Filed under: art
Ok, so I think I need to qualify some of my thoughts from my last post. Mostly about exceptions! Exceptions are usually so much more interesting than the norm!
The exceptions…. Greek and Roman art, Early to High Renaissance sculpture (the David of course is obviously not clothed) and well … I can’t think of an and right now so I’ll just write about those. (oh I just remembered a good and! ceiling frescos as a general genre. Though a lot of times I think that those go in the category of bad but very well executed joke)
Ok so as preface I think that our opinions as art historians and popular culture are often more telling about our own culture than about the past ones that they are attempting to analyze or comment on.
For the exceptions Greek and Roman and the Early to High Renaissance there is one popular modern explanation for the presence of men as nude subject, homosexuality. So Greek and Roman art has beautiful men because those were societies in which homosexual behavior was acceptable and enshrined in art. And Early to High Renaissance is copying meticulously their newly found discoveries, though it is telling that in the case of one of the most prominent artists of the Renaissance, Michelangelo, the very man himself, his tendency to portray men (and even his women as men) is attributed to his own homosexual tendencies. He portrayed men as beautiful so to a modern art historian this reveals to us an important part of his personality while explaining the presence of beautiful men in his art.
What I find particularly interesting about this is not that Michelangelo or the Greeks were or might have been gay. The greeks did indulge in homosexual behavior and Michelangelo very well might have but, I find it more intriguing that this is the primary reasoning we as modern viewers and critics latch on to. It shows our incapability to separate admiration from sexual desire in our own society, particularly when it comes to male bodies. Like I was discussing before the same does not seem to be true of female bodies for our modern society. I tend to think that perhaps the absolute connection between admiration and sexual desire in regards to male nakedness is in fact a result of our own culture and perhaps wasn’t an issue in ancient Greece. Women who admire and produce art with naked women in it aren’t considered immediately lesbian in our society so I don’t really see why it must follow that men who produced or admired art with naked men in it in ancient Greece were necessarily homosexual. And the same goes for Michelangelo in my book.
This brings in a host of interesting questions though that in my opinion are far more interesting than speculation about people’s sexual orientation. What about the Greek society was different so that portraying men was ok? Why if it is now generally culturally acceptable to be gay do we not have the same attitude as the Greeks in art? What is it about our own society that makes male beauty tabu?
P.S. I’m not intending to become a famous artist, so the worst you will probably ever see from me is a art book on the subject that will become the mate to “The Breast in Art” a book I found in the art section of the book store the other day.
Filed under: art
So we went to Paris, right? And I finally got to see a whole lot of the Paris museums. In one week we basically zipped through a brief visual history of the most important works of art in Western Europe from classical Greek to contemporary art. Now I’ve got to tell you what I noticed. The second day we were in the Louvre, while contemplating Ingres “La Grande Obelisque” my husband Matt made an observation. He said that he’d seen a lot of naked women that day, and that though they were art you really couldn’t get around the fact that they were naked and women. It was rather obvious that he was right about the quantity of naked women but, what I got to thinking about was the absence of naked men which I think is more notable then the presence of naked women. With the exception of the ancient greek and sometimes roman art they were rarely naked men. What I noticed was that the naked men that were depicted, again with the exception of the ancient greek, were naked apparently not for the admiration of their nakedness per se but because the painting was obviously imitating greek art. The naked men were almost always in action and usually had some very conveniently placed swords or other similar objects. It is true that the naked women were very rarely identifiable women, these weren’t portraits of real naked women. The naked women were usually glorifications of female physical beauty instead. Which is I think the key difference between the two depictions: men it seemed to be the museums were saying can be naked but, their nakedness is secondary in importance and they are not objects of beauty, women’s nakedness, in contrast, is very often the central theme of the painting and usually considered an object of beauty. What was even more interesting to me is this same distinction persisted throughout the brief history of art we experienced. At the George Pompidou I must admit it changes a bit but, there still naked women are blatantly pictured as objects of beauty or desire whereas naked men though they appear fairly often are always grotesque or ridiculous (with the exception of one painting by Picasso…but still not depicted as objects of sexual desire). Even more interesting to me is that even when the artists were women you found that the same thing was true. Because for the majority of time men have been the ones painting it has been natural for them to paint women as the objects of beauty or desire….women are objects of beauty and desire for men. So nothing strange here. What is interesting is that with the advent of rising women artists that we do not see the opposite phenomenon. Why do women as artists do the same thing as men? Wouldn’t it be natural for a woman to paint men as attractive and beautiful in the same way that men have seemingly always portrayed women. I mean I think that there are plenty of women, and women artists for that matter, that do not find men’s bodies disgusting. In fact I think there are plenty of women that find them attractive, so why do heterosexual women only paint women as objects of beauty? I don’t actually buy the argument that women are not visually stimulated and so that’s why. That they aren’t wired that way in the same way as men I will readily admit but, that women are not visually attracted to men whatsoever is a bald face lie. Anyway so considering that painting naked men as beautiful is just not done, it is also not excepted practice. It’s not traditionally considered art. So here’s my theory…… at our current point in history if someone wants to be an artist he/she has a generally excepted path to take when depicting naked people….woman as object of beauty, woman as grotesque and scary, man as grotesque and scary (or perhaps just a bufoon). Man as object of beauty painted by a man is considered an expression of homosexuality. Women depicting women as art objects is considered standard practice. BUT if a woman began depicting naked men as objects of beauty not as grotesque, stupid or scary (I’m thinking like the male counterparts for Degas bathing women) I think she would cause some stir. I think because it is not done…because in the art museums you do not see men depicted this way it would be scandalous to an extent. I think the woman artist that decided to do this and do it well might just have a shot at notoriety. Perhaps it is a sign of the backwardsness of much of the feminism that has changed our society to date. As women became artists riding the wave of feminism, the same wave that saw women become doctors and politicians, these women have distortedly become male artists rather than female ones. So that women artists, just as male ones, depict women as objects of desire. It is as if a female artist must, in order to be an artist, renounce their essentially female view point. So I guess I’m challenging aspiring female artists to take hold of the fact that they are women and depict men as beautiful, and to rectify the situation.
Filed under: art
So we went to Paris. Which was awesome! I couldn’t be more ecstatic about all the things I got to see that I’ve wanted to see. The last time I was in Paris the museum workers were all on strike so I didn’t get to even set foot in the Louvre, let alone any of the other museums.
My mini critique of the museums themselves:
Louvre, WoW it has so much important stuff!
Critique: It does a good job of organizing the art works by region and time period so you really can get a sense of the flow and development of art, especially that of France itself but, really it’s the flow you see. There is so much of it that the specifics are necessarily lost. Like the original collectors intended ( the Louis were never known for their sober restriction and frugalness) the collections quantity and variety is overwhelming, with almost obscene impressions of opulence that flow from the simple unrestricted quantity.
Must sees in the museum:
the Nike! Wow! just as good in person.
Ingres, this guy was great I really am not very fond of most of the art produced by his contemporaries but, his stuff is really worth seeing.
Portraiture….throughout the museum my favorite things to keep track of was the vast array of portraits. Really they are all very impressive. My favorites of course are the ones from before the 1600s but that is personal taste.
Van Eyck… really cool!and go to the Islamic section it is worth the 20 minutes, especially for the animals jumping out of each others mouths rug.
The De Cluny, the really old french stuff.
Critique: This is the museum of the French middle ages and was by far my favorite museum. They don’t have a ton of stuff but, what they have makes a comprehensible picture of the art work of the time. Focused primarily on decorative arts such as illumination, stain glass and tapestry work it’s really fantastic.
Must see:
The tapestries of the Lady and the Unicorn. Oh my goodness, they take your breath away literally. I seriously turned the corner into a corner room that I didn’t really know how big it was going to be and sat staring for the next 20 minutes. This 6 piece series is worth the time. The tapestries are enchanting and brilliant and full of emotion. Better design and workmanship went into these tapestries then into most of the paintings from the same period in the louvre. I can’t say enough.
The tapestry with the porcupine. It is not really all that notable except for the porcupine but really isn’t it cool that that particular North American creature manages to get onto the surface of the tapestry and it really is unique.
The tapestry of the wine harvest. After the Lady and the Unicorn this was my favorite, it is fascinating to look at because it shows the entire process in action from how they cut the grapes off the vine to smooshing them and starting the process of making wine. Plus it is beautifully done in my opinion.
The George Pompidou, Modern, Modern, Modern.
Critique:This museum itself is really cool and I have to say it was my favorite view of the Paris skyline. Their current exhibition format of the permanent collection is chronological by movement which is nice because of it gives an idea of the change during this century though I think I would find a topical arrangement perhaps more interesting. So there is some really cool important stuff here and even if you claim not to like modern art it’s way worth it since it can give you a better idea what exactly you’re claiming not to like. Though the collection does include Kandinsky and Klee it is really incredibly heavy on French artists justifiably so. It’s a shame though because my favorites weren’t there because my favorites generally aren’t French.
Must sees:
Rothko and Mondrian, these are two artists which you really can’t understand until you’ve seen them in person. There works really aren’t that great seen from a book in print but, when you see the actually painted thing you stop asking if it really took talent to do something like that.
Calder, ok the wire sculpture by Calder is amazing, I’ve never seen such a sparse rendering give the impression of such specific forms. The guy really was a genius.
Kupka, I discovered an artist that was new to me that I really liked and it’s this guy, a really early abstract artist his paintings are miraculous plays with light.
Delauney, both of them really are fantastic. I love this kind of play with color abstract art, it’s what I really get into actually. Never was to hot on the cubists because they are too grey, but this…..Color as music!
The Museè D’Orsay, Impressionism galore.
Critique:Great museum, great layout, great works, but…..far to many people and good grief please stop them from taking pictures! really go buy the silly postcard please you can’t hardly see the paintings for the people taking pictures of the paintings.
Must sees:
Manet! enough said.
The Polar Bear…. by Rodain I think… but it really was too cool!
The room of Van Goghs was mind-boggling.
The pastel collections are really awesome and worth looking at closely, it’s really cool to see the influence of the pastels themselves on the artists other works.
Make sure to make time to look at the Art Nouveau furniture gallery, it’s really amazing. The pieces are spectacular. I’ve never seen prettier beds.
We also went to Giverny and the home of Monet, Versaille and the D’Olangerie (hope I spelled that correctly) all well worth the trip. My trip highlight was rowing down the grand canal at Versaille….much better than walking!
Filed under: art
So I finished my prints! I’ve been working on them for more than a year now so I feel kind of silly. I almost didn’t want to finish them. The feel of process is entirely enthralling. While I’m creating a print I get to work through an idea until I’ve totally absorbed it. When I draw I feel as though I am working through the idea or the image as well but I can never make the feeling, the process last as long. When I draw there is a point at which I am always afraid I will ruin the drawing by adding something. Watching the picture form I am expectant, breathless but, then there is a point at which I shrink from drawing anymore because the essence of the image that I see is captured and I am afraid that one more pencil stroke will add more noise will make the picture irrelavant. Even if the drawing isn’t a good one I feel this way, it’s like there is a point of no return with drawing after which the picture is either good or bad and you either throw it away or decide to be content.
Prints on the other hand take more time. Each line takes work. You sketch, you think, you plan, and then you carve and test and test again and carve and test and test again until the picture is complete, until it is right. For me the expectation has great value. The process is sobering, enthralling, rythmic like dancing but less exuberant.
A good ten years ago now my dad decided that Christmas was too depressing the way we did it. Not that Christmas was ever bad at our house, he just decided it didn’t last long enough. So that year my dad purposed that we have Christmas for 7 days from Christmas Day until New Years. We accomplished this by opening the stockings and grandparent gifts on Christmas Day and then opening a gift from another member of the family for each of the following days…there were only 5 of us so then we added a couple theme days… movie day, and game day. So from that christmas on if we are at home Christmas lasts for 7 days. There is certainly a peak thrill to Christmas all in one day that you don’t quite achieve with Christmas in 7 days, but the 7 days of expectation and gift opening and festivalness are certainly worth the exchange. This is partially the same feeling I have for printmaking vs. drawing the thrill may not be as zingy but the enjoyment is more thorough.
and that’s my thoughts about that. It rained today, I really like rain. The world as seen from under an umbrella is fantastic. The ducks in the park were liberated from their usual hide out on the island in the middle of the park lagoon because of the rain, they seemed quite happy…the geese too. Italians don’t really differentiate between big ducks and geese. The poor geese are always stripped of what little dignity they have and called ducks.
In Italian instead of saying peek-a-boo I got told yesterday that you say something to the gist of – pat-ta-toom-fit-ay
