A discussion of the better things in life, including music, the arts, wine, beer, cigars, scotch, gambling the Quatloosian way, travel, sports, and many other topics. [Political and religious discussions and the like should stay off-site.]
Anything, and I mean anything, can be labeled art.
While the original of this 1917 piece was lost, replicas are now located in museums around the world. A few years ago, it was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century.
Imalawman wrote:I googled that - the origin of the world is slightly misleading. Kind of a shock. I've been to D'Orsay, I obviously missed that one.
It's on the main floor, but they rotate it out along with a couple of other Courbet boudoir art pieces. The D'Orsay has always between 15 and 20 Courbets painting on display.
Famspear wrote:I dont' have a point to make. I'm not posing rhetorical questions; I'm actually interested in what everyone here thinks about art, especially the art in France that was produced from about the 1850s to the early 1900s.
It isn't unique to that period. Grand masters have been painting private whacking material for their rich noblemen patrons for many, many centuries.
Demosthenes wrote:Anything, and I mean anything, can be labeled art.
What's more, it doesn't matter how it's displayed. You can even hang it upside down or rotate it 90 degrees.
The more abstract it is, the more likely you can slip it by in public.
I was in a fancy Chinese restaurant once when Fractals were popular. Hanging right over our table was a colorful piece of fractal art. It had diverging lines beginning at the point of a small sideways cone and emerging from the wide end of the cone into a billowing cloud. It sort of resembled an overflowing ice cream cone lying on its side.
At the bottom of the frame was a small brass plaque with the title of the piece:
"Vitreous Flatus"
I don't think the Chinese restaurant owners understood Latin. Fortunately, the food did not produce a similar reaction from us a few hours later.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein
I agree with previous comments about the scale of the Marilyn statue pushing the boundaries of good taste, with the caveat that the scene it depicts was shown "on the big screen." Admittedly the on-screen view was determined by a director, but it's not as if the scale is unprecedented--it's the liberty to explore beyond the boundaries imposed by film that makes it seem invasive and indecent. (IMHO, YMMV)
"The risk in becoming very intimate with a moldie Parvati is that she may unexpectedly become a Kali and take your head."--Rudy Rucker, Freeware
* * *
“Most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion.”--Lemuel K. Washburn.
Famspear wrote:I dont' have a point to make. I'm not posing rhetorical questions; I'm actually interested in what everyone here thinks about art, especially the art in France that was produced from about the 1850s to the early 1900s.
Something triggered, in my mind, the question: Is the depiction of the human female body in art today (say, painting, in photography or sculpture or whatever) different from what it was for, say, Courbet or Manet? What feelings or statements were these artists expressing? How does the giant sculpture of Marilyn fit in to the work of artists such as Courbet or Manet (or does it)?
There's a book on my shelf called "Erotic Art of the Masters: The 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries" by Bradley Smith that you would find interesting. The preface was written by Henry Miller and it came out im 1974.
There's quite a bit of context provided, including what was acceptable in public and private art. For example, in 1862, Ingres depicted a half dozen or so naken women engaged in lesbianism in a Turkish harem in his beautiful painting called "Le Bain Turc." Had they just been naked women, the piece would have been unacceptable for public viewing, but because he placed the setting in an exotic, foreign locale (the ladies are wearing Turkish hats and jewelry and there's an incense burner in evidence) it was ok to exhibit the painting in public.
Demosthenes wrote:......There's quite a bit of context provided, including what was acceptable in public and private art. For example, in 1862, Ingres depicted a half dozen or so naken women engaged in lesbianism in a Turkish harem in his beautiful painting called "Le Bain Turc." Had they just been naked women, the piece would have been unacceptable for public viewing, but because he placed the setting in an exotic, foreign locale (the ladies are wearing Turkish hats and jewelry and there's an incense burner in evidence) it was ok to exhibit the painting in public.
From what little I know about art history, I understand that this was the problem that some people in the establishment of the art world in 1860s Paris had with Manet's Olympia and Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe. In each, the nude was not remote in time and place, but was instead perceived (by some) to represent a then-modern-day Parisienne prostitute. In both paintings, too, the woman is looking directly at the viewer. She seems to be asserting some sense of her own personal force, her power. (The model for both paintings, as you may know, was Victorine Meurent, who became an artist in her own right.) The art establishment in Paris at that time was shocked by the "realism" of Manet and, of course, by that of Courbet. These artists helped open the door for what became known as Impressionism.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
I find the Marilyn distasteful because, unless you're looking from a distance through an upper floor window, the ONLY thing easy to see is her crotch. And looking up from street level is how most people will view it - looking right into the crotch. Looking down from above it's not too bad. And if the exact same statue was 5.5 feet tall, I wouldn't find it so bad either.
When I look at Michangelo's David, the first thing that draws my attention is that which is at eye level: his chest and face. Eventually I notice the rest. And even though it's a nude, the nether region is rather understated. For a man who was so very focused on anatomical accuracy, I always wondered why Michaelangelo did that.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein
Famspear wrote:From what little I know about art history, I understand that this was the problem that some people in the establishment of the art world in 1860s Paris had with Manet's Olympia and Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe. In each, the nude was not remote in time and place, but was instead perceived (by some) to represent a then-modern-day Parisienne prostitute. In both paintings, too, the woman is looking directly at the viewer. She seems to be asserting some sense of her own personal force, her power. (The model for both paintings, as you may know, was Victorine Meurent, who became an artist in her own right.) The art establishment in Paris at that time was shocked by the "realism" of Manet and, of course, by that of Courbet. These artists helped open the door for what became known as Impressionism.
In Olympia, Manet was intentionally quoting Titian's Venus. The Venus was commissioned as bedroom art by the Duke Of Urbino so his wife would have something to aspire to. Manet reworked the image, and yanked it from private bedroom art to public image.
Nikki wrote:RE; David -- Jewish, right? Why not circumcised?
Actually, he's anatomically correct for a pre-140 AD circumcised male.
Do I want to ask how you know that?
I was a chemical engineering major at Berkeley, and every time I needed to prop up mediocre grades in god awful topics like multi-variable calculus, thermodynamics, and chemical kinetics, I took a foreign language or art history class because those were easy A grades. The engineering courses were so brutal that I ended with a minor in French lit and with passable language skills in Italian, German, Spanish, Latin, and Ancient Greek. I also have a wealth of useless knowledge of art things ranging from Russian Expressionism to Renaissance architecture.
The circumcision depicted on the statue was appropriate for the later practice -- a mere nick of the foreskin -- which came into practice during the Grecian and Roman eras.
The earlier (and current) practice is substantially different.
Since David predated the Grecian influence, the depiction is -- most likely -- inaccurate.
Nikki wrote:The circumcision depicted on the statue was appropriate for the later practice -- a mere nick of the foreskin -- which came into practice during the Grecian and Roman eras.
The earlier (and current) practice is substantially different.
Since David predated the Grecian influence, the depiction is -- most likely -- inaccurate.
According to the Circumcision Reference Library (the Internet is a such a strange place...):
CIRCUMCISION: THEN AND NOW
By: James E. Peron, Ed.D.
Milah: Symbolic Circumcision of Covenant
The original Biblical circumcision of Abraham's time was a relatively minor ritual circumcision procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed. This was called "Milah". It is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its name.
Following "Milah", a penis so circumcised would still contain a considerable portion of the foreskin and the penis would have continued to go through its natural development since most of the foreskin would have remained intact. Protection of the glans would still have occurred. The foreskin would not be stripped back off the glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans, especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or intended protection.
This type circumcision continued throughout the ages and during the time of Christ. The circumcision of Christ would have been this type circumcision as referred to in the bible. Indeed, biblical reference to circumcision is strictly this form of circumcision. It continued into the New Testament. It has been argued that Michelangelo's David should show David as Circumcised. Interestingly, Michelangelo presented David precisely as he should have appeared following an infant "Milah" circumcision. His glans is essentially covered with only the tip of the glans showing.
Kestrel wrote:When I look at Michangelo's David, the first thing that draws my attention is that which is at eye level: his chest and face. Eventually I notice the rest. And even though it's a nude, the nether region is rather understated. For a man who was so very focused on anatomical accuracy, I always wondered why Michaelangelo did that.
Two explanations - 1. A cold studio. 2. Physiology.
I've been to Italy. Even during winter it's not that cold in the lowlands. And the summers are beastly. Somehow I just can't picture Michaelangelo having his model standing in a cold studio long enough to hand-carve a marble statue.
As for the physiology aspect, yes I know some men are not so well endowed. But the genital region on the David statue is more like a pre-pubescent boy, especially compared to the statue's hands. Perhaps Michaelangelo was trying to emphasize that, even though the chest and arm muscles are well-developed, the statue was of a youthful David.
Anywhoooo... The primary emphasis of the David statue, and most other nude statues, is not on the genitalia, unless those statues were made for use in pagan fertility rituals. Nor is the primary emphasis of most classical paintings of bare-breasted women on the genitalia, particularly when those paintings were intended for public display. The Courbet is an exception, but that was painted for the private viewing of Courbet's patron.
But the Marilyn statue.... because of it's size and the intended viewing angle (from beneath), the crotch most certainly IS a primary emphasis area intended to draw the attention of the general public. And that's why it is so tasteless.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein
Kestrel wrote:But the Marilyn statue.... because of it's size and the intended viewing angle (from beneath), the crotch most certainly IS a primary emphasis area intended to draw the attention of the general public. And that's why it is so tasteless.
Okay, I will admit I am a huge horn-dog, but if I had not read about the statue and I just saw it, it would not occur to me to go around back, or under it. I also view the guys standing underneath the statue, or looking at it from behind as kind of pervy, and very immature. Doing that rates right up there with shoe mirrors and watching up-skirt videos.
I would LOVE to sneak out there and hang a sign under Marilyn's skirt -- something like "hey, pervies -- get the hell out from under here, and look at the statue from the outside like normal people do".
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
