creating a particular work,
>within the context of this genre, a viewer is still prompted to
>understand the breasts first as symbols of love and nourishment.
Yes, I think this is the point being made. The nipples are not being
used for nourishment: the child is not suckling (indeed given its age
such an attempt would look ridiculous). And the nipple is covered.
These things are what are NOT prompting the viewer in the direction
suggested.
--
Michael Farthing
Simon Pugh
<m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> writes
It's very inconsiderate of web sites to have such long URLs <g>
But they are worth looking at if you can spare the time.;)
>
>
>>Or conversely, whether or not a particular
>>artist had lascivious intentions while creating a particular work,
>>within the context of this genre, a viewer is still prompted to
>>understand the breasts first as symbols of love and nourishment.
>
>Yes, I think this is the point being made. The nipples are not being
>used for nourishment: the child is not suckling (indeed given its age
>such an attempt would look ridiculous). And the nipple is covered.
>These things are what are NOT prompting the viewer in the direction
>suggested.
>
Thank you for you support, I was very aware that I might be taking a
chance with this one but I think it beats the Middle East crisis.:)
I find trying to work out how contemporary viewers regarded pictures
fascinating particularly when they reveal difference from our own
perceptions.
AFIK Parmigianino has a reputation for including classical mythology in
his religious paintings.
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
>>
>> I wonder if anyone can help with a question on women's fashions in early
>> 16thC Italy. A mannerist artist Parmigianino painted three Madonnas with
>> unusually revealing clothing. They are "The vision of St Jerome", "The
>> Madonna with the long neck" and "The Madonna with the rose" which can be
>> seen at the URLS at the end.
>>
>> This is what the eminent art historian Frederick Hartt wrote about "The
>> Vision of St Jerome":
>>
>> "The picture has all the preternatural clarity of a dream, but in
>> contrast to the eroticism of Correggio, this dream seems lascivious and
>> perverse. Parmigianino has emphasised the Child's genitals and with
>> unprecedented daring has shown the virgin's nipples erect against the
>> tight, sheer fabric of her tunic."
>>
>> Similar comments could be made about the other pictures, so my question
>> is: Did the clothing of the Madonnas simply reflect women's fashions of
>> the time or were these pictures "daring" as Hartt suggests?
>
>If having nipples show through fabric is "daring" or "lascivious and
>perverse" what does he say about all those Madonnas that have one or
>both breasts completely bared -- often with the Virgin holding the
>nipple between her fingers to offer it to her baby?
lascivious and I think a modern viewer could regard the pictures as
titillating, however is this how a contemporary viewer would have seen
it?
There is a difference between being clothed and naked AFIK being naked
was regarded as a sign of purity. I am thinking of Titian's Sacred and
Profane Love in which the naked figure represents sacred love.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/klein/204/sacredprofane.jpg
>
>I'm not saying that portrayals of the Virgin & Child were never used as
>a forum for a little visual titillation, but the entire genre has a
>noticeable breast fixation which is _usually_ interpreted symbolically
>as re
>ferring to nourishment rather than sexuality.
This is clearly the case when the Madonna is shown breast feeding.
>
>That a particular example of this breast fixation in interpreted by a
>viewer as sexual strikes me as a function of the viewer rather than
>necessarily of the art. Or conversely, whether or not a particular
>artist had lascivious intentions while creating a particular work,
>within the context of this genre, a viewer is still prompted to
>understand the breasts first as symbols of love and nourishment.
Yes but would it not be surprising if Hartt did not understand this?
>
>Addressing the narrow question -- comparing Virgin & Child paintings
>with portrayals of "ordinary" women, it's clear that the motif of bared
>or accessible breasts is specific to the Virgin, and there is sometimes
>a tendency portray her (like other Biblical figures) in "archaic" or
>"classical" fashions, but ordinarily (setting aside color-symbolism) she
>usually wears "normal" clothing.
>
>Heather
>
Hartt clearly found the picture titillating but although he is (or was)
an extremely eminent art historian, I suspect him of being a little old
fashioned. For example he denies that Botticelli's Venus and Mars shows
the two protagonists after having sexual intercourse, something that is
obvious to most people.
http://tvm.tigtail.org/TVM/M_View/X1/a.Early%20Italian/botticelli/M/botti
celli_venus+mars.1485.jpg
The Madonna of the Rose strikes me as particularly ambiguous and if I
didn't know better I would suspect that it was Venus and Cupid.
These pictures do seem to be unusual but we don't seem any closer to
deciding if the pictures were intended to titillate the contemporary
audience, I get the impression that Hartt thought that the were.
--
Simon Pugh
Heather Jones
Not really -- it's a comment on the inherently subjective nature of
judgments that a piece of art is sexually arousing. If a viewer says of
a piece of art that it is "lascivious and perverse", I think it's
reasonable to translate that as meaning "this piece of art arouses me in
a way that I find personally disturbing". Both the "arousal" and the
"disturbing" aspects of that judgment are inherently subjective and
personal to the particular viewer. They may be judgments that are
shared by more than one viewer, but they're still grounded in individual
subjective response, not in some objective property of the painting
itself. If five viewers look at a painting and say, "This is a painting
of a woman and a baby" one can accept it as an objective description.
If five viewers look at a painting and say, "This is obscene", one
cannot similarly accept that they are making an objective observation.
And even more so, if a viewer from one culture looks at a work of art
produced by a significantly different culture (including different eras
as different cultures), judgments about erotic intent should be looked
very much askance. (The best demonstration of this is probably to take
examples of material produced by another culture that is known to have
erotic intent and see how much of it actually turns you on.)
Heather Jones
> These pictures do seem to be unusual but we don't seem any closer to
> deciding if the pictures were intended to titillate the contemporary
> audience, I get the impression that Hartt thought that the were.
I think I'd tend to phrase the question: were they intended to titillate
the contemporary audience _more_ or differently than other works in the
same genre were?
I think it's entirely possible that a significant number of genre
paintings served a secondary purpose of eroticism, whether in intent or
in effect. Hartt evidently thinks that the Parmigianino work is
qualitatively different from other works of the same genre in this
regard. My starting hypothesis is that the entire genre has similar
erotic potential -- whether the potential is realized is going to depend
more on what the viewer brings to it.
Edgar De Blieck
> Not really -- it's a comment on the inherently subjective nature of
> judgments that a piece of art is sexually arousing. If a viewer says of
> a piece of art that it is "lascivious and perverse", I think it's
> reasonable to translate that as meaning "this piece of art arouses me in
> a way that I find personally disturbing". Both the "arousal" and the
> "disturbing" aspects of that judgment are inherently subjective and
> personal to the particular viewer. They may be judgments that are
> shared by more than one viewer, but they're still grounded in individual
> subjective response, not in some objective property of the painting
> itself. If five viewers look at a painting and say, "This is a painting
> of a woman and a baby" one can accept it as an objective description.
> If five viewers look at a painting and say, "This is obscene", one
> cannot similarly accept that they are making an objective observation.
If this is genuinely not an ad hominem that you're now trying to get out of,
this looks a lot like the old "moral relativist" argument used to justify
pornography. You are denying the possibility of the transmission of moral
stance from artist onto canvas! You are also precluding the possibility that
some artistic representations are inherently disturbing and bad. Surely the
issue is not whether 5 people feel this, but whether sane people realise
this?
Q: would a graphic depiction of (to pick two extreme examples) bestiality or
paedophilia with babies count as "perverse"? Your argument implies that the
depiction of any scene is an entirely neutral activity, (QUOTE: They may be
judgments that are shared by more than one viewer, but they're still
grounded in individual subjective response, not in some objective property
of the painting itself.) and that the sole determinant in reaction is
subjective, lying with the observer of the scene! Is the viewer impartial as
between the fire brigade and the fire? Tell us what you think!
edeb.
Brian M. Scott
<Debl...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> > Que? Is this an attempt at ad hominem?
>> Not really -- it's a comment on the inherently subjective nature of
>> judgments that a piece of art is sexually arousing. If a viewer says of
>> a piece of art that it is "lascivious and perverse", I think it's
>> reasonable to translate that as meaning "this piece of art arouses me in
>> a way that I find personally disturbing". Both the "arousal" and the
>> "disturbing" aspects of that judgment are inherently subjective and
>> personal to the particular viewer. They may be judgments that are
>> shared by more than one viewer, but they're still grounded in individual
>> subjective response, not in some objective property of the painting
>> itself. If five viewers look at a painting and say, "This is a painting
>> of a woman and a baby" one can accept it as an objective description.
>> If five viewers look at a painting and say, "This is obscene", one
>> cannot similarly accept that they are making an objective observation.
>If this is genuinely not an ad hominem that you're now trying to get out of,
>this looks a lot like the old "moral relativist" argument used to justify
>pornography.
Eh? Pornography needs no external justification.
>You are denying the possibility of the transmission of moral
>stance from artist onto canvas!
What do you mean? I see nothing in Heather's comment that precludes
the possibility of an artist's attempting to express a moral judgement
on canvas. Whether the attempt is successful is another matter, and
even if it is, whether a particular viewer agrees with that judgement
is yet another.
>You are also precluding the possibility that
>some artistic representations are inherently disturbing and bad.
Whether an artistic representation disturbs viewer X depends on viewer
X, so it's rather hard to interpret 'inherently disturbing'. Whatever
it means, it's obviously different from 'bad', which in turn is
ambiguous. On the one hand it may mean simply 'poorly executed',
'poorly conceived', 'clichéed', or the like; on the other hand it may
mean 'immoral, morally repugnant'. I assume that you didn't intend
the first type of notion, since it seems to be irrelevant. The
second, however, requires a judgement on the part of the viewer.
>Surely the
>issue is not whether 5 people feel this, but whether sane people realise
>this?
How are you going to define 'sane'?
>Q: would a graphic depiction of (to pick two extreme examples) bestiality or
>paedophilia with babies count as "perverse"?
What's wrong with bestiality if the animal isn't hurt? (If it is, the
problem is cruelty to animals, not bestiality per se.) And no, I
don't consider a graphic representation of paedophilia with babies
perverse. Unpleasant and distasteful, but not perverse. One could
reasonably apply much stronger terms to the action depicted, but
that's a different matter.
>Your argument implies that the
>depiction of any scene is an entirely neutral activity, (QUOTE: They may be
>judgments that are shared by more than one viewer, but they're still
>grounded in individual subjective response, not in some objective property
>of the painting itself.) and that the sole determinant in reaction is
>subjective, lying with the observer of the scene! Is the viewer impartial as
>between the fire brigade and the fire? Tell us what you think!
The depiction itself *is* neutral. You appear to be confusing the
depiction with the thing depicted.
Brian
D. Spencer Hines
>bestiality or paedophilia with babies count as "perverse"?
"What's wrong with bestiality if the animal isn't hurt? (If it is, the
problem is cruelty to animals, not bestiality per se.) And no, I don't
consider a graphic representation of paedophilia with babies perverse.
Unpleasant and distasteful, but not perverse. One could reasonably
apply much stronger terms to the action depicted, but that's a different
matter."
Igor Scott
-------------------
Hmmmmmmm.
We all knew that Igor is a very strange bird ----- but he is truly
outing himself in this little gem.
Sad, Very Sad.
But ---- Hilarious!
Director Gans really should keep a closer eye on him ---- and leg irons.
Deus Vult
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and
philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation,
commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to
study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and
porcelain." John Adams, (1735-1826) Second President of the United
States. Letter to Abigail Adams, his wife, 12 May 1780.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Michael Farthing
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes
I think you've reached the heart of my disagreement with you here.
To be specific I think the artist of the Madonna with the Long Neck
intended and succeeded in - to put it as accurately as I can - making
sexual overtones and the (alleged*) Leonardo "Madonna Litta", which
explicitly shows a bare breast and a baby suckling, is quite decidedly
not sexual, but maternal. If you have access to a picture of this I
really would like you to look at the two side by side and tell us your
personal reaction to them. I understand what you are saying about the
interpretation being with the viewer, and I also accept that the
viewers' reactions will depend on the culture in which they are
embedded, but even granted this I still feel that the difference between
these two pictures transcends these problems.
Of course, we should also recognise that our own artistic culture is to
quite an extent determined by these very pictures, for our cultural
tradition stems from them. This perhaps makes a difference from any
attempt to interpret, say, Indian art.
*The use of the word 'alleged' here is meant literally, not
pejoratively. The authorship I believe is in doubt.
--
Michael Farthing
Afropea
> Simon Pugh si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk
>Date: Wed, Apr 17, 2002 12:50 PM
>Message-id: <8M26AOC4...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk>
I think the idea of nourishment is definitely the case in the earlier pictures
of Madonna and child at her breast. In fact, there was a chapter in the book
"The Expanded Discourse" called "The Virgin's One Bare Breast" by Margaret R.
Miles which discusses how this image was popular in the fourteenth and
fifteenth century as a symbol of nurturing. She also theorizes that such
images may have been partly used as propaganda to encourage women to return to
nursing their own offspring rather than risk their children off to wet nurses.
We've discussed this before.
However, the period of these paintings were later and I think we're dealing
with a different sensibility.
>>>That a particular example of this breast fixation in interpreted by a
>>>viewer as sexual strikes me as a function of the viewer rather than
>>>necessarily of the art.
I disagree. I think it was part of the sophistication of the times and the
audience. There are other pictures from the same period that mix high moral
statements with a bit of a wink. Bronzino's "Allegory with Venus and Cupid"
would be another example of this.
Why can't the picture be looked at from different levels? You have the
tradition of the Madonna as nurturer. You also have the beautiful sexually
exciting woman as model. To combine these might be bizarre to our period as we
prefer to keep the such concepts as separate, but the Renaissance was able to
reconcile things such as paganism and Christianity in their philosophies and
images. And the sacred and profane. They might even have found such a
juxtaposition clever. There's an interesting book on humor in the Renaissance
that discusses this sort of thing. Can't recall the title. I know Simon has
read it as well. Do you remember the name and author?
>>Que? Is this an attempt at ad hominem?
>>
>>Well it's at least two viewers because it struck me that way (though I
>
>>cannot say the picture actually succeeded in arousing me).
I suspect you'd find many more than that if we took a survey. This is hardly a
prim Madonna, but a fashionable lady of the times.
We have six
>
>>madonnas lining our staircase and none of them have ever struck me as
>>sexual - but the first of those referred to by Simon definitely has
>>overtones. The nipple is actually NOT VISIBLE which is the first
>>significant difference. The breast is clearly erect and stretching the
>
>>fabric that covers it, revealing the shape of the nipple though not the
>
>>actual nipple.
IMHO that would make them more erotic rather than less so. The fabric would
give a sensual suggestion in a way that nudity cannot.
I am less convinced by the child's genitals since the
>>Christ figure is manifestly a boy and not a baby and the genitals are
>>not to my mind provocative.
I'm not sure if that would even be necessary. I don't think the eroticism is
part of the narrative of the scene. I'm inclined to think it's for the
appreciation of the viewer. If so, it might be part of "the joke" but I'm not
sure I buy that either.
BTW, I will now plug the rather interesting book by Leo Steinberg on "The
Sexuality of Christ in the Renaissance and Modern Oblivion" which discusses the
artists' depiction of sexual attributes for sacred symbolic purposes. I don't
think that IS the case here, but it IS a good book! ;-)
>>However, by this stage is it not the case that Madonnas were often no
>>more than an excuse for a woman to have her picture painted with her
>>child? In which case, though the picture may have been intentionally
>>provocative, this may say more about the sitter than the artist?
I suspect it's more about the patron than the sitter or the artist. And it's
also about the picture's intended audience.
>>
>>>Or conversely, whether or not a particular
>>>artist had lascivious intentions while creating a particular work,
>>>within the context of this genre, a viewer is still prompted to
>>>understand the breasts first as symbols of love and nourishment.
That depends on who's doing the viewing. In some cases this would be true, in
others it would not. This is a picture of great fashion and sophistication. I
don't thing a moral or religious tone is the first thing that would enter
anyone's mind. "How elegant!" seems to me the initial reaction. The title
probably determines our reactions of this as a religious image more so than the
image itself. If you didn't know that this was a Madonna and child, how would
you see it?
>>Yes, I think this is the point being made. The nipples are not being
>>used for nourishment: the child is not suckling (indeed given its age
>>such an attempt would look ridiculous). And the nipple is covered.
>>These things are what are NOT prompting the viewer in the direction
>>suggested.
>>
>Thank you for you support, I was very aware that I might be taking a
>chance with this one but I think it beats the Middle East crisis.:)
>
>I find trying to work out how contemporary viewers regarded pictures
>fascinating particularly when they reveal difference from our own
>perceptions.
>
>AFIK Parmigianino has a reputation for including classical mythology in
>
>his religious paintings.
As did others in this period. Seems to me like a variation of syncretism.
JMHO,
Eve
Afropea
>was regarded as a sign of purity. I am thinking of Titian's Sacred and
>Profane Love in which the naked figure represents sacred love.
>
>http://www.english.uiuc.edu/klein/204/sacredprofane.jpg
Be careful with this one. The title AND explanation were tacked on later. We
really don't know what it's about, although there are theories.
I think the idea of it being an allegory of sacred and profane love is
currently out of favor. But I the idea of the nude as the "classical ideal"
and someone decked out in finery as a possible symbol of the earthly would work
in this period. It's just questionable that this was the intent in this
picture.
JMHO,
Eve
tiglath
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:3cbe591e...@enews.newsguy.com...
>
> What's wrong with bestiality if the animal isn't hurt?
It look like after I refused my friendship to Tobie, he and Brian got to be
pals.
Tobie: Pretty, aren't they? Which one do you like? (Looking on a wooly
herd grazing peacefully)
Brian: I can't make up my mind; let's screw them all.
Tobie: All right! That's the (bucolic) spirit.
> I don't consider a graphic representation of paedophilia with babies
> perverse. Unpleasant and distasteful, but not perverse.
per-verse (pr-vurs, purvurs)adj. 1. Directed away from what is right or
good; perverted. 2. Obstinately persisting in an error or a fault; wrongly
self-willed or stubborn.
Brian doesn't consider images of men fucking babies going in a direction
away from what is right or good, or persisting in error.
This is the man who calls me a bigot because I espouse the Palestinian
because and use terms like "race," "Jew," and "Black."
I warned you about evil short men, didn't I?
Voilá
> The depiction itself *is* neutral. You appear to be confusing the
> depiction with the thing depicted.
Depictions of pedophilia aren't trees falling in forests with no one to hear
their sound. They have depictors and depicted and a ready consumer market,
members of which consistently say that "don't consider a graphic
representation of paedophilia with babies perverse."
Kept your babies away from Cleveland.
Michael Farthing
<afr...@aol.com> writes
[The doubly indented bit is me: I chopped more than I intended]
>We have six
>>
>>>madonnas lining our staircase and none of them have ever struck me as
>>>sexual - but the first of those referred to by Simon definitely has
>>>overtones. The nipple is actually NOT VISIBLE which is the first
>>>significant difference. The breast is clearly erect and stretching the
>>
>>>fabric that covers it, revealing the shape of the nipple though not the
>>
>>>actual nipple.
>
>IMHO that would make them more erotic rather than less so. The fabric would
>give a sensual suggestion in a way that nudity cannot.
Yes, you've misread me. I was indeed saying that the stretched fabric
covering the nipple was more suggestive than a bare nipple.
--
Michael Farthing
Simon Pugh
Yes but the Bronzino is not a religious subject?
>
>Why can't the picture be looked at from different levels? You have the
>tradition of the Madonna as nurturer. You also have the beautiful sexually
>exciting woman as model. To combine these might be bizarre to our period as we
>prefer to keep the such concepts as separate, but the Renaissance was able to
>reconcile things such as paganism and Christianity in their philosophies and
>images. And the sacred and profane. They might even have found such a
>juxtaposition clever. There's an interesting book on humor in the Renaissance
>that discusses this sort of thing. Can't recall the title. I know Simon has
>read it as well. Do you remember the name and author?
>
It's:
Barolsky, Paul. Infinite jest : wit and humor in Italian Renaissance
art / [by] Paul Barolsky. Columbia [Mo.] ; London : University of
Missouri Press, 1978. [7],224p : ill, facsims ; 27cm
This was really the point of my question, I was unhappy with Hartt's
suggestion that it was lascivious, the idea that it would have been seen
as beautiful and sophisticated seems more attractive.
I have a real problem with a lascivious Madonna ( based on prejudice
rather than knowledge). The virgin was borne without the stain of
original sin (or was this later?), she conceived without carnal pleasure
and remained a virgin even after the birth of Christ. The idea of her as
an object of lust doesn't seem right.
On the other hand she was often portrayed as a beautiful woman, her
outward beauty reflecting her inner spiritual purity. These pictures of
a beautiful fashionable woman seem more in that vein or at least that
would be the artists excuse <g>.
>
>>>Yes, I think this is the point being made. The nipples are not being
>>>used for nourishment: the child is not suckling (indeed given its age
>>>such an attempt would look ridiculous). And the nipple is covered.
>>>These things are what are NOT prompting the viewer in the direction
>>>suggested.
>>>
>>Thank you for you support, I was very aware that I might be taking a
>>chance with this one but I think it beats the Middle East crisis.:)
>>
>>I find trying to work out how contemporary viewers regarded pictures
>>fascinating particularly when they reveal difference from our own
>>perceptions.
>>
>>AFIK Parmigianino has a reputation for including classical mythology in
>>
>>his religious paintings.
>
>As did others in this period. Seems to me like a variation of syncretism.
>
>JMHO,
>Eve
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes
If we talking about classical and mythological subjects then I wouldn't
disagree and we might stray into erotic stray into the erotic potential
of images of "heroic rape" - something that has been quite
controversial.
But as I said in another reply, I am not happy with lasciviousness in a
religious subject particularly the Virgin Mary.
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
<afr...@aol.com> writes
I love the two giant rabbits on the left :)
--
Simon Pugh
D. Spencer Hines
And your little boys and girls, pet gerbils, hamsters, dogs, cats and
parakeets ---- yes, chickens too.
I'm beginning to understand why Igor's wife divorced him. He was more
interested in the neighbor's fox terrier than he was in her:
-------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------
"What's wrong with bestiality if the animal isn't hurt?"
Igor
-------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------
Deus Vult
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and
philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation,
commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to
study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and
porcelain." John Adams, (1735-1826) Second President of the United
States. Letter to Abigail Adams, his wife, 12 May 1780.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:a9n4qe$ov2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Afropea
says
Eve ;-)
Brian M. Scott
<si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I have a real problem with a lascivious Madonna ( based on prejudice
>rather than knowledge). The virgin was borne without the stain of
>original sin (or was this later?), she conceived without carnal pleasure
>and remained a virgin even after the birth of Christ. The idea of her as
>an object of lust doesn't seem right.
Much later, officially: Pius IX, 1854.
[...]
Brian
Frank Martin
Don't you know just how difficult women can be....?
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote
in message news:XOHv8.216$mc.1...@eagle.america.net...
Afropea
Renaissance Italy".
"Exquisitely contrived beauty also gave power to Parmigianino's religious
paintings, their refinement employed as a metaphor for the perfection of God
and the saints. One of his most famous religious paintings and an outstanding
example of Mannerism is the altarpiece known as the "Madonna of the Long Neck".
Commissioned by the noblewoman Elena Baiardi for her family chapel in the
church of Santa Maria dei Servi in Parma, the painting takes its subject from a
simile in medieval hymns to the Virgin which likened her neck to a great ivory
tower or column. Highly appropriate to the traditional understanding of the
Virgin as an allegorical representation of the Church, this imagery was also
exploited in the limbs of the Virgin and her son, as well as the presence of a
column in the background of the painting, are not contrived merely for their
decorative value, but clearly signal the paintings' religious meaning.
Similarly, the Virgin's erect nipples need to be understood as emblems of her
ability to nourish the faithful. When Vasari saw the painting in the
mid-sixteenth century he noted another religious emblem in it: a cross, now
barely visible, on the vase that one of the angels offers to the Madonna and
child, indicative of Christ's fate a sacrifice and spiritual food for humanity.
Admittedly, Parmigianino's expression of these religious concepts is so refined
and contrived that both the uneducated worshiper of his own day and the modern,
secular viewer could easily mistake his intentions. Because there is hardly an
element in the painting that faithfully reproduces nature, the viewer is
constantly required to question the artist's decisions, to comment on his
skill, and to recognize that the subject of the painting is as much the craft
of painting and the artist's intellectual agility as it is a Madonna and Child.
Typical of the Mannerist style, the shift in scale is so great that there is
no way to move the foreground to background in the painting. The five angels
at the left are compacted into a space so constricted that one cannot imagine
how their bodies fit into it. The Madonna is much larger than any other figure
in the painting; her proportions are distended unnaturally and her hands and
head have been elongated to emphasize their elegance. The perfect oval of the
Virgin's head is crowned with a complicated braided hairstyle reminiscent of
some figures in Leonardo drawings--a reminder that, regardless of its
distortions of form, Mannerism often drew its inspiration from older masters.
Elements of overt sensuality belie the commission of this work as an
altarpiece, whatever their allegorical or literary references might be. The
Virgin's right hand moves caressingly over her breast, which is revealed by a
wet drapery technique borrowed from antique sculpture. Sliding along the left
side of the painting is a smooth, long leg whose sensuous nudity is emphasized
by the big toe of the Christ Child which presses suggestively against it. It
is easy to understand how the metaphor linking artificial and elegant physical
grace to a spiritual state of grace could be lost in the sheer artfulness and
beauty of the painting."
It was also mentioned to me that the position of the Christ child in a
reference to his future death and sacrifice. Of course, one can also see the
Madonna's offering of him to us.
So, IMHO, everyone was right (well, at least those seriously discussing the
picture) and that all these elements were working together to create a
multi-conceptual painting.
JMHO,
Eve
D. Spencer Hines
"chicken butt" and indeed finds it to be quite exciting and arousing:
--------------------------------------
"'Chicken Butt' Not Slanderous
The Associated Press
Friday, April 19, 2002; 9:03 AM
SAN FRANCISCO –– It's not nice to call someone a "chicken butt" on the
air – but it's not slanderous either, a court ruled.
A state appeals court this week dismissed a slander lawsuit filed
against a radio station by a former contestant of the Fox television
show "Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire."
Jennifer Seelig sued KLLC-FM in San Francisco after Vincent Crackhorn,
co-host of the "Sarah and Vinnie" morning show, called her a "local
loser" and a "chicken butt." He made the comments the day the Fox show
aired in February 2000, after Seelig declined an interview with the
station.
The Court of Appeal on Tuesday said Seelig had no cause to sue because
she had invited media scrutiny when she agreed to appear on the
television show. It said Crackhorn's comments were merely an expression
of opinion.
The court also ruled Seelig must pay the legal fees of the station and
its employees under a state law that penalizes suits that seek to
squelch free speech."
---------------------------
Capital!
Yes, they should indeed pay.
Word has it that Igor once referred to Gans as "chicken butt" in the
lab ---- not realizing that Gans had overheard him.
Igor still bears the scars for that one.
Yes, do keep your babies ---- and your chicks ---- away from both
Cleveland and New York.
Deus Vult.
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and
philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation,
commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to
study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and
porcelain." John Adams, (1735-1826) Second President of the United
States. Letter to Abigail Adams, his wife, 12 May 1780.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| Good Advice.
|
| And your little boys and girls, pet gerbils, hamsters, dogs, cats and
| parakeets ---- yes, chickens too.
|
| I'm beginning to understand why Igor's wife divorced him. He was more
| interested in the neighbor's fox terrier than he was in her:
|
| -------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------
|
| "What's wrong with bestiality if the animal isn't hurt?"
|
| Igor
| -------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------
|
| Deus Vult
Heather Jones
may be a bit odd, but I wanted to avoid the "shotgun response syndrome".
Thanks to Eve, who quoted the analysis of Paoletti & Radke which, as she
notes, pulls together a number of the observations in this thread and
shows their potential unity rather than conflict.
Simon Pugh wrote:
>
> In message <20020418120344...@mb-de.aol.com>, Afropea
> <afr...@aol.com> writes
<snip, including attributions for several of the deepest layers>
> >>>>Or conversely, whether or not a particular
> >>>>artist had lascivious intentions while creating a particular work,
> >>>>within the context of this genre, a viewer is still prompted to
> >>>>understand the breasts first as symbols of love and nourishment.
> >
> >That depends on who's doing the viewing. In some cases this would be true, in
> >others it would not.
Which is more or less exactly the larger point that I've been
suggesting: the cues are there both to interpret the breasts as symbols
of nourishment and as symbols of sexuality -- different viewers will
pick up on or downplay different cues based both on cultural context and
on personal background and taste.
> > This is a picture of great fashion and sophistication. I
> >don't thing a moral or religious tone is the first thing that would enter
> >anyone's mind. "How elegant!" seems to me the initial reaction. The title
> >probably determines our reactions of this as a religious image more so than the
> >image itself. If you didn't know that this was a Madonna and child, how would
> >you see it?
I think I've been brainwashed enough by the larger tradition of Western
religious art that _any_ portrayal of a mother and child will activate
"Madonna & Child" connections in my brain. (I have a friend who has a
piece of science-fictional art of an "alien" mother and child that
activated the prototype for me even before noticing that the title of
the work specifically referred to it as a Madonna.)
For me, the answer is that I wouldn't have to be told that this painting
was intended to be a M&C for me to identify it with that genre and
interpret it in that light.
> This was really the point of my question, I was unhappy with Hartt's
> suggestion that it was lascivious, the idea that it would have been seen
> as beautiful and sophisticated seems more attractive.
>
> I have a real problem with a lascivious Madonna ( based on prejudice
> rather than knowledge).
Can you clarify whether what bothers you specifically is Hartt's
interpretation of it as lascivious, or whether you yourself interpret
the painting as being intended to be lascivious, and _that_ bothers you?
> The virgin was borne without the stain of
> original sin (or was this later?), she conceived without carnal pleasure
> and remained a virgin even after the birth of Christ. The idea of her as
> an object of lust doesn't seem right.
>
> On the other hand she was often portrayed as a beautiful woman, her
> outward beauty reflecting her inner spiritual purity. These pictures of
> a beautiful fashionable woman seem more in that vein or at least that
> would be the artists excuse <g>.
It is the human condition, however, to have confused and overlapping
responses to beauty, sensuality, and sexuality. I would venture to
suggest that it is impossible to create a picture of a beautiful woman
that does not also contain elements of sexual attractiveness. Whether
you want to put the blame on nature or nurture, our standards of human
beauty are very closely tied up with our ideas of sexual desirability.
(And for the most part, this is a Good Thing.)
<sorry about leaving a lot of context in the next bit>
Edgar De Blieck wrote:
>
> > > Que? Is this an attempt at ad hominem?
>
> > Not really -- it's a comment on the inherently subjective nature of
> > judgments that a piece of art is sexually arousing. If a viewer says of
> > a piece of art that it is "lascivious and perverse", I think it's
> > reasonable to translate that as meaning "this piece of art arouses me in
> > a way that I find personally disturbing". Both the "arousal" and the
> > "disturbing" aspects of that judgment are inherently subjective and
> > personal to the particular viewer. They may be judgments that are
> > shared by more than one viewer, but they're still grounded in individual
> > subjective response, not in some objective property of the painting
> > itself. If five viewers look at a painting and say, "This is a painting
> > of a woman and a baby" one can accept it as an objective description.
> > If five viewers look at a painting and say, "This is obscene", one
> > cannot similarly accept that they are making an objective observation.
>
> If this is genuinely not an ad hominem that you're now trying to get out of,
I'm a little bit startled by what appears to be some underlying
hostility in your responses. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't
had any unpleasant interactions in the past (of course, if we have, and
I've simply forgotten all about it, that wouldn't help, would it?).
> this looks a lot like the old "moral relativist" argument used to justify
> pornography.
I'm going to reject some of your presuppositions, I'm afraid -- the
phrasing of your statement is a bit too much along the "have you stopped
beating your wife" path.
Pornography/erotica does not require justification and has no _inherent_
moral attributes. Human beings are sexual beings -- if we weren't, the
species wouldn't survive long. Like every activity necessary for the
biological continuance of the species, the scope of our cultural
activities supporting and maintaining procreation is vastly larger than
what is biologically necessary. We don't go into heat when fertile,
spread a few pheromones around to turn normally-uninterested males into
fertilization tools, and then go back to non-sexual lives.
The diffuseness of our biological and cultural practices around
procreation mean not only that sexual arousal and activity exist beyond
what is strictly necessary for the biological function (just as eating
is done in a wider context than the simple ingestion of nutrients), but
that the conditions of sexual arousal and activity will overlap with
other elements in our culture that have no direct procreative element.
One feature of this is that a wide variety of sights (and other sensory
experiences), activities, concepts, and so forth will have the
_potential_ for triggering a sexual response, even in contexts where
immediate sexual interaction (much less procreative activity) is neither
desired nor possible. This general category of experiences is generally
what we mean by the label "erotic". (When a particular erotic stimulus
is being given a disapproving evaluation, it is often labeled
"pornography". One may choose to use the label "pornography" to mean
"any erotic stimulus of which I disapprove", but that makes it difficult
to use the word in a useful way in conversation. I'm quite happy to use
the label "pornography" to generally indicate "that end of the scale of
erotic stimuli that are more overtly representative of genital sexual
activity", but I use less ambiguous descriptions for types of erotic
stimuli that I find socially damaging.)
> You are denying the possibility of the transmission of moral
> stance from artist onto canvas!
Not at all. I'm suggesting that it is a property of visual art that the
transmission of a particular propositional stance from artist to viewer
is never certain or uniform. Let's take a hypothetical example.
Suppose I want to create a work of art that represents my extreme moral
repugnance for physical torture. I create a representation of an act of
torture, expecting viewers to respond with the same burning rage and
drive to end torture that I feel when I view it.
Person A, indeed, feels this or something similar.
Person B, perhaps having a significantly different background or
understanding regarding the context in which the portrayed act is
occurring, sees it as a representation of a justified, if violent, response.
Person C leaves the gallery quickly to be violently ill and thinks I'm a
sick wacko to enjoy painting scenes like that.
Person D becomes sexually aroused.
Have a transmitted a moral stance to the canvas? In a way. Have I
succeeded in transmitting one particular and specific moral stance to
every person who views the painting? No -- art isn't very good at that.
For that, I probably want to use language instead.
> You are also precluding the possibility that
> some artistic representations are inherently disturbing and bad.
To say that the categorization of an experience is inherently individual
and subjective is not to say that all experiences are equivalent -- or
even to say that there is no cline of potential among the experiences.
Let's take another example. The categorization of of substances into
"good-tasting" and "bad-tasting" is inherently subjective and
individual. There is no objective, fixed, and agreed-upon dividing line
between the two. The category "bad-tasting things" does not exist
outside of each individual's subjective understanding (and may in fact
change drastically over time for a particular individual).
This does _not_ mean that this categorization is arbitrary or
meaningless. Nor does it mean that there are not substances in the
world that are inherently much more or less likely to fall into a
particular category. Extremely bitter substances, for example, are
inherently less likely to be categorized as "good-tasting" than
"bad-tasting" -- and yet there are many people whose "good-tasting"
category includes certain extremely bitter substances.
Similarly, saying that the nature and boundaries of the category
"erotica/pornography" is inherently subjective and personal is not to
say that certain stimuli are not going to have a greater or lesser
potential for being included in the category -- simply that _where_ the
boundaries of the category fall is not something that can be fixed by
objective criteria, and therefore cannot be understood to be a property
of the stimulus itself, but only of the interaction of that stimulus
with a particular experiencer.
Let's apply that to a more relevant, if rather banal, example. When I
was a kid, family photo albums were rife with "naked baby pictures".
They were considered "cute", and about the worst thing anyone could
image in regard to them was that a younger sibling would show them to
someone you were dating and embarrass you to death.
I know a couple who, in photographing their child, have been careful to
the point of paranoia never to include visible genitalia in the
photographs -- presumably for fear that someone would interpret the
photos as "kiddie porn" and cart them off to jail or at least take the
kid away. (It wasn't because of general prudishness -- this issue only
came up around photos and video tapes.)
Between one generation and the next, has the _objective_ nature of a
photo of a naked baby changed? Is there some _inherent_ property of
that photograph that made it "innocent" forty years ago and "lascivious"
today? This is a much more reasonable parallel to the interpretation of
the long-necked Madonna than your hypothetical examples of bestiality
and whatnot.
> Surely the
> issue is not whether 5 people feel this, but whether sane people realise
> this?
Surely this is a bit extreme? Are you suggesting that someone who
interprets the long-necked Madonna as erotic is insane? Or is it the
person who _doesn't_ who's insane? I rather doubt that you're intending
to do either, but that seems to be the rhetorical stance you're taking.
Is the person who considers naked baby pictures to be innocent insane or
is the person who considers naked baby pictures evidence of a
kiddie-porn industry insane? Surely both positions are well within the
bounds of sanity.
> Q: would a graphic depiction of (to pick two extreme examples) bestiality or
> paedophilia with babies count as "perverse"? Your argument implies that the
> depiction of any scene is an entirely neutral activity, (QUOTE: They may be
> judgments that are shared by more than one viewer, but they're still
> grounded in individual subjective response, not in some objective property
> of the painting itself.) and that the sole determinant in reaction is
> subjective, lying with the observer of the scene! Is the viewer impartial as
> between the fire brigade and the fire? Tell us what you think!
I'll turn the question back: do you consider a photograph of a naked
child to be pornographic? Is it always pornographic? Is it never
pornographic? Is it only pornographic if the viewer is aroused by it?
Is it only pornographic if the photographer _intended_ someone to be
aroused by it?
While paintings involve more detailed intent than photography, the
underlying issues are close enough.
Keep in mind that the painting in question here does _not_ involve a
portrayal of a woman engaging in genital sexual activity. It doesn't
even involve nudity (on her part). It doesn't involve any attributes
that unambiguously require interpretation of recent or imminent sexual
activity. (Noticeably erect nipples can result from a _lot_ of contexts
other than sexual arousal. Most relevantly, a nursing woman will tend
to have more prominent nipples than usual.) The attributes of the
painting that have the potential for being interpreted erotically have
many other, equally valid, interpretations. In this particular context,
it hardly requires suggestions of insanity or moral relativism to argue
that whether one considers the painting erotic is a matter of personal
taste rather than objective definition.
For the record, I don't consider the painting particularly erotic. To
the extent that I can analyze my response, I tend to have a fairly
strong separation in my mind between "nursing mother breast" and "erotic
stimulus breast", and the presence of cues for interpreting the first
tends to suppress the second. (This applies both in artwork and in real
life. If I didn't have this distinction in response, I would have been
considerably less sanguine about having students occasionally nursing
their babies in classes I was teaching! Not everyone has this
distinction -- some people find the sight of a nursing mother to be
sexually stimulating.)
John A Geck
Didn't the Golden Legend cover this, and wasn't it widely read in the 14th
century (if not earlier)?
Simon Pugh
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes
I have been away for a couple of days which is why am responding so
late, I will follow Heather's lead and incorporate some loose ends in
one response.
[Afropea]
Thank you for that quote from Paoletti & Radke it seemed very sensible
and logical. It sounded as though they hadn't quite made up their mind
about the erotic possibilities of the picture, allowing for a double
entendre in which the cognoscenti understand the religious symbolism
whilst appreciating other possibilities.
[Brian]
Thank you for the date when the immaculate conception was incorporated
into dogma. Didn't this idea have a long gestation? I think the legend
of Mary's birth goes back to the early church and the idea of the
immaculate conception was a controversial topic during the middle ages.
If I remember correctly there is a chapter on the Immaculate Conception
in Marina Warner's "Alone of All Her Sex". I must dig it out and see if
she says anything about the status of the concept in the early 16th C.
[Heather]
First your question about what bothers me. It was Hartt's "lascivious
and perverse" comment. In fact it applied to the portrayal of Mary in
"The Vision of St Jerome". It was my idea to bring together the three
pictures because they had the nipple motif in common. Hartt doesn't
comment on nipples in his remarks on the Madonna with the Long Neck, and
he doesn't mention the Madonna with the Rose.
This third picture is in some ways the most ambiguous of the three
because of the lack of anything obvious to show it is a religious
picture. It could just as well be Venus and Cupid. I believe the rose
can be an attribute of Venus and the globe which the infant Christ is
cradling could be an attribute of Cupid. The portrayal of Christ is also
somewhat amoretto-like.
What I am not comfortable with is that an artist and patron of this
period would deliberately set out to create an image of the Virgin Mary
that was lascivious.
Turning to your comments above which seemed to be general rather than
specific to my question. You seem to be taking a post-modern position in
which you say that you cannot predict how an individual will respond to
a picture and that almost any response is possible.
It is hard to disagree with this at the level of the individual but at
the same time it seems to deny that there is any point in an artist
attempting to produce a particular response in a viewer because
responses are unpredictable.
Surely you can't mean this, as soon as you consider a population of
potential views, then the majority responses are predictable. Of course
the intended audience may be the cognoscenti and plebs may not get the
point. The meaning may be complex and there may be puzzles and
ambiguities to tease and delight but surely there would be little point
in painting if the artist is not able to communicate with the viewer.
There wouldn't be much point in poster advertising either. <g>
What I am interested in are the intentions of the artist and how his
intended audience would react. As we are not the intended audience there
is a risk that we may misunderstand and this is interesting too.
For the record I don't find the Madonna with the Long Neck erotic
either. I think Eve suggested elegant and sensual which seems more
appropriate to me.
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
<jg0...@mail.rochester.edu> writes
was certainly miraculous but I am not sure if it specifically says this
was a virgin birth. It says she was not the fruit of carnal desire but
of the divine generosity.
I don't think it mentions being free of original sin.
--
Simon Pugh
Brian M. Scott
<si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>[Brian]
>Thank you for the date when the immaculate conception was incorporated
>into dogma. Didn't this idea have a long gestation?
So far as I know, yes. I believe that its roots go back to some of
the early Church Fathers, though I don't know whether the idea itself
is that old.
[...]
>[Heather]
[...]
>What I am not comfortable with is that an artist and patron of this
>period would deliberately set out to create an image of the Virgin Mary
>that was lascivious.
Why, if I may ask? Conflict with your own views, conflict with your
picture of the period, or something else entirely?
>Turning to your comments above which seemed to be general rather than
>specific to my question. You seem to be taking a post-modern position in
>which you say that you cannot predict how an individual will respond to
>a picture and that almost any response is possible.
I'm not up on literary terminology, but is this really a post-modern
position? It seems far too commonsensical for that!
>It is hard to disagree with this at the level of the individual but at
>the same time it seems to deny that there is any point in an artist
>attempting to produce a particular response in a viewer because
>responses are unpredictable.
>Surely you can't mean this, as soon as you consider a population of
>potential views, then the majority responses are predictable.
Are they? Or is this (usually? often?) true only within a particular
cultural context?
[...]
Brian
Heather Jones
> Turning to your comments above which seemed to be general rather than
> specific to my question. You seem to be taking a post-modern position in
Goodness -- I hope not! I find the strong version of post-modernism to
be nothing but intellectual masturbation**, although I consider the weak
version of it to be a very useful reality-check on the tendency of
researchers to believe they can "know" things to which they have no
direct access.
[**Please do not take this to be disapproval of masturbation -- perhaps
not the best of metaphors for the current thread!]
> which you say that you cannot predict how an individual will respond to
> a picture and that almost any response is possible.
>
> It is hard to disagree with this at the level of the individual but at
> the same time it seems to deny that there is any point in an artist
> attempting to produce a particular response in a viewer because
> responses are unpredictable.
There are two distinctions I'd like to make. One is that -- as in my
example of the category "bitter/bad-tasting" -- just because you can't
define a category by "necessary and sufficient conditions", and just
because you can't necessarily predict the response of a particular
individual doesn't mean that you can't observe, or even predict,
patterns in the response of large populations. You can point to a color
wheel and say "this is definitely blue" and "this is definitely green"
even though every person will draw the line between the two categories
in different places on the wheel.
The second distinction that I'd like to make is the difference between
something being subjective and it being random or arbitrary. The
subjectivity of art is generally considered a feature, not a bug. Every
experiencer brings something different to the artistic experience and so
understands it differently. That's not the same thing as saying that
those responses will be utterly random and unmotivated.
One of the things I've been reacting to in this thread is the vague
notion that a work of art can be clearly and unambiguously categorized
as "erotic". A work of art can have a greater or lesser potential for
being understood as erotic, but that's a significantly different thing
than saying that it can be categorized absolutely as "erotic" or
"non-erotic", and that the only argument is over who is "right" in their
judgment of it.
> Surely you can't mean this, as soon as you consider a population of
> potential views, then the majority responses are predictable. Of course
> the intended audience may be the cognoscenti and plebs may not get the
> point. The meaning may be complex and there may be puzzles and
> ambiguities to tease and delight but surely there would be little point
> in painting if the artist is not able to communicate with the viewer.
> There wouldn't be much point in poster advertising either. <g>
Yeah, but poster advertising isn't concerned with accurately targeting
_everyone_, they're playing the numbers.
As an occasional artist myself, in the field of song lyrics, I've had a
lot of experience with the phenomenon of the experiencers having a very
wide range of reactions to the same artistic presentation. (And that's
in the field of language, which tends to be less subjective than many
fields!) As someone with significantly different artistic tastes than
the majority of my peers, I've had a lot of experience with people
assuming that there's something "wrong" with my interpretations of
artistic experiences because it doesn't match theirs. This may tend to
warp the emphasis I put on the subjective.
Michael Farthing
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes
>One of the things I've been reacting to in this thread is the vague
>notion that a work of art can be clearly and unambiguously categorized
>as "erotic". A work of art can have a greater or lesser potential for
>being understood as erotic, but that's a significantly different thing
>than saying that it can be categorized absolutely as "erotic" or
>"non-erotic", and that the only argument is over who is "right" in their
>judgment of it.
Of course not Heather. This is usenet, and for usenet, it is a highly
focussed and good-natured discussion, but a fault of usenet is that
points of view seem to be more firmly held than is often the case..
While I am one of the ones who may have given the impression of which
you complain, this perhaps says more about the reader than the text
written. Each reader will react differently and the words cannot be
absolutely catagorized... etc etc.:-) Seriously though, both sides have
a point, surely, and in making that point we perhaps tend to press it
harder than we should.
--
Michael Farthing
Simon Pugh
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
>On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 18:55:10 +0100, Simon Pugh
><si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>[Brian]
>>Thank you for the date when the immaculate conception was incorporated
>>into dogma. Didn't this idea have a long gestation?
>
>So far as I know, yes. I believe that its roots go back to some of
>the early Church Fathers, though I don't know whether the idea itself
>is that old.
>
>[...]
>
>>[Heather]
>
>[...]
>
>>What I am not comfortable with is that an artist and patron of this
>>period would deliberately set out to create an image of the Virgin Mary
>>that was lascivious.
>
>Why, if I may ask? Conflict with your own views, conflict with your
>picture of the period, or something else entirely?
Conflicts with my picture of the period, wouldn't it have been
considered blasphemous? However I don't have any evidence for this, I
was rather hoping someone might know.
>
>>Turning to your comments above which seemed to be general rather than
>>specific to my question. You seem to be taking a post-modern position in
>>which you say that you cannot predict how an individual will respond to
>>a picture and that almost any response is possible.
>
>I'm not up on literary terminology, but is this really a post-modern
>position? It seems far too commonsensical for that!
>
>>It is hard to disagree with this at the level of the individual but at
>>the same time it seems to deny that there is any point in an artist
>>attempting to produce a particular response in a viewer because
>>responses are unpredictable.
>
>>Surely you can't mean this, as soon as you consider a population of
>>potential views, then the majority responses are predictable.
>
>Are they? Or is this (usually? often?) true only within a particular
>cultural context?
I think I said more on this in the bit you snipped.
However you and Heather seem to be focussing on the viewer, I am more
interested in the artists intentions. If you deny that an artist can
have any idea how their audience will respond, how can they communicate?
Could it be that you are being a bit dot-edu-ish? <g>
>
>[...]
>
>Brian
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes
>Simon Pugh wrote:
>
>> Turning to your comments above which seemed to be general rather than
>> specific to my question. You seem to be taking a post-modern position in
>
>Goodness -- I hope not! I find the strong version of post-modernism to
>be nothing but intellectual masturbation**, although I consider the weak
>version of it to be a very useful reality-check on the tendency of
>researchers to believe they can "know" things to which they have no
>direct access.
>
>[**Please do not take this to be disapproval of masturbation -- perhaps
>not the best of metaphors for the current thread!]
>
Hmmm masturbation is a pejorative term when applied to something else
but not when applied to the actual activity?
Actually I have no idea what post modernism is but it usually gets a
rise. ;)
<tease mode off>
>> which you say that you cannot predict how an individual will respond to
>> a picture and that almost any response is possible.
>>
>> It is hard to disagree with this at the level of the individual but at
>> the same time it seems to deny that there is any point in an artist
>> attempting to produce a particular response in a viewer because
>> responses are unpredictable.
>
>There are two distinctions I'd like to make. One is that -- as in my
>example of the category "bitter/bad-tasting" -- just because you can't
>define a category by "necessary and sufficient conditions", and just
>because you can't necessarily predict the response of a particular
>individual doesn't mean that you can't observe, or even predict,
>patterns in the response of large populations. You can point to a color
>wheel and say "this is definitely blue" and "this is definitely green"
>even though every person will draw the line between the two categories
>in different places on the wheel.
Yes but how do you know that what I perceive as green is the same as
what you perceive as green? We may point to the same colour but have
quite different experiences. :)
>
>The second distinction that I'd like to make is the difference between
>something being subjective and it being random or arbitrary. The
>subjectivity of art is generally considered a feature, not a bug. Every
>experiencer brings something different to the artistic experience and so
>understands it differently. That's not the same thing as saying that
>those responses will be utterly random and unmotivated.
Yes I agree with that, but just because an experience is subjective, it
doesn't mean an artist can't communicate with the viewer. Although I
don't feel Tracy Emin's bed communicates much to me except con artist.
:)
I am looking for a two way process in which both the artist and viewer
are involved.
>
>One of the things I've been reacting to in this thread is the vague
>notion that a work of art can be clearly and unambiguously categorized
>as "erotic". A work of art can have a greater or lesser potential for
>being understood as erotic, but that's a significantly different thing
>than saying that it can be categorized absolutely as "erotic" or
>"non-erotic", and that the only argument is over who is "right" in their
>judgment of it.
Well we started off with an eminent art historian saying a picture was
lascivious and perverse and my concern that this may not have been the
artists intention.
I might suspect you of introducing a straw-man with this notion of
categorising a work of art as unequivocally erotic. :)
>
>> Surely you can't mean this, as soon as you consider a population of
>> potential views, then the majority responses are predictable. Of course
>> the intended audience may be the cognoscenti and plebs may not get the
>> point. The meaning may be complex and there may be puzzles and
>> ambiguities to tease and delight but surely there would be little point
>> in painting if the artist is not able to communicate with the viewer.
>> There wouldn't be much point in poster advertising either. <g>
>
>Yeah, but poster advertising isn't concerned with accurately targeting
>_everyone_, they're playing the numbers.
>
As an example where this communication when spectacularly wrong how
about the famous "You're never alone with a Strand" campaign of many
years ago?
>As an occasional artist myself, in the field of song lyrics, I've had a
>lot of experience with the phenomenon of the experiencers having a very
>wide range of reactions to the same artistic presentation. (And that's
>in the field of language, which tends to be less subjective than many
>fields!) As someone with significantly different artistic tastes than
>the majority of my peers, I've had a lot of experience with people
>assuming that there's something "wrong" with my interpretations of
>artistic experiences because it doesn't match theirs. This may tend to
>warp the emphasis I put on the subjective.
I seem to have touched a nerve. :)
>
>
>Heather
>
One picture that I find mildly disturbing is "Cupid carving his bow"
also by Parmigianino. I would be intrigued to hear how you react(ed) to
it.
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/p/parmigia/cupid.html
--
Simon Pugh
Heather Jones
> >Goodness -- I hope not! I find the strong version of post-modernism to
> >be nothing but intellectual masturbation**, although I consider the weak
> >version of it to be a very useful reality-check on the tendency of
> >researchers to believe they can "know" things to which they have no
> >direct access.
> >
> >[**Please do not take this to be disapproval of masturbation -- perhaps
> >not the best of metaphors for the current thread!]
> >
> <tease mode on>
>
> Hmmm masturbation is a pejorative term when applied to something else
> but not when applied to the actual activity?
The problem with intellectual masturbation is not that it is
masturbation, but that it is indulged in in public, rather than in
private. :)
> One picture that I find mildly disturbing is "Cupid carving his bow"
> also by Parmigianino. I would be intrigued to hear how you react(ed) to
> it.
>
> http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/p/parmigia/cupid.html
My first reaction is that that's an awfully female looking rear end for
an allegedly male cupid. It's as if the artist pasted together the top
have of an adolescent boy and the bottom half of an adult woman.
My second reaction is that he's about to slice himself rather badly if
he keeps holding the knife that way.
My third reaction is to tell the left-hand cherub in the background to
stop annoying his sister.
I haven't quite worked my way around to reactions to the erotic
potential yet.
Brian M. Scott
news:BBjlTPBV...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk in
soc.history.medieval:
[...]
> However you and Heather seem to be focussing on the viewer,
> I am more interested in the artists intentions. If you deny
> that an artist can have any idea how their audience will
> respond, how can they communicate?
I don't think that either of us is denying that an artist can
have *any* idea how the audience will react; we're just pointing
out that the artist can never be certain of the reaction of any
particular person.
In the interests of clarity I should probably say that I don't
really care much about communication in non-verbal art: I'm
interested in whether I like to look at it or listen to it, not
in what the artist may or may not be trying to 'say'.
> Could it be that you are being a bit dot-edu-ish? <g>
Just being me ...
Brian
Afropea
interesting analysis aboard.
Although many people once looked at this picture as an instance of purity vs.
vanity, it's unlikely that this was the case. Here's a rather nice analysis
that's also from John T. Paoletti and Gary M. Radke in "Art in Renaissance
Italy"--
"The integration of landscape painting and mythology into the traditions of
Venetian art is evident in 'Sacred and Profane Love' by Titian, a young painter
from the Dolomites who early in his career collaborated with Giorgione and then
went on to become Venice's most eminent Renaissance painter. Even more
elongated than the 'Sleeping Venus', the painting almost certainly served to
adorn a piece of furniture. The facial resemblance between the two women
suggests that they may be the same person in two guises. The presence of the
Cupid behind the sarcophagus indicates that the nude figure is Venus,
representing divine love. The woman at the left, dressed in heavy, luxurious
clothing and wearing gloves, would then be reference to human love, for the
materials of her clothing appeal to the human senses, as do her low-cut dress
and open bodice. The slash of red sleeve against the cool blue of her dress
adds to the sensuousness of the satin.
The painting reflects the new classical learning of the period and the new
Venetian fascination with landscape while it simultaneously celebrates the
married sexual love. The floral wreath in the hair and flowers in the lap of
the dressed Venus signal fertility, surrounded by emblems of the landscape at
the left. The shield on the sarcophagus identifies the patron as Niccolo
Aurelio, the vice-chancellor of the Venetian republic. Nearly hidden in the
silver bowl on the edge of the sarcophagus is a second crest belonging to Laura
Bagraotto, whom Aurelio married in 1514. The 'Sacred and Profane Love' is
certainly a marriage painting for this couple, its purpose to remind the wife
of her virtuousness and her procreative powers by the double guise of Venus and
unsubtly, by the small rabbits in the erotic image whose moral message
nonetheless maintains the boundaries of decorum."
I'm surprised and a bit disappointed that they didn't mention the violent scene
on the relief. I don't recall anyone having a really good explanation of it,
and it's possible that they weren't chancing a guess. If anyone has heard of
any good theories or would like to come up with one on their own, I'd be
interested in hearing it!
Eve
Simon Pugh
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes
>Simon Pugh wrote:
>>
>> In message <3CC373FB...@socrates.berkeley.edu>, Heather Jones
>
>> >Goodness -- I hope not! I find the strong version of post-modernism to
>> >be nothing but intellectual masturbation**, although I consider the weak
>> >version of it to be a very useful reality-check on the tendency of
>> >researchers to believe they can "know" things to which they have no
>> >direct access.
>> >
>> >[**Please do not take this to be disapproval of masturbation -- perhaps
>> >not the best of metaphors for the current thread!]
>> >
>> <tease mode on>
>>
>> Hmmm masturbation is a pejorative term when applied to something else
>> but not when applied to the actual activity?
>
>The problem with intellectual masturbation is not that it is
>masturbation, but that it is indulged in in public, rather than in
>private. :)
Good answer.
If I have any thoughts of post modernism I had better keep them to
myself. :)
>
>
>> One picture that I find mildly disturbing is "Cupid carving his bow"
>> also by Parmigianino. I would be intrigued to hear how you react(ed) to
>> it.
>>
>> http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/p/parmigia/cupid.html
>
>My first reaction is that that's an awfully female looking rear end for
>an allegedly male cupid. It's as if the artist pasted together the top
>have of an adolescent boy and the bottom half of an adult woman.
>
>My second reaction is that he's about to slice himself rather badly if
>he keeps holding the knife that way.
>
>My third reaction is to tell the left-hand cherub in the background to
>stop annoying his sister.
>
>I haven't quite worked my way around to reactions to the erotic
>potential yet.
>
The reason for bringing this up was that it seem to me to be a better
example of your point that that it is difficult to decide what is
intended to be erotic. It is by the same artist as the Madonnas, but it
is non religious, and the subject, Cupid, gives a clue that sex may be
involved.
I haven't seen a good interpretation of this picture so here are some of
my thoughts.
Cupid carving his bow - getting ready for action?
Standing on books - Books can represent knowledge or the rational mind?
Cupid by having his foot on them shows that desire can conquer man's
higher instincts?
The girl with the burnt hand shows Cupid is burning hot - with desire?
This little scene is presented as humour but it leaves a bad taste in
the moth, the boy holds the girl by the shoulder and grasping her wrist
forces her had against the burning hot Cupid while she howls in protest.
Could there be shades of sexual violence here or even a dash of sadism?
Cupid as you say is formed from a boys head and a woman's body. He is
standing with his back to us glancing back to engage the viewer, is this
a conspiratorial glance inviting us to participate in his schemes or is
it a come hither look.
I wonder what particular taste Parmigianino was catering to with this
boy-woman and if this is intended to be erotic.
Some of these thoughts may be too modern, but it is all very puzzling
and makes your point? <g>
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
Yes I have seen that you have a major interest in language, I happen to
be interested in visual communication or at least extracting information
from paintings.
Leaving that discussion to one side and not particularly for Brain, I
think it would be interesting to look at what medieval man thought was
the purpose of religious paintings.
"Know that there are three reasons for the institution of images in
churches. First, for the instruction of simple people, because they are
instructed by them as if by books. Second, so that the mystery of the
incarnation and the examples of Saints may be more active in our memory
through being presented daily to our eyes. Third, to excite feelings of
devotion, these being aroused more effectively by things seen than by
things heard."
John of Genoa's late thirteenth century _Catholicon_.
And another:
"... images of the Virgin and the Saints were introduced for three
reasons. First, on account of the ignorance of simple people, so that
those who are not able to read the scriptures can yet learn by seeing
the sacraments of our salvation and faith in pictures. ...
What a book is to those who can read, a picture is to the ignorant
people who look at it. because in a picture even the unlearned may see
what example they should follow; in a picture they who know no letters
may yet read ..."
From a sermon published in 1492 by the Dominican Fra Michele da Carcano.
[Both from Painting & Experience in 15th C Italy by Michael Baxendall]
It seems pretty clear that medieval man thought it was possible to
communicate with and instruct even simple people with pictures. Perhaps
all this angst about subjectivity is a modern phenomenon?
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
<afr...@aol.com> writes
Thank you for that nice interpretation Eve. It sounds very plausible
although they have left out quite bit, I'm glad they got the rabbits in
though. :)
I think they have missed a trick with the red sleeve, because the one on
the other side, the sacred side, is white. Also the pink rose may be
symbolic of first love, then there is the lamp held up towards heaven by
sacred Venus etc etc.
Like you I haven't seen an explanation for the violent scene on the
relief, but I wonder if it could be a "heroic rape" scene of the type
that was sometimes associated with marriage. I can't make out which one
it might be though, the Rape of the Sabine Women doesn't seem to quite
fit.
--
Simon Pugh
Afropea
Well, it was only a bit of a blurb in a general text. If you like, I could
look into some Titian books and see what they have to say.
Eve
D. Spencer Hines
"Afropea's" fascination with the seamy side of "The Erotic" continues
unsatiated.
This gal needs a boyfriend.
Any volunteers?
Simon seems interested.
Small rabbits?
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Afropea" <afr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020423152924...@mb-mo.aol.com...
Brian M. Scott
<si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <Xns91F8B7A7F34EFs...@216.148.53.95>, Brian M.
>Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
>>On 22 Apr 2002 Simon Pugh <si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>news:BBjlTPBV...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk in
>>soc.history.medieval:
>>[...]
>>> However you and Heather seem to be focussing on the viewer,
>>> I am more interested in the artists intentions. If you deny
>>> that an artist can have any idea how their audience will
>>> respond, how can they communicate?
>>I don't think that either of us is denying that an artist can
>>have *any* idea how the audience will react; we're just pointing
>>out that the artist can never be certain of the reaction of any
>>particular person.
>>In the interests of clarity I should probably say that I don't
>>really care much about communication in non-verbal art: I'm
>>interested in whether I like to look at it or listen to it, not
>>in what the artist may or may not be trying to 'say'.
>>> Could it be that you are being a bit dot-edu-ish? <g>
>>Just being me ...
>Yes I have seen that you have a major interest in language, I happen to
>be interested in visual communication or at least extracting information
>from paintings.
Oh, I have some interest in non-linguistic media, notably music; I
just don't normally think of them as media of communication. As I
said, in their case it's the aesthetics that matter to me. (And when
I do try to extract information from paintings, it's generally of
another sort entirely, details of daily life and the like.)
>Leaving that discussion to one side and not particularly for Brain, I
>think it would be interesting to look at what medieval man thought was
>the purpose of religious paintings.
>"Know that there are three reasons for the institution of images in
>churches. First, for the instruction of simple people, because they are
>instructed by them as if by books. Second, so that the mystery of the
>incarnation and the examples of Saints may be more active in our memory
>through being presented daily to our eyes. Third, to excite feelings of
>devotion, these being aroused more effectively by things seen than by
>things heard."
>John of Genoa's late thirteenth century _Catholicon_.
>And another:
>"... images of the Virgin and the Saints were introduced for three
>reasons. First, on account of the ignorance of simple people, so that
>those who are not able to read the scriptures can yet learn by seeing
>the sacraments of our salvation and faith in pictures. ...
>What a book is to those who can read, a picture is to the ignorant
>people who look at it. because in a picture even the unlearned may see
>what example they should follow; in a picture they who know no letters
>may yet read ..."
> From a sermon published in 1492 by the Dominican Fra Michele da Carcano.
>[Both from Painting & Experience in 15th C Italy by Michael Baxendall]
>It seems pretty clear that medieval man thought it was possible to
>communicate with and instruct even simple people with pictures.
You're conflating two different notions of communication, I think,
though it's possible that the difference is in degree rather than in
kind. Using pictures to tell a story, which is what much medieval
religious art seems intended to do, is at least more straightforward
than whatever may be going on in that Cupid painting.
I'd also point out that medieval religious pictures assume a common
cultural background, sometimes quite detailed. Clearly the existence
of a common background of assumptions and even specific symbols allows
relatively reliable pictorial communication to take place; I don't
think that that was in dispute.
> Perhaps
>all this angst about subjectivity is a modern phenomenon?
Recognition of the problem may perhaps be; the problem certainly
isn't.
Brian
Simon Pugh
I don't feel confused myself, but I think we may have been talking at
cross purposes. I am interested in the language of painting - the story
and the symbolism. Whilst I enjoy and appreciate the aesthetic side, it
is the practical details that interest me.
This interest arises out of some projects I have undertaken involving
the identification of the sitters in portraits of unknown people (from a
later period). It involves extracting as much information as possible
from both the picture and the provenance and this is why I like to pick
to pieces the details in paintings.
I started with a practical question about women's clothes but we got
side tracked into what is considered erotic. :)
--
Simon Pugh
D. Spencer Hines
that's where Igor and "Afropea" wanted to take the thread.
Both of them are horny little devils and looking for love in all the
wrong places.
A discussion of women's clothing is especially exciting to Igor. He
just wants to get his nose right in there ---- amongst the folds in the
fabrics.
Hilarious!
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Simon Pugh" <si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nYN81cEu...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
Afropea
Pedrocco's "Titian" copyright 2000. It also gives a good rational for the
violence on the stone reliefs.
“This magnificent painting was in the collection of the Borghese family in
Rome by 1648; this is documented by Ridlofi who, on seeing it there, described
it as ‘two women near a spring in which a child is looking at itself.’ The
picture's history prior to that date is undocumented, although there have been
various conjectures. The most credible of these is the one which suggests that
it was owned by Cardinal Paolo Emilio Sfondrato (or Sfrondrai), the nephew of
Pope Gregory XIV, and was one of 71 works sold by him to Scipione Borghese in
1608.
The only definite information comes from a detail within the painting: The
presence on the front of the sarcophagus of the crest of Nicolo Aurelio, which
indicates it was executed by Titian for Aurelio, who was an important figure in
Venetian politics, elected secretary of the Council of Ten in 1507 and in 1523
appointed Grand Chancellor of the Republic. This fact has led to the
assumption that it was painted on the occasion of Aurelio’s marriage to Laura
Bagarotto, celebrated in Venice on May 17, 1514. There had been a tragic event
prior to the wedding: the father of the bride, Bertuccio Bagarotto, a lawyer
and professor of law at Padua, had been charged with treason on behalf of the
Imperial faction, and sentenced to death in 1509 on order of the Council of
Ten, of which Aurelio was secretary. Laura’s first husband, Francesco
Borromes, a nobleman from Padua, apparently met the same fate; he too was
jailed and probably hanged on similar charges. Wethey (1975) supports this
theory on the strength of the Bagarotto family crest said to appear on the bowl
resting on the sarcophagus, but this is contradicted by an examination of the
painting (Tiziano, Amor Sacro e Amor Profano, 1995)
Although Wethey’s ‘discovery’ cannot be accepted, the fact remains that
this picture is a ‘marriage picture.’ Gentili (1990) correctly underscores
how difficult it must have been for Aurelio to ‘transform the memory of death
into the promise of life, to reconcile husband and wife,’ and goes on to
argue that the painting says that the mediation of Love and the persuasion of
Venus were necessary’ to bring about the transformation. This is probably
the best interpretation of a work that has inspired an almost endless series of
readings.
The clothed woman exhibits all of the attributes of a bride in traditional
iconography: white dress, unbounded hair, crown of myrtle around the head,
bouquet of roses in the right hand glove, jewel box, and belt fastened by a
buckle. Also indicating a marriage are the two rabbits, a symbol of fertility,
on the left side of the canvas. Thus the woman on the left side of the canvas.
Thus the woman on the left stands for Laura the spouse, whereas the nude
figure on the right represents, as is usually suggested, Venus, who is the
means (love) by which the husband has won Laura. Finally, the Cupid in the
center is Love itself, capable of changing death into life, and the sarcophagus
with scenes of entrapment and punishment is the spring of the new
life--signifying the transformation that is about to occur in the life of the
bride. These elements strongly argue that this is not a depiction of scared
and profane love, as its usual title indicates, and which was seen as the key
to the painting by Panofsky; nor is it a depiction of the tale of Medea. Even
less likely is the theory that it contained a reference to the
‘Hyberpotomochia’ of Francesco Colonna; according to that notion, Titian
painted the image of his supposed lover Violante, the daughter of Palma
Vecchio, seated on one end of the sarcophagus where Cupid collects the blood of
Adonis in order to offer it to Venus, seated on the other end. Instead, the
painting is really the private tribute paid by a husband to his bride.
Whatever the interpretation of the subject, the quality of the painting is
truly exceptional, especially in terms of the superb handling of the color,
which makes this key example of Titian’s easily ‘chromatic
classicism.’”
Eve
Gilmore, Phyllis
b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
> Oh, I have some interest in non-linguistic media, notably music; I
> just don't normally think of them as media of communication. As I
> said, in their case it's the aesthetics that matter to me. (And when
> I do try to extract information from paintings, it's generally of
> another sort entirely, details of daily life and the like.)
<snip>
> You're conflating two different notions of communication, I think,
> though it's possible that the difference is in degree rather than in
> kind. Using pictures to tell a story, which is what much medieval
> religious art seems intended to do, is at least more straightforward
> than whatever may be going on in that Cupid painting.
>
> I'd also point out that medieval religious pictures assume a common
> cultural background, sometimes quite detailed. Clearly the existence
> of a common background of assumptions and even specific symbols allows
> relatively reliable pictorial communication to take place; I don't
> think that that was in dispute.
I think that those of us born in the 20th century have a particular
handicap when it comes to interpreting the visual arts. We are
bombarded with tons of iconography on a daily basis, much of which has
one clear message ("buy this!"). And--thanks, perhaps, to the advent of
photograph--there seems to be much less desire to render realistic
images. At the same time, we get conflicting messages from the
"cognoscenti" about how to approach art--or, at least, I've gotten such
messages. We not only don't have the same artistic vocabulary--as
viewers and doers--as someone in the 14th century, we don't necesarily
share the (exact) same vocabulary with the guy in the next office.
I sometimes think 20th and 21st century artists are really indulging in
a massive scam/in-joke played on critics, well-healed buyers, et al.
But that's another rant.
We also have a cultural millieu that seems to sell everything--and
interpret everything--in terms of sex. That's in stark contrast with,
for example, the Catholic Church interpretation of the Song of
Solomon--whose fairly clear eroticism, we are told, should be
interpreted in a spiritual way.
But I note that we also have no real way of knowing if a Medieval artist
was pulling a scam/in-joke on his own cadre of critics, well-healed
artists, et al., by using--and meaning--erotic images, all the while
knowing that the church would interpret it in quite a different way.
I keep thinking of a musical parallel. P.D.Q. Bach humor works very
well when the audience has a wide--and deep--exposure to the musical
idioms of several centuries. To someone lacking that experience--say,
an average Inuit in 1900--it might not even be nice listening.
Phyllis
Brian M. Scott
<si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I started with a practical question about women's clothes but we got
>side tracked into what is considered erotic. :)
Hey, that's arguably a practical question about what's erotic! <g>
Brian
Simon Pugh
<afr...@aol.com> writes
Thank you, another heroic typing effort <g>
It seems like a pretty good account although again it leaves quite a few
features out, it barley mentions the landscapes and the things going on
there.
One thing that puzzles me is why people always seem to describe the
thing the women are sitting on as a sarcophagus. It is full of water and
there is a spout on the front with water gushing out. Surely it is a
spring as in the quote at the beginning.
I am not totally convinced by the explanation of the violent scenes but
I don't have a better explanation.:)
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
You are incorrigible. <g>
--
Simon Pugh
D. Spencer Hines
He is indeed an incorrigible hound dog ---- all 5 feet two inches, 119
pounds of him.
Hilarious!
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Simon Pugh" <si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kF5sypN+...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
Simon Pugh
"Gilmore, Phyllis" <gil...@dcmail1.rand.org> writes<snip>
>I think that those of us born in the 20th century have a particular
>handicap when it comes to interpreting the visual arts. We are
>bombarded with tons of iconography on a daily basis, much of which has
>one clear message ("buy this!"). And--thanks, perhaps, to the advent of
>photograph--there seems to be much less desire to render realistic
>images. At the same time, we get conflicting messages from the
>"cognoscenti" about how to approach art--or, at least, I've gotten such
>messages. We not only don't have the same artistic vocabulary--as
>viewers and doers--as someone in the 14th century, we don't necesarily
>share the (exact) same vocabulary with the guy in the next office.
Don't you think that we have a very sophisticated understanding of
modern images especially in film? We are barely aware of it but I would
be surprised if someone from even 30 years ago could follow some current
films. Also the pace of old films seems unbearably slow with every step
of the plot painfully spelt out.
>
>I sometimes think 20th and 21st century artists are really indulging in
>a massive scam/in-joke played on critics, well-healed buyers, et al.
>But that's another rant.
>
>We also have a cultural millieu that seems to sell everything--and
>interpret everything--in terms of sex. That's in stark contrast with,
>for example, the Catholic Church interpretation of the Song of
>Solomon--whose fairly clear eroticism, we are told, should be
>interpreted in a spiritual way.
Yes it is completely obvious what the Song of Songs is about if you read
it. Perhaps the church was trying to neutralise it by giving a spiritual
interpretation?
>
>But I note that we also have no real way of knowing if a Medieval artist
>was pulling a scam/in-joke on his own cadre of critics, well-healed
>artists, et al., by using--and meaning--erotic images, all the while
>knowing that the church would interpret it in quite a different way.
>
>I keep thinking of a musical parallel. P.D.Q. Bach humor works very
>well when the audience has a wide--and deep--exposure to the musical
>idioms of several centuries. To someone lacking that experience--say,
>an average Inuit in 1900--it might not even be nice listening.
>
>Phyllis
I also wonder if modern artist are conning us and treating the whole
thing as a huge joke. Slightly on a different tack, didn't Picasso,
shortly before he died, claim he had been conning everyone during his
later years?
It is also possible that artists subvert the objectives of their
patrons, we had a discussion some time ago about possible Saxon
subversion in the Bayeux Tapestry. A dangerous thing to do. :)
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
Some quotes from Paoletti & Radke Art in Renaissance Italy.
"Renaissance art obviously spoke more immediately to its contemporaries
than it does to the modern viewer. The images and attributes of saints,
classical heroes, or local rulers, along with their symbolic meanings,
were part of an individuals intellectual equipment in the culture of the
time. [stuff about attributes of saints] ... Such images of saints not
only made them recognisable, but also recalled the popular stories
connected with their lives, thus speaking directly to story-telling
traditions and to the imagination of the viewer."
Martin da Canal from _Les Estoires de Venise_ 1267-1275: "We see
writings and paintings with our eyes , so that when one sees a story
painted or hears a naval or land battle recounted or reads about the
deeds of ancestors in a book, he seems to be present at the scene of
battle. And since events live, thanks to paintings and oral accounts and
writing, I have undertaken to occupy myself with the deeds that the
Venetians have accomplished in the service of the holy Church and in the
honour of their noble city."
So this medieval author saw a continuum between oral, written and
painted language.
[P&R again] After a piece on aesthetics: "Aesthetics were not the
driving force behind the commission and creation of works of art. Quite
mundane and awkward images of a Madonna and Child may have been just as
efficacious as devotional objects as those generally admired images that
have come to define renaissance artistic canon."
As an example of how detailed a commission could be here are some
excerpts from a letter of commission from Isabella d'Este to Perugino:
"Our poetic invention, which we greatly want to see painted by you, is a
battle of Chastity against Lasciviousness, that is to say, Pallas and
Diana fighting vigorously against Venus and Cupid. And Pallas should
seem almost to have vanquished Cupid, having broken his golden arrow and
cast his silver bow underfoot; with one hand she is holding him by the
bandage which the blind boy has before his eyes, and with the other she
is lifting her lance and about to kill him. By comparison Diana must
seem to be having a closer fight with Venus for victory. Venus has been
struck by Diana's arrow only on the surface of the body, on her crown
and garland, or on a veil she may have around her ; and part of Diana's
raiment will have been singed by the torch of Venus, but nowhere else
will either of them been wounded. Beyond these four deities, the most
chaste nymphs in the trains of Pallas and Diana, in whatever attitudes
and ways you please, have to fight fiercely with a lascivious crowd of
fauns, satyrs and several thousand cupids; and these cupids must be
smaller than the first, and not bearing gold bows and silver arrows, but
bows and arrows of some baser material such as wood or iron or what you
please. And to give more expression and decoration to the picture beside
Pallas I want to have the olive tree sacred to her, with a shield
leaning against it bearing, the head of Medusa, and with the owl, the
bird peculiar to Pallas perched among the branches. ...
[and so on for about the same again, and finishing]
I am sending you all these details in a small drawing, so that with both
the written description and the drawing you will be able to consider my
wishes in this matter. But if you think perhaps that there are too many
figures for one picture, it is left to you to reduce them as you please,
provided that you do not remove the principal basis, which consists of
the four figures of Pallas, Diana, Venus and Cupid. I shall consider
myself well satisfied; you are free to reduce them, but not to add
anything else. Please be content with this arrangement.
Very precise instructions although with a little leeway allowed to the
artist. The modern idea that art is a vehicle of expression for artists
or that the reaction of the viewer is entirely subjective and that any
reading is "OK", would surely have been completely alien to renaissance
man/woman.
Presumably this is the painting referred to above:
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/perugino/perugino10.html
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
in religious art. In this vein here is a famous letter written by the
poet Pietro Aretino to Michelangelo about The Last Judgement
commissioned for the Sistine Chapel.
To the Great Michelangelo Buanorrotti in Rome
Sir,
When I inspected the complete sketch of the whole of your Last
Judgement, I arrived at recognising the eminent graciousness of
Raffaello in its agreeable beauty of invention.
Meanwhile, as a baptised Christian, I blush before the license, so
forbidden to man's intellect, which you have used in expressing ideas
connected with the highest aims and final ends to which our faith
aspires. So, then, that Michelangelo stupendous in his fame, that
Michelangelo renowned for prudence, that Michelangelo whom all admire,
has chosen to display to the whole world an impiety of irreligion only
equalled by the perfection of his painting! Is it possible that you,
who, since you are divine, do not condescend to consort with human
beings, have done this in the greatest temple built to God, upon the
highest altar raised to Christ, in the most sacred chapel upon the
earth, where the mighty hinges of the Church, the venerable priests of
our religion, the Vicar of Christ, with solemn ceremonies and holy
prayers, confess, contemplate and adore his body , his blood, and his
flesh?
If it were not infamous to introduce the comparison, I would plume
myself upon my discretion when I wrote _La Nanna_. I would demonstrate
the superiority of my prudent reserve to your immodesty, seeing that I,
while handling themes lascivious and immodest, use language comely and
decorous, speak in terms beyond reproach and inoffensive to chaste ears.
You, on the contrary, presenting so awful a subject, exhibit saints and
angels, these without earthly decency and those without celestial
honours.
The pagans when the made statues I do not say of Diana who is clothed,
but of naked Venus, made them cover with their hand the parts which
should not be seen. And here there comes a Christian who, because he
rates art higher than faith, deems a royal spectacle martyrs and virgins
in improper attitudes, men dragged down by their genitals, things in
front of which brothels would shut their eyes in order not to see them.
Your art would be at home in some voluptuous bagnio, certainly not in
the highest chapel of the world. Less criminal were it if you were an
infidel, than being a believer, thus to sap the faith of others. Up to
the present time the splendour of such audacious marvels has not gone
unpunished, for their very superexcellence is the death of your good
name. Restore it to good repute by turning the indecent parts of the
damned to flames, and those of the blessed to sunbeams, or imitate the
modesty of Florence, who hides your David's shame beneath some gilded
leaves. And yet that statue is exposed on a public square and not in a
consecrated chapel.
As I wish that God may pardon you, I do not write this out of any
resentment ...
(November 1545, in Venice. Your servant the Aretine)
A somewhat hypocritical letter as Aretino was the author of many
lascivious works.
--
Simon Pugh
Alex
Indeed, but he was not alone in his perception. IIRC, there was at least
a proposal to cover the "offensive" parts with a clothing (don't remember
if this was ever implemented).