If you want to argue about a movie... (Out of Lurking and into the fray)
Wykan
that have been put into arguing about movies like Braveheart - not to
mention that overrated piece of dung, Titanic.
But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more fun.
Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
alex milman
Wykan <wy...@siscom.net> wrote in message
news:38102b20...@news.siscom.net...
>
> But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more fun.
> Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
> dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
Yep. There was no need to bind Pastrow's breasts (to pass her as a boy):
she has none. :-)
Liz Broadwell
: But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more fun.
: Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
: dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
That would be soc.history.early-modern. Besides, AFAIK, it made no claim
to be anything other than fiction.
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "If all you have is a hammer, everything
(ebro...@english.upenn.edu) | starts to look like a nail.... If all you
Department of English | have is duct tape, everything starts to
University of Pennsylvania | look like a duct. Right. When's the last
Philadelphia, PA | time you used duct tape on a duct?"
-- Larry Wall
tiglath
alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message
news:7uhnp6$cu7$1...@news.gte.com...
> > Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
> > dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
>
boy):
> she has none. :-)
I saw some, a la Pfeiffer perhaps, but some nonetheless. What did
you expect, 42-D in a horse leather upper decker flopper stopper?
What troubled me was Shakespeare's hair by Christophe.
Anita
You won't see a 42-D in anything outside of porn. Paltrow has the
currently fashionable streamlined body. You're right about
Shakespeare's hair - well, it has to be palatable to late 20th century
audiences...
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: > > Yep. There was no need to bind Pastrow's breasts (to pass her as a
: > boy):
: > > she has none. :-)
: >
: > I saw some, a la Pfeiffer perhaps, but some nonetheless. What did
: > you expect, 42-D in a horse leather upper decker flopper stopper?
: > What troubled me was Shakespeare's hair by Christophe.
: You won't see a 42-D in anything outside of porn. Paltrow has the
: currently fashionable streamlined body. You're right about
: Shakespeare's hair - well, it has to be palatable to late 20th century
: audiences...
If you want to amend that to "You won't see a 42-D attached to an anorexic
body in anything outside of porn" I wouldn't be inclined to argue.
However, there are any number of women running around with 42-D (and
larger) who have never considered porn as a career.
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
Anita
Sorry, Heather, I needed to clarify! I was referring to what one could
see in the movies, not in the real world! (I'm only slightly smaller
myself, and have never considered porn as a career.)
Anita
Czaerana
>currently fashionable streamlined body.
You mean the "currently fashionable anorexic body".
alex milman
tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:7ui5ei$q5l$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
>
> alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message
> news:7uhnp6$cu7$1...@news.gte.com...
> >
> > Wykan <wy...@siscom.net> wrote in message
> > news:38102b20...@news.siscom.net...
> > >
> > > But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more fun.
> > > Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
> > > dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
> >
> boy):
> > she has none. :-)
>
> I saw some,
Congratulations, your eyes are in a perfect condition. Can't say the
same about my. :-)
>a la Pfeiffer perhaps,
but on a smaller scale....
>
> but some nonetheless.
But nothing to warrant a rather complicated procedure of binding/unbinding
(makes movie much longer....)
> What did
> you expect, 42-D in a horse leather upper decker flopper stopper?
> What troubled me was Shakespeare's hair by Christophe.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that there was Shakespeare in the movie?
I definitely missed something.... :-)
alex milman
Anita <love...@flash.net> wrote in message news:380C9B...@flash.net...
> tiglath wrote:
> >
> > alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message
> > news:7uhnp6$cu7$1...@news.gte.com...
> > >
> > > Wykan <wy...@siscom.net> wrote in message
> > > news:38102b20...@news.siscom.net...
> > > >
> > > > But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more fun.
> > > > Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
> > > > dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
> > >
> > > Yep. There was no need to bind Pastrow's breasts (to pass her as a
> > boy):
> > > she has none. :-)
> >
> > you expect, 42-D in a horse leather upper decker flopper stopper?
> > What troubled me was Shakespeare's hair by Christophe.
>
>
> currently fashionable streamlined body.
"Streamlined" as "ideally flat"?
tiglath
Czaerana <czae...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991019134256...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> >. Paltrow has the
> >currently fashionable streamlined body.
>
A statement like the garments of Hellenic statuary: reveals more than
conceals.
>
> Cynthia
> http://members.aol.com/Czaerana/index.html
tiglath
her as a
> > : > boy):
> > : > > she has none. :-)
> > : >
> > : > I saw some, a la Pfeiffer perhaps, but some nonetheless.
What did
> > : > you expect, 42-D in a horse leather upper decker flopper
stopper?
> > : > What troubled me was Shakespeare's hair by Christophe.
> >
the
> > : currently fashionable streamlined body. You're right about
> > : Shakespeare's hair - well, it has to be palatable to late 20th
century
> > : audiences...
> >
> > If you want to amend that to "You won't see a 42-D attached to an
anorexic
> > body in anything outside of porn" I wouldn't be inclined to argue.
> > However, there are any number of women running around with 42-D
(and
> > larger) who have never considered porn as a career.
> >
> > --
> > *********************************************************
> > Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
> > **********************************************************
>
> Sorry, Heather, I needed to clarify! I was referring to what one
could
> see in the movies, not in the real world! (I'm only slightly
smaller
> myself, and have never considered porn as a career.)
>
> Anita
Anita is such a nice name. Shakespeare denieth Verona and the world
so much heaven with "Juliet" and not "Anita." Wanna lose this
crowd?
tiglath
> > news:7uhnp6$cu7$1...@news.gte.com...
> > >
> > > Wykan <wy...@siscom.net> wrote in message
> > > news:38102b20...@news.siscom.net...
> > > >
> > > > But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more
fun.
> > > > Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another
piece of
> > > > dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
> > >
a
> > boy):
> > > she has none. :-)
> >
> > I saw some,
>
> same about my. :-)
>
>
> but on a smaller scale....
>
Pray tell where I can check Michelle's scale.
>
> But nothing to warrant a rather complicated procedure of
binding/unbinding
> (makes movie much longer....)
True. The movie had enough spin without it.
Christopher Adams
>> Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
>> dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
It was an excellent film, and I say this as a man who has never seen Gwyneth
Paltrow perform *well.* She was rather ordinary, but I thought the script was
excellent and the rest of the cast superb. It deserved its Oscar, and the fact
that I won a door prize at the SUDS Oscar Night because it did has nothing to do
with that statement.
You'll note I made no mention of historical issues; that's because they're not
important.
--
Christopher Adams
A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
Vice-President SUTEKH 2000
Librarian PAGUS 2000
The grave of Karl Marx is just another Communist plot.
Jesus said to them, "Who do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological
manifestation of the ground of our being, the kerygma
of which we find the ultimate meaning in our
interpersonal relationships." And Jesus said, "What?"
Do thou unto others - and then split.
alex milman
>
> alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message
> news:7uicru$da7$1...@news.gte.com...
> >
> > tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:7ui5ei$q5l$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> > >
> > > alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7uhnp6$cu7$1...@news.gte.com...
> > > >
> > > > Wykan <wy...@siscom.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:38102b20...@news.siscom.net...
> > > > >
> fun.
> > > > > Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another
> piece of
> > > > > dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
> > > >
> a
> > > boy):
> > > > she has none. :-)
> > >
> > > I saw some,
> >
> > Congratulations, your eyes are in a perfect condition. Can't say the
> > same about my. :-)
> >
> > >a la Pfeiffer perhaps,
> >
> > but on a smaller scale....
> >
>
> Pray tell where I can check Michelle's scale.
Now, THIS is a very good question! :-)
Mike Dana
>
> Anita <love...@flash.net> wrote in message news:380C9B...@flash.net...
> > You won't see a 42-D in anything outside of porn. Paltrow has the
> > currently fashionable streamlined body.
>
> "Streamlined" as "ideally flat"?
In the field of Aerodynamics (nudge-nudge, grin-grin, say no more...),
"streamlined" does *not* equal "flat". If it doesn't have *some*
curves, then you may as well call it a boxcar (even though it may be a
very thin one). Esthetically speaking, the "full-figured" lines of the
747 (Mansfield) and the sleek leanness of the Citation (Pfeifer) each
have their appeal, but "flat"? It'll never fly. <wink, grin, nudge>
--
Mike Dana Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
"Assumption is the father of misunderstanding."
--Mike Dana, 23 June, 1997
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Christopher Adams) wrote:
> You'll note I made no mention of historical issues; that's because
> they're not
> important.
I have not actually seen the film but a similar plot was used by
Brahms and Simon in No Bed for Bacon. A historical novel it is not,
hysterical perhaps.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
CG Luxford
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Wykan wrote:
> I've lurked here for a bit, and I can't believe the time and energy
> that have been put into arguing about movies like Braveheart - not to
> mention that overrated piece of dung, Titanic.
>
> But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more fun.
> Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
> dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
>
It wasn't revisionist history, because it never claimed to be anything
other than pure fiction.
Chris,
Joseph (Buck) Stephen
>But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more fun.
>Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
>dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
Don't really want to discuss the film - it's not history,
but I did get a kick out of the scenes with Marlow in them.
Particularly when young Will thinks he is responsible
for Marlow's death.
Buck
Liz Broadwell
Having despised every Webster play I had the misfortune to be forced to
read, I cheered the characterization of young John. :-)
D. Spencer Hines
The "insider jokes" are also excellent in _Shakespeare In Love_. They
were successfully integrated with the action so that some folks would
pick up on them and the dullards, who would not pick up on them, would
be relatively clueless and therefore not particularly offended. [N.B.
Just like USENET newsgroups? <g>]
Some of these "insider jokes" were so simple that almost anyone could
understand them. Still, the Sir Walter Raleigh wannabe failures bit,
with the cloaks and the puddle, sailed right over the heads of many
ignoramuses.
Those "insider jokes" dealing with Makepeace the Preacher and Tilney,
Master of the Revels were good and hearty. But those focused on the
relationship between John Webster and Will were the most delightful and
recondite, by far.
Frankly, I'd love to see more films made like this --- multi-level ---
just like Shakespeare's plays. Some elements for the entire audience
and some tailored to the intellects, the feelings and the knowledge of
both the groundlings and the up-scale folks --- in the covered seats.
"Tracking", it's called, and often condemned, by academics --- but, in
the instant case, encapsulated in the same creative product --- the
film.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
"Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da gloriam, propter
misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V, [1387-1422] King of
England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates and chaplains ---
after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, --- while every able-bodied
man in his victorious army knelt, on the ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
Joseph (Buck) Stephen <bu...@shuksan.math.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:7ul2tm$340$1...@gannett.math.niu.edu...
| In article <38102b20...@news.siscom.net>, Wykan
<wy...@siscom.net> wrote:
| >But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more fun.
| >Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
| >dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
|
| Don't really want to discuss the film - it's not history,
| but I did get a kick out of the scenes with Marlow in them.
| Particularly when young Will thinks he is responsible
| for Marlow's death.
|
| Buck
Anita
> > >
> > > alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7uhnp6$cu7$1...@news.gte.com...
> > > >
> > > > Wykan <wy...@siscom.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:38102b20...@news.siscom.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
> > > > > dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
> > > >
> > > boy):
> > > > she has none. :-)
> > >
> > > you expect, 42-D in a horse leather upper decker flopper stopper?
> > > What troubled me was Shakespeare's hair by Christophe.
> >
> >
> > currently fashionable streamlined body.
>
> "Streamlined" as "ideally flat"?
I was trying to be diplomatic...
Anita
Kathy McIntosh
writes
>
>"Streamlined" as "ideally flat"?
Wouldn't that be "steamrollered"?
--
Kathy McIntosh
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Robert Byrne.
Paul J Gans
>I've lurked here for a bit, and I can't believe the time and energy
>that have been put into arguing about movies like Braveheart - not to
>mention that overrated piece of dung, Titanic.
>But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more fun.
>Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
>dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
Nope. Not only is Shakespeare in Love off-topic
(too late) for this newsgroup, the producers never
claimed that it was history. Quite to the contrary,
in fact....
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Paul J Gans
>Wykan <wy...@siscom.net> wrote in message
>news:38102b20...@news.siscom.net...
>>
>> But since it's a popular vein, let's bleed it for some more fun.
>> Anyone care to address the revisionist history of another piece of
>> dung: Shakespeare in Love...?
>Yep. There was no need to bind Pastrow's breasts (to pass her as a boy):
>she has none. :-)
Your investigative abilities continue to *astound* me... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
tiglath
David <love...@flash.net> wrote in message news:380DB6...@flash.net...
> > > hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Anita (love...@flash.net) wrote:
> > her as a
> > > > : > boy):
> > > > : > > she has none. :-)
> > > > : > I saw some, a la Pfeiffer perhaps, but some nonetheless.
> > What did
> > > > : > you expect, 42-D in a horse leather upper decker flopper
> > stopper?
> > > > : > What troubled me was Shakespeare's hair by Christophe.
> > > >
> > > > : You won't see a 42-D in anything outside of porn. Paltrow has
> > the
> > > > : Shakespeare's hair - well, it has to be palatable to late 20th
> > century
> > > > : audiences...
> > > >
> > > > If you want to amend that to "You won't see a 42-D attached to an
> > anorexic
> > > > body in anything outside of porn" I wouldn't be inclined to argue.
> > > > However, there are any number of women running around with 42-D
> > (and
> > > > larger) who have never considered porn as a career.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *********************************************************
> > > > Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
> > > > **********************************************************
> > >
> > > Sorry, Heather, I needed to clarify! I was referring to what one
> > could
> > > see in the movies, not in the real world! (I'm only slightly
> > smaller
> > > myself, and have never considered porn as a career.)
> > >
> > > Anita
> >
> > Anita is such a nice name. Shakespeare denieth Verona and the world
> > so much heaven with "Juliet" and not "Anita." Wanna lose this
> > crowd?
>
> of her delightful feminine form. The silken cascade of her golden
> tresses flows and frames her face most fair. Her stature demands the
> eye and her seductive visage holds one's gaze captive. My Valkyrie
> swooped into my life at a Mensa convention some years back and I remain
> blessed forevermore.
Ahem! I must have told my nine kids a thousand times not to play with the
keyboard. Anyone wants me I'll be under my bed... for a while.
D. Spencer Hines
Yep, you're right.
Why _Titanic_ but not _Shakespeare in Love_?
Hypocrisy Doth Haunt Us Like the Beast.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
"Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da gloriam, propter
misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V, [1387-1422] King of
England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates and chaplains ---
after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, --- while every able-bodied
man in his victorious army knelt, on the ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
Wykan <wy...@siscom.net> wrote in message
news:381596d3...@news.siscom.net...
| >Not only is Shakespeare in Love off-topic
| >(too late) for this newsgroup,
|
| But the movie "Titanic" is ON-topic? You participated in that
| discussion...
|
| >the producers never
| >claimed that it was history. Quite to the contrary,
| >in fact....
|
| You are quite correct: In fact, the producers virtually boasted of
| mutilating historical facts and personages. All it lacked was a
| rap-music track to draw in the MTV crowds.
|
David
Paul J Gans
Smart of you.
Wykan
alex milman
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:7uldp6$558$4...@news.panix.com...
> alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> >Yep. There was no need to bind Pastrow's breasts (to pass her as a boy):
> >she has none. :-)
>
> Your investigative abilities continue to *astound* me... ;-)
I'm in a middle of "Crusade for a realistic art". Following the previous
posts we
can safley declare that the only movies where you can see women looking more
or less natural ("realistic movies") are pornos (coming, IIRC, from woman,
this
info MUST be reliable).
Our next step will be to abolish all unrealistic movies and substitute them
with the
realistic ones. AFAIK, they are also cheaper in production and participants
do not
get these outrageous payments (this also can qualify as a fight for the
social justice).
I expect that this movement will find a wide support (both moral and
monetary).
Do you care to join? :-)
As for my investigative abilities, I must decline undeserved praise. Actress
in question
demonstrated her insignificant assets in each and every movie I had
misfortune to watch.
Anita
snipped for space
>
> I'm in a middle of "Crusade for a realistic art". Following the previous
> posts we
> can safley declare that the only movies where you can see women looking more
> or less natural ("realistic movies") are pornos (coming, IIRC, from woman,
> this
> info MUST be reliable).
> Our next step will be to abolish all unrealistic movies and substitute them
> with the
> realistic ones. AFAIK, they are also cheaper in production and participants
> do not
> get these outrageous payments (this also can qualify as a fight for the
> social justice).
> I expect that this movement will find a wide support (both moral and
> monetary).
> Do you care to join? :-)
Hey, sign me up!
Anita
alex milman
Anita <love...@flash.net> wrote in message news:380F0E...@flash.net...
As a second crusader, you can get a cushy job of a co-Chairman: we need
a gender-balanced leadership :-)
John Wilson
alex milman wrote in message <7umufr$gd1$1...@news.gte.com>...
>
>
>I'm in a middle of "Crusade for a realistic art >I expect that this
movement will find a wide support (both moral and
>monetary).
However, even with support, Hughes required his chauffeurs to drive very
slowly when they were carrying a starlet with great, uh, talents.
Cheers
JGW
Mike Dana
First streamlining, and now Howard Hughes? I *knew* we were talking
about aerodynamics! Imagine that; and on a medieval newsgroup, too! I
wonder if this somehow ties in with the railroad station in Pompei? No,
wait, I know: it's the airfield at Salisbury Plane! Yeah; that's the
ticket! <wanders off mumbling, wondering what sort of harness the
Romans might have used on their hang-gliders, and whether Irish
aeronauts might have viewed the Grand Banks from hide balloons, spotting
for all those fishermen> ;-D
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:7uldp6$558$4...@news.panix.com...
>> alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yep. There was no need to bind Pastrow's breasts (to pass her as a boy):
>> >she has none. :-)
>>
>> Your investigative abilities continue to *astound* me... ;-)
>I'm in a middle of "Crusade for a realistic art". Following the previous
>posts we
>can safley declare that the only movies where you can see women looking more
>or less natural ("realistic movies") are pornos (coming, IIRC, from woman,
>this
>info MUST be reliable).
>Our next step will be to abolish all unrealistic movies and substitute them
>with the
>realistic ones. AFAIK, they are also cheaper in production and participants
>do not
>get these outrageous payments (this also can qualify as a fight for the
>social justice).
>I expect that this movement will find a wide support (both moral and
>monetary).
>Do you care to join? :-)
>As for my investigative abilities, I must decline undeserved praise. Actress
>in question
>demonstrated her insignificant assets in each and every movie I had
>misfortune to watch.
Oh, I'll join, though I'm not sure exactly *what* I've joined. ;-)
Can we make money in this venture, whatever it is?
Olwyn Mawr
>I'm in a middle of "Crusade for a realistic art". Following the previous
>posts we
>can safley declare that the only movies where you can see women looking
more
>or less natural ("realistic movies") are pornos (coming, IIRC, from woman,
>this
>info MUST be reliable).
>Our next step will be to abolish all unrealistic movies and substitute
them
>with the
>realistic ones. AFAIK, they are also cheaper in production and
participants
>do not
>get these outrageous payments (this also can qualify as a fight for the
>social justice).
>I expect that this movement will find a wide support (both moral and
>monetary).
>Do you care to join? :-)
I think you've been beaten to it; this sounds a lot like the "Dogme 95"
movement in Denmark (not that they set out to make porno; the Danes are a
lot more sophisticated than that).
That's not why I'm posting this though. I think I've actually found a way
to bring this thread onto a medieval sort of topic.
There is a tendency to deride the currently-fashionable shape for women (as
portrayed on TV and in the movies) as "anorexic". Leaving aside the issue
of breast size, I would argue that a young woman such as Ms Paltrow would
not be seen as remarkably thin 500 years ago. Botticelli's "Birth of Venus"
portrays a woman of essentially modern proportions, as do other medieval
depictions (the girls harvesting in the June section of the Duc de Berry's
"very rich" Book of Hours have such thin waists they might almost be
wearing corsets).
However, it is notable that nudes in most "old master" paintings do tend to
have "a bit more belly" than one might expect today. Could this be due to
different exercise and food, rather than to any change in fashion?
John Wilson
Olwyn Mawr wrote in message <7uo2ja$7u$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>of breast size, I would argue that a young woman such as Ms Paltrow would
>not be seen as remarkably thin 500 years ago. Botticelli's "Birth of Venus"
>portrays a woman of essentially modern proportions, as do other medieval
>depictions (the girls harvesting in the June section of the Duc de Berry's
>"very rich" Book of Hours have such thin waists they might almost be
>wearing corsets).
>
>However, it is notable that nudes in most "old master" paintings do tend to
>have "a bit more belly" than one might expect today. Could this be due to
>different exercise and food, rather than to any change in fashion?
>
Where the food supply is somewhat uncertain, women needed to store a fair
amount of fat to be able to be sure of nursing, and I suspect the peasant's
idea of beauty would have been rather rubenesque. However, the upper
classes would have wanted to have standards different from those of the
lower class.
John Paston told the Duchess of Norfolk that she was well built to have
her baby, and was afraid he had offended her by implying she was fat.
Cheers
John GW
Afropea
>Botticelli's "Birth of Venus"
>portrays a woman of essentially modern proportions, as do other >medieval
>depictions (the girls harvesting in the June section of the Duc de >Berry's
>"very rich" Book of Hours have such thin waists they might almost
>be
>wearing corsets).
I'm going to have to disagree here. Medieval and early
Renaissance ladies do not have today's ideal. IMHO their
hips, thighs, bellies and bottoms would not pass the today's
standards. On the whole, they tend to be pear shaped.
The idea of the tiny waist and the corset is partly an attempt
to excentuate the hips in contrast to the waist. I suspect many
women today would rather have thicker waists than admit to
having any hips at all!
>However, it is notable that nudes in most "old master" paintings do >tend to
>have "a bit more belly" than one might expect today. Could this be
>due to
>different exercise and food, rather than to any change in fashion?
IMHO it's a change in fashion, which one could also trace to sociological,
ideological and economic factors.
There's no one standard of beauty in the human form. It's always changing.
It's even changed several times within our lifetimes.
It's not that different from changes of taste in art, and in fact, its usually
encouraged through the arts. Today, it's propagated through
magazines, films, television, and various advertising ploys.
And there are always reasons and theories for these changes, which
one could go into and argue about indefinitely.
JMHO,
Eve
Czaerana
>of breast size, I would argue that a young woman such as Ms Paltrow would
>portrays a woman of essentially modern proportions,
It portrays a woman of healthy proportions (see it at
http://sunsite.sut.ac.jp/cgfa/botticel/p-bottice7.htm). Notice you don't see
ribs, hip bones, etc. Notice she has a gently rounded belly. Now compare Venus
to the pictures of the likes of Paltrow, Callista Flockhart, Lara Flynn Boyle.
She would be considered "fat" next to them, IMO.
Czaerana
>amount of fat to be able to be sure of nursing, and I suspect the peasant's
>idea of beauty would have been rather rubenesque. However, the upper
>classes would have wanted to have standards different from those of the
>lower class.
But Rubens was painting the upper classes...
Olwyn Mawr
Czaerana wrote in message <19991022021215...@ng-fn1.aol.com>...
>Now compare Venus
>to the pictures of the likes of Paltrow, Callista Flockhart, Lara Flynn
Boyle.
>She would be considered "fat" next to them, IMO.
I think we'd better leave Callista Flockhart, in particular, out of this
discussion. From the pictures in the newspapers over the past few days it
seems likely that she is genuinely anorexic and in need of medical help.
alex milman
> Oh, I'll join, though I'm not sure exactly *what* I've joined. ;-)
You joined a fight for the "realistic" and "people" cinema (and other
genres)
vs "unrealistic" and "elitarian" art.
In the simple terms for abolishment of the expensive movies with the
high-paid
unrealistically looking "streamlined" blondes and their substitution with
the cheap, realistic
porno movies with the low-paid well-developed "real-life" actresses (and
amateurs).
Due to the fact that realistic movie of this type can be produced by anybody
(with
enough credit to lease a camcorder) and everywhere, they (movies, not
actresses)
can be described as "people" art (vs elitarian Hollywood production).
I think that one of the first movies will be "Private life of Willame
Wallace". With you as
a scientific consultant and Margravine writing the script (this immediately
guarantees XXX rating) movie will be both historically accurate and
entertaining.
Maybe a little too cruel (you know Margravine's habits...) :-)
>
> Can we make money in this venture, whatever it is?
If religious sect "No M'am" (did you ever watch "Married with children"?)
could,
we definitely can.
alex milman
Olwyn Mawr <ol...@trochos.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7uo2ja$7u$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> alex milman wrote in message <7umufr$gd1$1...@news.gte.com>...
> I think you've been beaten to it; this sounds a lot like the "Dogme 95"
> movement in Denmark
Those Danes. First they killed Hamlet, then they interfere with our Crusade.
Isn't it a good time to find some humanitarian reason and to bomb them into
an oblivion? :-)
>(not that they set out to make porno;
In this case, we'll not bomb them....
> the Danes are a
> lot more sophisticated than that).
Even more sophisticated? Wow!
>
> That's not why I'm posting this though.
What a pity! Information about their movement would be educational.
>I think I've actually found a way
> to bring this thread onto a medieval sort of topic.
Do you have to?
> There is a tendency to deride the currently-fashionable shape for women
(as
> portrayed on TV and in the movies) as "anorexic". Leaving aside the issue
> of breast size, I would argue that a young woman such as Ms Paltrow would
> not be seen as remarkably thin 500 years ago. Botticelli's "Birth of
Venus"
> portrays a woman of essentially modern proportions,
To start with, you can make at least 2 Paltrows out of his Venus (she was
convincingly
"reproduced" by Uma Thurman in "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen").
Second,
Botticelli was not "Medieval" but Renaissance and, while he had been using
his girlfriend as
a model (IIRC), most of his contemporaries (Leonardo, Michelangelo and
Rafael,
including) prefered, let's say "more mature" standard.
> as do other medieval
> depictions (the girls harvesting in the June section of the Duc de Berry's
> "very rich" Book of Hours have such thin waists they might almost be
> wearing corsets).
>
> However, it is notable that nudes in most "old master" paintings do tend
to
> have "a bit more belly" than one might expect today. Could this be due to
> different exercise and food, rather than to any change in fashion?
No, it was due to the fact that it was fashionable for woman to be pregnant
or
at least to look like one. At certain period, women's fashionable dress
maked
her look like pregnant. The package also included very high forehead (IIRC,
road to the ideal included partial shaving of the head) and plucked brows.
Eyes, preferably, kept downcast.... No, Paltrow does not look like a
Medieval
woman.... :-)
alex milman
Czaerana <czae...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991022021342...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
> >Where the food supply is somewhat uncertain, women needed to store a fair
> >amount of fat to be able to be sure of nursing, and I suspect the
peasant's
> >idea of beauty would have been rather rubenesque. However, the upper
> >classes would have wanted to have standards different from those of the
> >lower class.
>
> But Rubens was painting the upper classes...
His wife was his favourite model and he belonged to the high classes.
The same goes for many Tician's women (including portraits of his
daughter)....
David C. Pugh
alex milman wrote in message <7upjfb$i5v$1...@news.gte.com>...
>> I think you've been beaten to it; this sounds a lot like the "Dogme 95"
>> movement in Denmark
>
>Those Danes. First they killed Hamlet, then they interfere with our
Crusade.
>Isn't it a good time to find some humanitarian reason and to bomb them into
>an oblivion? :-)
Global warming and rising sea levels will do it for us.
SF author David Brin's novel "Earth" has a united world nuking Switzerland
into slag. Why Switzerland? He said he just wanted a change from the usual
villains........ And they wouldn't give up their banking secrecy.
David
John Wilson
Czaerana wrote in message <19991022021342...@ng-fn1.aol.com>...
>>Where the food supply is somewhat uncertain, women needed to store a fair
>>amount of fat to be able to be sure of nursing, and I suspect the
peasant's
>>idea of beauty would have been rather rubenesque. However, the upper
>>classes would have wanted to have standards different from those of the
>>lower class.
>
>But Rubens was painting the upper classes...
>
case, even today, farm women in Iowa tend to be pretty well cushioned. In
_Der Weg Zuruck_, Willy wins the heart of all these farm wives because he
scarfs their cooking,
Cheers
John GW
Olwyn Mawr
>news:7uo2ja$7u$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> I think you've been beaten to it; this sounds a lot like the "Dogme 95"
>> movement in Denmark
>
>
>> That's not why I'm posting this though.
>
>What a pity! Information about their movement would be educational.
http://www.dogme95.dk/ should help. Sort of.
>>I think I've actually found a way
>> to bring this thread onto a medieval sort of topic.
>
>Do you have to?
Well no, but I have this strong anti-social tendency.
>>Leaving aside the issue
>> of breast size, I would argue that a young woman such as Ms Paltrow
would
>> not be seen as remarkably thin 500 years ago. Botticelli's "Birth of
>>Venus" portrays a woman of essentially modern proportions,
>
>To start with, you can make at least 2 Paltrows out of his Venus (she was
>convincingly
>"reproduced" by Uma Thurman in "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen").
And wasn't it just a gorgeous movie? Not so much fun as "Time Bandits", but
beeeeeautiful.
Is there any way we can get G.P. and U.T. to sit at opposite ends of a
seesaw, I wonder?
>Second, Botticelli was not "Medieval" but Renaissance
The very soul of it, but still working before this NG's cut-off date.
>and, while he had been using his girlfriend as
>a model (IIRC), most of his contemporaries (Leonardo, Michelangelo and
>Rafael, including) prefered, let's say "more mature" standard.
A rather-too-flexible word, "contemporaries". Leonardo, no problemo, but
Michelangelo was still a child when "Venus" was probably painted (mid
1480's says my book) and Raphael hadn't learned to walk. Those two were
more contemporary with Lucas Cranach senior, who did some very strange
versions of thin.
>> However, it is notable that nudes in most "old master" paintings do tend
to
>> have "a bit more belly" than one might expect today. Could this be due
to
>> different exercise and food, rather than to any change in fashion?
>
>No, it was due to the fact that it was fashionable for woman to be
pregnant
>or at least to look like one. At certain period, women's fashionable dress
>maked her look like pregnant.
Aha.
As a matter of slightly irrelevant curiosity, does anybody happen to know
how long after the famous van Eyck wedding portrait Signora Arnolfini had
her first child?
>The package also included very high forehead (IIRC,
>road to the ideal included partial shaving of the head) and plucked brows.
There's a great one of those by Piero do Cosimo, of Simonetta Vespucci, in
profile and Hollywood-clad. Funnily enough, as any Star Trek fan knows, the
forehead is the key to creating an alien. Do we really find that more
disconcerting in 15th-century portraits than body shape?
>Eyes, preferably, kept downcast....
In some cases, but by no means always. Simonetta, for example, is staring
off to some far horizon, with a slightly amused expression.
>No, Paltrow does not look like a Medieval woman.... :-)
I'll wait for a few responses to the "Star Trek" suggestion before pursuing
that.
Afropea
>Botticelli was not "Medieval" but Renaissance and, while he had been >using
>his girlfriend as
>a model (IIRC), most of his contemporaries (Leonardo, Michelangelo and
>Rafael,
>including) prefered, let's say "more mature" standard.
Botticelli is usually considered 'Quatrocento" which is early
Renaissance. However, he is not considered contemporary with
Leonardo, Michelangelo nor Raphael, who are all high Renaissance.
To my knowledge, Venus was not Sandro Botticelli's girlfriend,
but rather based on the woman who was considered most beautiful
of her time, Simonetta Vespucci. She married Guiliano de Medici,
brother of Lorenzo. Legend says that Botticelli may have had a crush
on her.
There are SO many reasons for ideal types. One of them is the
ideal of pregnancy to explain the round tummies. Then there's
the denial of the material world to justify extreme thinness, or contrasting
the daintiness of the woman compared to the man. One
could also say that there is status in an amply proportioned woman
who's man can obviously afford to feed her well. Or a glorification of breasts
and hips as sexual signals in more "earthy" periods. Than
there are reactions, like rebelling against the "female" signals for
more boyish looks which could either spell freedom for women, or a latent
hatred of women on the part of male arbiters of fashion. One
could also point to influences of foreign cultures on changes. You
could go on and on and speculate and speculate. You might even be
right. Its a subject with endless possibilities.
Eve
Czaerana
>>
> True - duchess wasn't it?
I recall seeing some huge Rubens' paintings at the Ringling Museum of Art. The
subject was an allegory involving Queen Marie de Medeci. She was
quite...er...hefty!
Afropea
>>
> True - duchess wasn't it?
This had nothing to do with class here. This was simply a
standard of beauty. Look at his mythological scenes. Look at
the "Judgement of Paris," which was suppose to be a beauty
contest between goddesses. Or take a look at his "Rape of the Sabine Women."
If you look through all the work of Rubens you will find the
women more "fleshy" than most current viewers expect
from the ideal female form. Part of the reason for these ample forms might
also be because Rubens so excelled in the depiction
of "flesh," particularly of the female kind, that he took the opportunity to
display it as much as he could. His patrons
expected it, and probably even requested it. It also made a nice contrast to
the musculature of his male figures.
If you look at other work from the same time period, the
women were far from slender. People today often find it hard
to accept that others might find hefty women attractive. I
imagine people from other eras might be equally mystified by
our choices as well.
By the way, though we seem to be dwelling on the female
standard of beauty, there is also a sliding scale in what is considered
attractive in the male figure as well!
JMHO,
Eve
Olwyn Mawr
Afropea wrote in message <19991023094833...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
>If you look through all the work of Rubens you will find the
>women more "fleshy" than most current viewers expect
>from the ideal female form. Part of the reason for these ample forms
might
>also be because Rubens so excelled in the depiction
>of "flesh," particularly of the female kind, that he took the opportunity
to
>display it as much as he could. His patrons
>expected it, and probably even requested it. It also made a nice contrast
to
>the musculature of his male figures.
I reckon he was just having a laugh at El Greco's expense (but seriously, I
do have a problem with Rubens; I think that quite a lot of the reason for
his ample female forms is personal, rather than reflecting the general
taste of the time).
>If you look at other work from the same time period, the
>women were far from slender. People today often find it hard
>to accept that others might find hefty women attractive. I
>imagine people from other eras might be equally mystified by
>our choices as well.
Velazquez' "Rokeby Venus" was probably painted during Rubens' lifetime,
posed specifically to accentuate the waist. There are also problems like
the "wasp-waisted" dress fashions of Elizabethan England.
>By the way, though we seem to be dwelling on the female
>standard of beauty, there is also a sliding scale in what is considered
>attractive in the male figure as well!
Yes, the thread title doesn't exclude men. Has anybody here, for example,
studied changing fashions in depiction of the crucified Christ?
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> Romanesque depictions set the iconographical standards which prevailed
> in medieval art - Jesus is shown in a draped and knotted loincloth,
> his head bowed and facing to the left, with the nails through his
> palms and the wound displayed on his right side. The conventions in
> this period usually only indicated a tiny amount of blood and in most
> of them Jesus looks composed and almost serene.
[snip]
The four Anglo-Saxon manuscript illuminations (one is actually
the cover -- a gold repousse plaque) that I've seen that show
the Crucifixion also follow this scheme except that only one
shows the wound in the side. These are dated from the late tenth
to the mid eleventh centuries.
Christ is depicted as beared in all, and in one one also has a
moustache.
See _Anglo-Saxon Textual Illustration_, Thomas Ohlgren.
--- Tony Jebson
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> The four Anglo-Saxon manuscript illuminations (one is actually
> the cover -- a gold repousse plaque) that I've seen that show
> the Crucifixion also follow this scheme except that only one
> shows the wound in the side. These are dated from the late tenth
> to the mid eleventh centuries.
>
> Christ is depicted as beared in all, and in one one also has a
> moustache.
>
> See _Anglo-Saxon Textual Illustration_, Thomas Ohlgren.
I also meant to ask whether there was a tradition of
literature about the cross especially in relation to
the Ruthwell Cross (late 7th - early 8th) and the _Dream_
Anyway, I'm off to bed . . . I've got to get to the pub
by 8am to watch England play South Africa. Beer at that
hour requires dedication ;-)
--- Tony Jebson
PS See you in the semi's, Australia!
PPS Hopefully!
Tim O'Neill
> Yes, the thread title doesn't exclude men. Has anybody here, for example,
> studied changing fashions in depiction of the crucified Christ?
I can't say I've studied it, but it's certainly an interesting topic.
It seems depictions of the crucifxion were rare before the ninth or tenth
century. The early Christians were fully aware of the implications of
Jesus' execution and it was something they prefered to downplay. It was
hard enough to argue for their legitimacy in the face of Imperial
persecution without waving around depictions of their founder's execution
at the hands of the Imperial authorities.
In this early period there are only two depictions that I can think of.
One is on an anti-Christian graffitio from Pompeii showing a man
standing before a crucified figure with a donkey's head. The caption
reads 'Alexamenos worships his god'. The other is a second century
magical gem with a text inscription and a very simple figure on a
cross - which seems to be invoking the power of Jesus for magical
purposes. I vaguely recollect an ivory carving showing the crucifixion
and other bibical scenes which I believe was from around the fifth
century.
Romanesque depictions set the iconographical standards which prevailed
in medieval art - Jesus is shown in a draped and knotted loincloth,
his head bowed and facing to the left, with the nails through his
palms and the wound displayed on his right side. The conventions in
this period usually only indicated a tiny amount of blood and in most
of them Jesus looks composed and almost serene.
By the late Middle Ages there was a growing emphasis on the suffering
which led up to his death. Parallel to literary meditations on the
Passion and increasing lay devotion concentrating on these physical
aspects of his death are artistic depictions which show Jesus covered
in blood and wounds. Far more emphasis is placed on the crown of thorns,
lacerations from his scourging are emphasised and the blood from his
wounds becomes increasingly prominent.
What is possibly the ultimate expression of this can be found in
Matthais Grunewald's sixteenth century depiction. In this painting
the figure of Jesus is huge - completely out of proportion compared to
the other figures in the scene - but otherwise realistic. And the
emphasis is on the physical suffering he endured before his death.
Barely an inch of his body is without a wound or cut and his whole
figure is drenched in blood and sweat. The crown of thorns is a
fearsome looking affair and his entire body seems twisted as though
contorted by hours of agony. Gothic gore at its most grim.
As for changes in the physical form of Jesus, allowing for variations
in realism from period to period, he always seems to be depicted as
slim and fairly slender in build. I certainly can't think of any tubby or
muscle-bound Christs!
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Salon/2385/index.html
Paul J Gans
Good! Count me in. We can follow the Private Life of William
Wallace with "Henry I, Father of Bastards". I have a real-life
person in mind to play Henry and there is certainly no
shortage of bastards around for the other 20 or so parts.
With that title it will be a hit no matter what.
Afropea
>Velazquez' "Rokeby Venus" was probably painted during Rubens'
>lifetime, posed specifically to accentuate the waist. There are
>also problems like the "wasp-waisted" dress fashions of
>Elizabethan England.
Rokesby Venus is not as ample as the average Rubens, but she does
have quite the posterior!
I would like to mention that Velezquez was not known for idealizing.
His Venus was not intended as a classical ideal or a sex goddess, but
as how a naked woman might actually look, without all those lovely pounds. But
looking at a few of the other Spanish artists of the time, they certainly
lacked the girth of their Dutch and Flemish
contemporaries (though not always quite as sizable as the women of Rubens,
Peter Paul's countrymen still glorified women of considerable portion). The
style in Spain may have differed in poundage. On the
other hand, I believe Rubens was also popular as an artist in Spain,
so go figure!
I can't recall too many nude females in Spanish painting so its hard
for me to really speak of the general ideal in Spain. Those clothed
don't seem quite as sizable, but I think Rubens hit the high note for women of
physical substance. Looking at the Italians and the French, they are still
well endowed, but none reach the proportions of Rubens.
As for Rubens personal preferences, he no doubt loved his women with
a lot of flesh, but he was VERY VERY popular for his nudes and erotic scenes,
and not just as a home town boy, which leads me to believe
that he was not alone in his choices!
Don't get me wrong, though I love Rubens, I don't aspire to look like
one! I guess I'm too trapped within my own times like the rest of us! But I
really don't want to see fellow females looked upon as ugly
simply because they were born in the wrong century!
I'm not an expert on this time period, so I can only give you a few of
my ideas. I do know that Rubens was strongly influenced by the Venetians,
particularly Titian. Titian's women were not petite, and
were considered extremely sexy. In fact, a lot of his painting were
commissioned specifically for their erotic content. IMHO Rubens followed this
tradition. On the other hand, I can't think of a major
trend in Spanish Baroque painting that concentrated on the sensual female form.
The painting I am familiar with are a tad more somber. Perhaps someone with
more knowledge of Spanish art history can help
us out.
>I reckon he was just having a laugh at El Greco's expense
I know you're joking but still, I'd like to mention a couple of things
about El Greco. He was strongly influenced by Byzantine (no surprise given his
origins) painting and tending to elongate in a manner similiar
to their stylization. He also strove for an ethereal effect
which is traditionally shown through exaggerating length and
thinness. But even with this, I was informed by a museum curator
that a LOT of El Greco paintings are fakes (so many that fakes are
often used to authenticate others!) and that the more exaggerated elongate El
Greco works are the most suspect.
As for Elizabethan women, which are earlier than Rubens anyway,
I don't recall seeing any nudes. Still, the depiction of the
eensy-weensy waist is contrasted to the exagerated farthingale
(sort of man made hips gone out of control!)
>Yes, the thread title doesn't exclude men. Has anybody here,
>for example, studied changing fashions in depiction of the
>crucified Christ?
Depending on the attitude of the times, Christ can be been seen as triumphant
or sorrowful. In the beginning, there was no desire to
show Christ on the cross, as showing his pain was considered
demeaning and contrary to the worshiper's warrior ethic. Eventually, this
changed and Christ's suffering for man's sins was emphasized. Christ's body
can appear skinny and wretched if you want to
concentrate on his sufferings, or robust and muscular, if you want to show him
in triumph. But this goes back and forth through history depending on the
programs of the times.
By the way, if you are going to more stylized periods, such those
which can be found in 13th century Italy, you will get a body that
is more schematized than anything else. Then, during the Italian Renaissance,
a crucifixtion scene might almost seem an excuse to
show an artist's skills in portraying the male form and
muscularization.
You might also find Leo Steinberg's book, "The Sexuality of Christ in
the Renaissance and in Modern Oblivion" interesting. Steinberg's states
that earlier depictions (approx. Middle Ages) of Christ on the cross covered
his genitalia (probably through stylizing his covering cloth.)
Steinberg claims that this was because there was an effort to deny the human
aspect of Christ. However, Steinberg then refers to a change in this trend
(Renaissance), where not only do we see suggestions of Christ's manhood under
the folds, but an erection, emphasizing not only
most human and earthly aspect that is a part of Christ's nature,
but sort of a symbolic pun.
You mention specifically Christ on the cross, but it does startle a
lot of people to discover that the early depictions of Chris, like
those in Ravenna, show a clean shaven, short haired, very Roman
citizen sort of Christ. However, he is not shown on the cross at this time.
I am a bit disappointed that you chose Christ as our example of
male forms. His depictions are not the best examples when one is looking for
male ideals. My personal favorites are the Minoan
and Mycenian archetypes, and I've always been rather partial to
Apollo Belvedere ;-).
Heading back on topic, I recently read that a man's long shapely legs was
considered particularly hot in the middle ages! ;-)
Eve
Afropea
writes
>What is possibly the ultimate expression of this can be found in
>Matthais Grunewald's sixteenth century depiction. In this painting
>the figure of Jesus is huge - completely out of proportion compared to
>the other figures in the scene - but otherwise realistic. And the
>emphasis is on the physical suffering he endured before his death.
>Barely an inch of his body is without a wound or cut and his whole
>figure is drenched in blood and sweat. The crown of thorns is a
>fearsome looking affair and his entire body seems twisted as though
>contorted by hours of agony. Gothic gore at its most grim.
You are speaking about the Isenheim altarpiece, right? This
was made for a hospital chapel run by the monastic order of Saint Anthony
Abbot. I think it was either specifically for the hopelessly
ill or for those with skin diseases. Can't recall. This explains part
of the reason for the graphic portrayal.
That Christ should be disportionately large in comparison with other figures
would not that unusual in earlier times. He is the most
important figure, so he is shown as the largest. However, IMHO, this is done
for expressive purposes, as that was an important interest for Grunewald.
In a way, you might be able to tie Grunewald to currents found in the Mannerism
movement, also from the early 16th century. You'd find exaggeration, and
almost acid like colors in the works of both. The Mannerists, however, aimed
for a sophisticated beauty. Grunewald,
IMHO, seemed to be headed towards a beauty with a horrific nature.
JMHO,
Eve
Czaerana
>particularly Titian. Titian's women were not petite, and
>were considered extremely sexy.
Remember Dan Ackroyd's sleazey E. Buzz Miller and his art show? He held up a
Titian ("Titty-an" to him) nude and his airhead girlfriend (Larraine Newman)
giggles and says she's fat. *sigh* The golden age of SNL...
Tim O'Neill
> I also meant to ask whether there was a tradition of
> literature about the cross especially in relation to
> the Ruthwell Cross (late 7th - early 8th) and the _Dream_
The EETS has a whole volume of medieval English poems on
the history of the cross. I believe the title is 'The
Legend of the Holy Rood.'
The details vary from version to version, but generally
speaking the Rood is said to have been made from the wood
of the Tree of Knowledge - the one from the Garden of
Eden from which Eve picked the fruit which led to the Fall.
After Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden, the tree
was felled (don't recall by whom) and the wood was used
for a number of purposes, which again vary from version to
version. In some it is used in Noah's Ark. It is later
used for the threshhold for David's Temple. It eventually
spent some time as a footbridge (don't ask me why, but this
element is common to many versions of the legend) and
was finally pressed into service to make the cross of
Christ.
Of course, the medievals saw Jerusalem as the centre, or
rather the navel, of the world and the Cross stood at the
exact central point of the Earth - precisely the same spot
on which the Tree of Knowledge had stood in Adam's time.
The iconography of the Crucifixion usually depicts a skull
at the foot of the cross. This is meant to be the skull of
Adam and a symbolic indication of the connection between
the Fall and the Redemption. (It's also the medieval
interpretation of the name 'Golgotha' - the place of the
skull).
So, just as the first Adam brought about the Fall by eating
the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, the second Adam, Christ,
brought about the redemption by dying on the wood of the
same tree on precisely the same spot - the centre of the
Earth. It's a very powerful idea.
From this point the Legend of the Rood becomes part of the
traditions about St Helena, the finding to the True Cross
etc. The number of relics of the True Cross show precisely
what a powerful symbol it was. Through it, the faithful
had a physical connection with the Passion of Christ and
back to the Temple, Noah's Ark and finally back to Adam
himself, the beginining of humanity and the lost paradise
of Eden.
The 'Dream of the Rood' is an early part of this literary
tradition of devotion to the Holy Rood. I've been meaning
to find out exactly how far back this set of legends goes
and how widespread it is in other parts of Europe for some
time. I've read all the Old and Middle English versions
of the legends that I can find, but can anyone help me with
information about similar traditions elsewhere in Europe?
> Anyway, I'm off to bed . . . I've got to get to the pub
> by 8am to watch England play South Africa. Beer at that
> hour requires dedication ;-)
And I've got to send a gloating e-mail to may mate John in
Swansea after the Aussies beat Wales.
> PS See you in the semi's, Australia!
> PPS Hopefully!
What, you want to get beaten?! <g>
It's looking like another good year for Australia. Go
the Green and Gold!
Olwyn Mawr
>> I do know that Rubens was strongly influenced by the Venetians,
>>particularly Titian. Titian's women were not petite, and
>>were considered extremely sexy.
>
a
>Titian ("Titty-an" to him) nude and his airhead girlfriend (Larraine
Newman)
>giggles and says she's fat. *sigh* The golden age of SNL...
Before this wanders right off into a discussion on the Not Ready for Prime
Time Players, at least Titian was probably born before 1500....
We're back to waists vs hips again here. It has to be said that Titian
didn't really do waists, but he also didn't really do folds and "cellulite"
which seem to be the Rubens trademarks (one or two Titian women even have a
hint of a rib-cage). So I return to my original question:
| it is notable that nudes in most "old master" paintings do tend to have
| "a bit more belly" than one might expect today. Could this be due to
| different exercise and food, rather than to any change in fashion?
The general opinion seems to be that fashion has played the larger part,
and there is no denying that there are fashions in body shape- but nobody
here has really considered the alternatives I suggested. Nowadays, we in
the computer-owning world can choose from a wide selection of food and
drink at all times of the year. Many of us have also developed the
eccentric habit of performing activities which do nothing but exercise our
muscles and burn off stored energy. Imagine the consequences, for example,
if the consumption of ale in large quantities is more-or-less
obligatory....
Olwyn Mawr
[snips of good stuff all over the place]
>Rokesby Venus is not as ample as the average Rubens, but she does
>have quite the posterior!
Yes, I wonder if my own tastes are beginning to show here....
>As for Rubens personal preferences, he no doubt loved his women with
>a lot of flesh, but he was VERY VERY popular for his nudes and erotic
scenes,
>and not just as a home town boy, which leads me to believe
>that he was not alone in his choices!
I had put "personal" (rather than "personal preferences") in response to
your point that he:
| excelled in the depiction of "flesh," particularly of the female kind
but when it comes to preferences, there does seem to be a sizeable minority
of men even today, judging from the racks in the video shops, who would be
very happy to meet a Rubens woman. I'm not convinced that they represented
the consensus in his time, any more than they do now.
>Titian's women were not petite, and
>were considered extremely sexy. In fact, a lot of his painting were
>commissioned specifically for their erotic content. IMHO Rubens followed
this
>tradition.
See my reply to the subsequent post by Czaerana.
>I was informed by a museum curator
>that a LOT of El Greco paintings are fakes (so many that fakes are
>often used to authenticate others!) and that the more exaggerated elongate
El
>Greco works are the most suspect.
Whoops. That's definitely worth bearing in mind.
>As for Elizabethan women, which are earlier than Rubens anyway,
>I don't recall seeing any nudes. Still, the depiction of the
>eensy-weensy waist is contrasted to the exaggerated farthingale
>(sort of man made hips gone out of control!)
It's just occurred to me that maybe it's a modern anti mother-in-law thing.
How many women in this NG resented being told before they started a family
that they had "good child-bearing hips"?
>Steinberg then refers to a change in this trend
>(Renaissance), where not only do we see suggestions of Christ's manhood
under
>the folds, but an erection, emphasizing not only
>most human and earthly aspect that is a part of Christ's nature,
>but sort of a symbolic pun.
The same can be said of depictions of St. Sebastian. I wonder if it's
partly a Gay thing?
>I am a bit disappointed that you chose Christ as our example of
>male forms. His depictions are not the best examples when one is looking
for
>male ideals.
True, but the crucified Christ has a few specific advantages in observing
general trends; most of the body is visible, the pose tends to remain much
the same, the treatment is almost guaranteed to represent the era's ideas
of "good taste" etc.
(The term "good taste" here is not intended to exclude unpleasantness, but
qualities such as coarseness and low humour). More to follow....
>Heading back on topic, I recently read that a man's long shapely legs was
>considered particularly hot in the middle ages! ;-)
Oh well, I guess I'd score half marks.
Olwyn Mawr
Afropea wrote in message <19991023235555...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...[in the sub-thread "Depictions of the Crucified Christ"- if you missed it,
find it at once... ]
>>Barely an inch of his body is without a wound or cut and his whole
>>figure is drenched in blood and sweat. The crown of thorns is a
>>fearsome looking affair and his entire body seems twisted as though
>>contorted by hours of agony. Gothic gore at its most grim.
>
>You are speaking about the Isenheim altarpiece, right? This
>was made for a hospital chapel run by the monastic order of Saint Anthony
>Abbot. I think it was either specifically for the hopelessly
>ill or for those with skin diseases. Can't recall. This explains part
>of the reason for the graphic portrayal.
Yes, the hospital at Isenheim specialised in skin diseases, and indeed many
of the marks on the body look more like disease pustules than wounds.
>In a way, you might be able to tie Grunewald to currents found in the
Mannerism
>movement, also from the early 16th century. You'd find exaggeration, and
>almost acid like colors in the works of both. The Mannerists, however,
aimed
>for a sophisticated beauty. Grunewald,
>IMHO, seemed to be headed towards a beauty with a horrific nature.
I'm not even convinced that he was after any sort of beauty- more a
question of saying "Christ triumphed over adversity which makes yours seem
soft by comparison". Actually, I must say that I do slightly wish I'd
suggested bacchanalia as a subject for comparison, but for anybody that's
with us so far, here's a handy place to start exploring:
http://www.textweek.com/crucifixion.htm
Binx
Tim O'Neill <sca...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in article
<3812F899...@bigpond.com.au>...
<snip>
> Of course, the medievals saw Jerusalem as the centre, or
> rather the navel, of the world and the Cross stood at the
> exact central point of the Earth - precisely the same spot
> on which the Tree of Knowledge had stood in Adam's time.
> The iconography of the Crucifixion usually depicts a skull
> at the foot of the cross. This is meant to be the skull of
> Adam and a symbolic indication of the connection between
> the Fall and the Redemption. (It's also the medieval
> interpretation of the name 'Golgotha' - the place of the
> skull)
There is supposed to be a legend about the Cross being raised upon the
bones of Adam. Do you know when and where this legend originated? The
depiction of the skull at the foot of the Cross first appears in the 15th
century, I think.
BTW, do you know of any Rood literature outside of England?
<snip encore>
> It's looking like another good year for Australia. Go
> the Green and Gold!
Springboks will trounce your marsupials!
Cheers
B
Warren B. Hapke
: Tim O'Neill wrote:
: [snip]
: > in medieval art - Jesus is shown in a draped and knotted loincloth,
: > his head bowed and facing to the left, with the nails through his
: > palms and the wound displayed on his right side. The conventions in
: > this period usually only indicated a tiny amount of blood and in most
: > of them Jesus looks composed and almost serene.
:
: The four Anglo-Saxon manuscript illuminations (one is actually
: the cover -- a gold repousse plaque) that I've seen that show
: the Crucifixion also follow this scheme except that only one
: shows the wound in the side. These are dated from the late tenth
: to the mid eleventh centuries.
:
: Christ is depicted as beared in all, and in one one also has a
: moustache.
:
: See _Anglo-Saxon Textual Illustration_, Thomas Ohlgren.
Unless it's been redated, there's an Anglo-Saxon illustration of
the Crucifixion that's early than this. It's reproduced as plate 14
in Carl Nordenfalk, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Painting (NY: George
Braziller, 1977). This illustration comes from fol. 38v of The
Durham Gospel Fragment II, which Nordenfalk dates to the "end
of the seventh century" (p. 56). In it, there are nails in both
palms and a separate nail for each foot. (That leads to a question;
later conventions almost always show a single nail through crossed
feet; when did the convention change). Christ is robed, and has
a beard and mustache, but no hair on his head. A soldier is
show piercing Christ's right side (the traditional location for
the fifth of the five wounds). On Christ's left side is a soldier
holding a sponge, presumably filled with vinegar (Matthew 27:48,
Mark 15:36).
Nordenfalk notes that the Latin above the figure reads "Auctorem
mortis deieciens, vitam nostram restutiens, si tamen compatimur
[Throwing down the author of death, restoring our life, if we
feel compassion--WBH] '...if we feel compassion'--evidently the
minature is conceived as an imago pietatis to encourage meditation
on the sacrificial death of Christ." (p. 57)
Warren B. Hapke
wbh...@prairienet.org
matthew harley
Binx wrote:
> Tim O'Neill <sca...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in article
> <3812F899...@bigpond.com.au>...
> <snip>
>
> > Of course, the medievals saw Jerusalem as the centre, or
> > rather the navel, of the world and the Cross stood at the
> > exact central point of the Earth - precisely the same spot
> > on which the Tree of Knowledge had stood in Adam's time.
> > The iconography of the Crucifixion usually depicts a skull
> > at the foot of the cross. This is meant to be the skull of
> > Adam and a symbolic indication of the connection between
> > the Fall and the Redemption. (It's also the medieval
> > interpretation of the name 'Golgotha' - the place of the
> > skull)
>
> There is supposed to be a legend about the Cross being raised upon the
> bones of Adam. Do you know when and where this legend originated? The
> depiction of the skull at the foot of the Cross first appears in the 15th
> century, I think.
There is a story that Adam was buried in the hill of Golgotha. IIRC, when you
visit the supposed site of Golgotha in the Church if the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem you can see beneath the crucifixion site a small opening which is
said to be Adam's tomb. When the story originated I do not know.
Matt Harley
Czaerana
>Time Players, at least Titian was probably born before 1500....
>
>
Better than calling each other names, at least...
Afropea
>I'm not even convinced that he was after any sort of beauty- more a
>question of saying "Christ triumphed over adversity which makes yours >seem
>soft by comparison". Actually, I must say that I do slightly wish I'd
>suggested bacchanalia as a subject for comparison, but for anybody >that's
>with us so far, here's a handy place to start exploring:
Perhaps "beauty" is a strange term when describing the actual crucifixtion, but
check out the the rest of the tryptich, particularly
the resurrection. It is a strange beauty, but IMHO, it's beautiful in
an awesome way.
Call me wierd, but I find the Crucifixion beautiful in a way as
well. Its hard to put into words. Again, it is more in the sense
of awe than in appeal. It is powerful and dramatic. It's magnificent
painting. The portrayal of Christ is not "pretty" but it is moving.
I find such a quality as "beautiful". Also, looking at the picture as
a whole, as well as the entire triptich, it's magnificent. At least
I find it to be!
Was the artist going for a beautiful Christ? Certainly not. But
was he going for an incredible depiction of an intense scene?
Sure thing! So I totally agree with you when you say he was going
for an empathetic reaction for the suffering viewer.
JMHO,
Eve
Pete Barrett
wrote:
>The general opinion seems to be that fashion has played the larger part,
>and there is no denying that there are fashions in body shape- but nobody
>here has really considered the alternatives I suggested. Nowadays, we in
>the computer-owning world can choose from a wide selection of food and
>drink at all times of the year. Many of us have also developed the
>eccentric habit of performing activities which do nothing but exercise our
>muscles and burn off stored energy. Imagine the consequences, for example,
>if the consumption of ale in large quantities is more-or-less
>obligatory....
Medical students, or professional darts players? <g>
Pete Barrett
Paul J Gans
>Warren B. Hapke
> wbh...@prairienet.org
I hesitate to join in here, especially on a tangential note,
but I have noted crucifiction scenes where Christ is
pierced on his *left* side. I've wondered about that,
just as I've wondered about the occasional depiction of
a man wearing a scabbord on the right (i.e. wrong) side.
John Wilson
Pete Barrett wrote in message <38135cc1...@news.clara.net>...
>>if the consumption of ale in large quantities is more-or-less
>>obligatory....
>
>Medical students, or professional darts players? <g>
>
bellies. Proved they could afford plenty of rice.
JGW
Afropea
>but when it comes to preferences, there does seem to be a
>sizeable minority of men even today, judging from the racks
>in the video shops, who would be very happy to meet a Rubens
>woman. I'm not convinced that they represented
>the consensus in his time, any more than they do now.
The difference here is that these 16th century men were not
buying their paintings in plain brown wrappers! ;-) To admire
a Rubens sized woman today would be considered a fetish in
mainstream culture. Yet in his own time Rubens was AMAZINGLY successful on an
international scale. He churned out so many
paintings that his workshop was a veritable assembly line! He'd
give his workers his oil sketch, they'd do the basics and he'd fill
in the important stuff, like faces and hands. And it wasn't just his religious
paintings. His mythological subjects, his allegories,
basically stuff with the naked women, often in sexual suggestive scenarios,
were big sellers.
And check out some of his contemporaries. Look at Rembrandt's
"Bathsheba with King David's Letter". Look at anything by Jacob
Jordaens. Not quite as meaty, but still pretty zafig would be
the women of Correggio, Carraci, Reni, etc. These were not flukes.
This was a market.
Unfortunately, there were no sex surveys that I know of at this
time to give you written evidence. Perhaps someone else, with
more familiarity of the literature has some descriptions of the
female ideal that could help us out.
The idea of what most people today consider "fat" as being
attractive is as questionable to us as people once finding blacked
out teeth (Japan), deformed feet (China) or flattened heads (Pre-Columbia) as
irresistibly attractive. Taste is a weird thing.
As I said before, in other times, other places, people find our
choices bizarre.
>The same can be said of depictions of St. Sebastian. I wonder
>if it's partly a Gay thing?
We're getting into a tricky area here. I've been reading a lot
about Medieval sexuality lately, and the big thing seems to be a
denial of the appropriateness of the concept of homosexuality in
earlier periods. Its as different to our concepts, as say, marriage.
For example, it is permissible, even admirable to love someone of
the same sex with all your heart and soul. There was nothing
wrong in admiring their beauty. You could write letters about how
you longed for them and desired them. You could touch them and
sleep with them. But there was a line. Sodomy and pederasty were
still considered too far. Even with this, during different times
even within the middle ages, they were considered crimes on a par
with adultery with a different sex partner, or yet another
manifestation of lust, or an absolute abomination.
If this interests you, I suggest reading John Bosworth. He's
written several absolutely fascinating books on the subject and his research is
really pretty incredible. Even if you don't always agree
with his analysis, he's got a lot of great material to make you think twice.
Eve
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> Unless it's been redated, there's an Anglo-Saxon illustration of
> the Crucifixion that's early than this. It's reproduced as plate 14
> in Carl Nordenfalk, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Painting (NY: George
> Braziller, 1977). This illustration comes from fol. 38v of The
> Durham Gospel Fragment II, which Nordenfalk dates to the "end
> of the seventh century" (p. 56).
The date sounds about right, though if the MS reference I have
is correct (Durham Cathedral Library, MS A.II.16), I believe it
is usually put slightly later in the first half of the 8th century.
Hmm . . . $20 for the paperback, and in-stock at B&N. Sold.
> In it, there are nails in both palms and a separate nail for
> each foot. (That leads to a question; later conventions almost
> always show a single nail through crossed feet; when did the
> convention change).
[snip]
Good question: the four A-S illuminations I mentioned all
have two nails for the feet.
--- Tony Jebson
Afropea
>The difference here is that these 16th century men were not
>buying their paintings in plain brown wrappers!
Oops! I meant 17th century men.
Eve
Alex Milman
Afropea wrote in message <19991022190037...@ng-bh1.aol.com>...
>am...@gte.com says
>
>>Botticelli was not "Medieval" but Renaissance and, while he had been
>using
>>his girlfriend as
>>a model (IIRC), most of his contemporaries (Leonardo, Michelangelo and
>>Rafael,
>>including) prefered, let's say "more mature" standard.
>
>Botticelli is usually considered 'Quatrocento" which is early
>Renaissance. However, he is not considered contemporary with
>Leonardo,
They had been studying at the same botega and at the same time. IIRC,
Leonardo referenced him as "our Sandro", when he expressed his opinion
regarding Boticelli's ability to paint landscapes.... They knew each other
personally, which probably qualifies them as "contemporaries".
>
>One
>could also say that there is status in an amply proportioned woman
>who's man can obviously afford to feed her well.
Or one can simply like big women as Renoir did (no, he was not Boticelli's
contemporary). AFAIK, he did not bother with any explanations.... :-)
Afropea
>They had been studying at the same botega and at the same time. IIRC,
>Leonardo referenced him as "our Sandro", when he expressed his opinion
>regarding Boticelli's ability to paint landscapes.... They knew each other
>personally, which probably qualifies them as "contemporaries".
Sure enough, you're right! They could be considered
the contemporary in terms of years, and both studied
under Verrocchio for a time. My apologies. Rusty brain.
Yet still Botticelli (1445-1510) is classified as
(Early Renaissance) Quatrocento and DaVinci
(1452-1519) is considered Cinquecento (High
Renaissance), unless, of course, teachings have
changed since I went to school (which is very
possible since its been SO long ago!) I would
imagine this is probably due to the characteristics
of their work more than the actual time period in
which they created.
>Or one can simply like big women as Renoir did (no,
>he was not Boticelli's contemporary). AFAIK, he did not
>bother with any explanations.... :-)
ITA on this. Of course, Renoir really liked Rubens a lot
and was "heavily" <g> influenced by him. But then, they
had so much in common ;-)!
I have a wonderfully obscene quote that Renoir made about
painting, and how he felt a paintbrush should be used, but I think
I'll keep that one to myself <g>
Eve
alex milman
Afropea <afr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991024224555...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> "Alex Milman" <am...@gte.com>
> >Or one can simply like big women as Renoir did (no,
> >he was not Boticelli's contemporary). AFAIK, he did not
> >bother with any explanations.... :-)
>
> ITA on this. Of course, Renoir really liked Rubens a lot
> and was "heavily" <g> influenced by him.
I don't think that his preferences were limited to the art only.
At least not according to his son's memories... :-)
> But then, they
> had so much in common ;-)!
Renoir considered his wife too thin comparing to an ideal and
prefered Gabriele (sp). Rubens, OTOH, had been widely using his
wife as a model. A serious difference. :-)
>
> I have a wonderfully obscene quote that Renoir made about
> painting, and how he felt a paintbrush should be used, but I think
> I'll keep that one to myself <g>
Now, this is a very selfish thing to do! Besides, why anybody would
consider a statement regarding theory of art as an obscenity? :-)
Lblanch001
>I recall seeing some huge Rubens' paintings at the Ringling Museum of Art.
I think that's the only size he painted, isn't it?
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
Afropea
>>I recall seeing some huge Rubens' paintings at the Ringling Museum of Art.
Laura Blanchard says
>I think that's the only size he painted, isn't it?
If I recall, they came in a variety of sizes (unlike his women <g>) But he did
a lot of really monumental paintings.
Hey, I've been to the Ringling Museum, too. Pretty cool place. Its intersting
to see the tie between Ringling's love of Baroque art and circus art.
Eve
alex milman
> Cynthia writes:
>
> >>I recall seeing some huge Rubens' paintings at the Ringling Museum of
Art.
>
> Laura Blanchard says
>
> >I think that's the only size he painted, isn't it?
>
> If I recall, they came in a variety of sizes (unlike his women <g>) But
he did
> a lot of really monumental paintings.
There was a reasonable explanation. Even if we don't know for sure that he
charged by sqare yards we do know that he, and ot Henry Ford, invented a
production line. Each worker was doing his part, leaving only the most
important
items (breasts and eyes) to the Master. :-)
As a result, everybody was happy and quite a few minor artists had been fed
and
clothed.
Gerrit Bigalski
wrote:
>
>Afropea <afr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19991024224555...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
[...]
>> I have a wonderfully obscene quote that Renoir made about
>> painting, and how he felt a paintbrush should be used, but I think
>> I'll keep that one to myself <g>
>
>Now, this is a very selfish thing to do!
Yes, indeed! ;-)
>Besides, why anybody would
>consider a statement regarding theory of art as an obscenity? :-)
Very good argument, Alex; no, come on, Eve - spit it out! ;-)
Gerrit
Frances Kemmish
Is that what Renoir said?
Fran
Afropea
>>> painting, and how he felt a paintbrush should be used, but I think
>>< I'll keep that one to myself <g>
>
>>Now, this is a very selfish thing to do!
> Yes, indeed! ;-)
>>Besides, why anybody would
>>consider a statement regarding theory of art as an obscenity? :-)
>Very good argument, Alex; no, come on, Eve - spit it out! ;-)
OK! OK! He has been quoted (in translations, of course, so
be forewarned) as saying that "A good picture must be painted
with the prick."
Now I interpret that as meaning that one must not use the
intellect as much as one's, uh, natural cravings, to successful
create a picture, such as that of a beautiful woman. I rather
doubt he was referring to some sort of proto-Jackson Pollack
painting technique. But you all can draw your own conclusions! ;-)
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if such a thing was literally tried
in some art circles during the 60's, and I know that there was
body painting going on at one point where artists actually were
painting with their entire bodies. Of course, if this was what
Renior had in mind, his idea of great painting would be limited to
male artists!
JMHO,
Eve
Genevieve Marie Ellerbee
: am...@gte.com says
: To my knowledge, Venus was not Sandro Botticelli's girlfriend,
: but rather based on the woman who was considered most beautiful
: of her time, Simonetta Vespucci. She married Guiliano de Medici,
: brother of Lorenzo. Legend says that Botticelli may have had a crush
: on her.
I'm sure somebody may have caught htis already, but if not, I'll just
point out that Simonetta Vespucci, nee Cattaneo, was the wife of Marco
Vespucci. Giuliano was said to be in love with her, and she appeared at
his giostra (his tournament, when he was 22) and was crowned as Queen of
Beauty. Giuliano wore her favor on one of his costumes. Botticelli
designed the standard that Giuliano carried that day, actually. At any
rate, Giuliano was killed before he could marry.
This is from The Rise and Fall of the House of Medici, by Christopher
Hibbert
--
*Genevieve Ellerbee*wgmu.gmu.edu/geni* "The last refuge and surest
*remedy...when no other means will take effect, is, to let them go
*together and enjoy one another...Aesculapius himself cannot invent a
*better remedy...than that a Lover have his desire." - Burton
*"It's love that's holding back the weather." - King's X
Afropea
>but if not, I'll justpoint out that Simonetta Vespucci,
>nee Cattaneo, was the wife of MarcoVespucci.
>Giuliano was said to be in love with her, and she
>appeared athis giostra (his tournament, when he was
>22) and was crowned as Queen of Beauty. Giuliano wore
>her favor on one of his costumes. Botticelli designed the
>standard that Giuliano carried that day, actually. At any
>rate, Giuliano was killed before he could marry.
This is from The Rise and Fall of the House of Medici,
by Christopher Hibbert>>
Interesting. There is another book, I believe by a
woman author, who I thought said otherwise otherwise,
but its been a long time so its very possible that I was
wrong. Judging from your comment, I might have picked
this tidbit up through art gossip, and my information was
incorrect. I know the art better than I know the history,
but I'm certainly interested in knowing both, and really
appreciate your correction!
There is a Botticelli panel that was conjectured as
being painted in celebration for a Vespucci wedding,
though I see in Fredrick Hartt's book on Italian
Renaissance Art, that it wasn't specific for whose marriage.
I believe I was once told it may have been for a headboard,
but at this point, I'm not going to stake my life on that!
The subject was Venus and Mars. Its date is 1475 and it
hangs at the National Gallery of Art in London. I was also
told that these were portraits of the Guiliano and
Simonetta. Perhaps that is where the error occured.
Actually, this is my favorite Botticelli. It has tons of
interesting symbolism. Basically, its a Mars conquered
by Venus, with a very calm Venus looking like she's
exhausted her poor lover to oblivion after an onslaught
of her various charms. If you aren't familiar with it, try
to take a look at the picture when you have a chance.
Particularly note the position in which the artist places
the hand of Mars. Those who actually have access to the
National Gallery might even be able to give us more details
(or those who have a really good book on the works of
Botticelli handy--though from the looks of this thread
maybe I should get a really good book on Botticelli! ;-))
Hart also discusses the crowning of the victor, which you
mentioned. Apparently the mythology of this picture has at
times been connected with the Poliziano poem "La giostra" which
is about this very tournament. Perhaps, as Giulano may conquer,
he is equally conquered by love.
I have been eyeing the book you refer to for a while
and really want to read it. Its been a frightening amount
of time since I've studied Renaissance Art, and I seem to
be seriously slipping!
Thanks!
Eve
Afropea
and Helen S. Ettlinger's book on Botticelli. Apparently
Guilliano and Simonetta as an item is old art gossip, though
not necessarily (and probably not) true. It was popularized
in the 19th century by Ruskin. Apparently the legend was
based on a Romantic misinterpretation of Poliziano's La Giostra
(has anyone here read that?) Vasari also wrote that Botticelli
painted 'the beloved of Giuliano' though he never actually mentioned
her by name.
Guiliano's known mistress, according to these authors, was
Fioretta Gorini, the mother of Pope Clement VII. So a lot of
the Simonetta identifications in Botticelli's paintings could
actually be bogus romanticism.
Well, at least I thought that was interesting! ;-)
Eve
Gerrit Bigalski
<arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
>Gerrit Bigalski wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:32:26 -0400, "alex milman" <am...@gte.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Afropea <afr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:19991024224555...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> I have a wonderfully obscene quote that Renoir made about
>> >> painting, and how he felt a paintbrush should be used, but I think
>> >> I'll keep that one to myself <g>
>> >
>> >Now, this is a very selfish thing to do!
>>
>> Yes, indeed! ;-)
>>
>> >Besides, why anybody would
>> >consider a statement regarding theory of art as an obscenity? :-)
>>
>> Very good argument, Alex; no, come on, Eve - spit it out! ;-)
>
>Is that what Renoir said?
The birth of pointilism? Hm; rather Monet, then, don't you think?
Maybe were at something here ... Probably not. ;-)
Gerrit
Gerrit Bigalski
>>>> I have a wonderfully obscene quote that Renoir made about
>>>> painting, and how he felt a paintbrush should be used, but I think
>>>< I'll keep that one to myself <g>
>>
>>>Now, this is a very selfish thing to do!
>
>> Yes, indeed! ;-)
>
>>>Besides, why anybody would
>>>consider a statement regarding theory of art as an obscenity? :-)
>
>>Very good argument, Alex; no, come on, Eve - spit it out! ;-)
>
>OK! OK! He has been quoted (in translations, of course, so
>be forewarned) as saying that "A good picture must be painted
>with the prick."
Hm. "Prick" is a small tree set into the ground as navigational aid,
isn't it? Must give interesting results painting with one ...
[...]
All innocently, ;-)
Gerrit
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ger...@bigalski.de (Gerrit Bigalski) wrote:
> On 27 Oct 1999 19:48:58 GMT, afr...@aol.com (Afropea)
wrote:
>
> >>>> I have a wonderfully obscene quote that Renoir made
>about painting, and how he felt a paintbrush should be used,
>but I think I'll keep that one to myself <g>
> >>
> >>>Now, this is a very selfish thing to do!
> >
> >> Yes, indeed! ;-)
> >
> >>>Besides, why anybody would
> >>>consider a statement regarding theory of art as an
>obscenity? :-)
> >
> >>Very good argument, Alex; no, come on, Eve - spit it out!
>;-)
> >
> >OK! OK! He has been quoted (in translations, of course,
>so be forewarned) as saying that "A good picture must be
>painted with the prick."
No, no, no! A flaw in the translations. He said what any
artist would say - "All other pictures are the work of
dickheads."
>
> Hm. "Prick" is a small tree set into the ground as
>navigational aid, isn't it?
Um. Er.
>Must give interesting results painting with one ...
>
> [...]
>
> All innocently, ;-)
>
> Gerrit
We'll tell you when you're older, dear. ;-)
The Margravine
my, this [OT] tag brings out the worst in some surprising
people, doesn't it?
Gerrit Bigalski
>In article <gpcZOLEJjVX1Ef...@4ax.com>,
>ger...@bigalski.de (Gerrit Bigalski) wrote:
>
>> On 27 Oct 1999 19:48:58 GMT, afr...@aol.com (Afropea)
>wrote:
>>
>> >>>> I have a wonderfully obscene quote that Renoir made
>>about painting, and how he felt a paintbrush should be used,
>>but I think I'll keep that one to myself <g>
>> >>
>> >>>Now, this is a very selfish thing to do!
>> >
>> >> Yes, indeed! ;-)
>> >
>> >>>Besides, why anybody would
>> >>>consider a statement regarding theory of art as an
>>obscenity? :-)
>> >
>> >>Very good argument, Alex; no, come on, Eve - spit it out!
>>;-)
>> >
>> >OK! OK! He has been quoted (in translations, of course,
>>so be forewarned) as saying that "A good picture must be
>>painted with the prick."
>
>No, no, no! A flaw in the translations. He said what any
>artist would say - "All other pictures are the work of
>dickheads."
I think we must take a look at the original medieval source in this
matter. Of course it's written in Middle High Obscurian, but we have
some people here who should be able to deal with that.
>> Hm. "Prick" is a small tree set into the ground as
>>navigational aid, isn't it?
>
>Um. Er.
I'm sure this is a positive answer.
>>Must give interesting results painting with one ...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> All innocently, ;-)
>>
>> Gerrit
>
>We'll tell you when you're older, dear. ;-)
How old do you expect to become with this kind of remarks to your
Emperor, dear?
Gerrit, HREadbtGM