avant-garde anachronism in old paintings

Idg y modernism has some strange license on weirdness

evidently doesn't, hence this thread

title will appear quasi challopsy to history of art bros (itself obv an anachronism in applying echt modern rhetoric to the pre-modern)

first posts gives a fairly liberal purview that ppl seem to understand, idk

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit16/OT7.jpeg

vasari was a p linear-chronological guy istr

x-posts <3 Bruegel

yah but vasari is pretty damn impt in that regard

http://www.principiosdeconomia.org/EHELP/index_archivos/prehistory/Images/venus-Willendorf.jpghttp://www.clusterflock.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/lucien-freud.jpg

http://www.abcgallery.com/I/ingres/ingres44.JPG
Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres. Portrait of Madame Moitessier Sitting. 1856. Oil on canvas. National Gallery, London, UK.

“The History Painter renders space in general, whereas the Portrait Painter only represents the individual in particular, by consequence, a model often ordinary or full of faults.” (31)

“And while the seated portrait of Madame Moitessier operates at a great remove from ‘history’ – as conceived of as that which takes as its subject the public and the ‘ideal,’ and which is figured compositionally through the deployment of multiple figures – what it helps to illuminate is the degree to which Ingres’s own distinction between history painter and portraitist [quoted above] must be understood as surpassing the question of subject matter.” (51)

Sarah Betzer, “Ingres’s Second Madame Moitessier: ‘Le Brevet du Peintre d’Histoire,” in Susan Siegfried and Adrian Rifkin, eds. Fingering Ingres (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), pp. 31-51.

http://static.artbible.info/large/cranach_adameva_1526.jpghttp://www.page291.com/blog/images/tree.jpg

lol

lol am0n

lol - whose is the pic on the right? mcginley?

I literally lold at willendorf/frued

If you reframe these things as "avant garde anachronism" you basically fetishize the outre elements as an ahistorical prefigurement of the conclusions that art history has retrospectively drawn.

i KNEW i had a theoretical objection, thx

lol sometimes i just want a fight

If you reframe these things as "avant garde anachronism" you basically fetishize the outre elements as an ahistorical prefigurement of the conclusions that art history has retrospectively drawn.

i KNEW i had a theoretical objection, thx

― max, Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:05 PM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark

that's not an objection, per se, you've just used the word 'fetishize' without discrimination is all

art/literary history isn't like real history, in that it always involves some scale of values

people worry too much about being teleological

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcpjbpbOZl1qdu6dfo1_400.jpg
http://madinkbeard.com/blog/wp-content/images/vallotton1.jpg
http://madinkbeard.com/blog/wp-content/images/vallotton2.jpg

"real" history, mayne?

real history doesnt involve a scale of values!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

xxpost OMG! Who is this FV?

F. Volloin?

Ah! Félix Vallotton! Never heard of dude!

people worry too much about being teleological

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:07 PM (2 minutes ago)

except that what you're doing is
a) inverting influence so that each act becomes anticipatory
b) disregarding the historical context and creating "weirdness" by mapping contemporary ideas of weirdness onto work which is coded with its own contemporary meaning.
c) teleological views of art history and "progress" are an invention of the enlightenment, modernism and "art history" and their imposition on work made outside these contexts disregards their historically specific meaning.
d) i'm kindof uncomfortable w/ the *need* for finding "historical precedents," somebody recently pointed out how much fun ppl have looking for anal sex refs in chaucer like its a way of being like "hay guy, its ok, ppl have always been doing this" like its a way of excusing yourself. Im a bit sketchy about it as a strategy is what im saying.

Wtf? How have I not heard of this guy?? New favorite painter ever = Félix Vallotton! Prolly outside the purview of this thread but mon dieu:

http://www.canvasreplicas.com/images/Child%20Playing%20Ball%20in%20the%20Park%20Felix%20Vallotton.jpg

xp would you object if the thread title/premise was changed to "surreal pre-20th C. paintings"?

thread should b renamed 'paintings we like'

except that what you're doing is
a) inverting influence so that each act becomes anticipatory

im not doing it, but also im sure this is what's being done -- ppl are saying look at the cool outlying stuff that maybe influenced later artists

b) disregarding the historical context and creating "weirdness" by mapping contemporary ideas of weirdness onto work which is coded with its own contemporary meaning.

this is absolutely legitimate behaviour, i think. context-dependent. on an internet thread i think it's ok. and artists don't have to give a fuck about the contemporary meaning of what moves them. and in a way we're all artists.

c) teleological views of art history and "progress" are an invention of the enlightenment, modernism and "art history" and their imposition on work made outside these contexts disregards their historically specific meaning.

was gonna go with YOU'RE an invention of the enlightenment, modernism and "art history", but again only in specific contexts do we need to respect the historically specific meaning, and anyway what's wrong with the enlightenment?

d) i'm kindof uncomfortable w/ the *need* for finding "historical precedents," somebody recently pointed out how much fun ppl have looking for anal sex refs in chaucer like its a way of being like "hay guy, its ok, ppl have always been doing this" like its a way of excusing yourself. Im a bit sketchy about it as a strategy is what im saying.

it's an image thread on ilxor.com

vallotin is hella hip right now

not surreal but Pieter Jansz Saenredam did some interesting minimalistic stuff with church interiors in the 1600s

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Pieter_Jansz._Saenredam_006.jpg

I'm not an art student and pretty much clueless ftmp but the perspective in a lot of pre-Renaissance stuff is so strange — it's flattened to the point of there being almost no illusion of depth, but just geometric forms interacting on the same plane.

Ambrogio Lorenzetti: Effects of Good Government on City-Life (c. 1330)

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3892/effects20of20good20govepk0.jpg

i take image threads seriously

Thread has inspired me to Xmas list this book:

The Artist and the Camera: Degas to Picasso

it is so weird that you would go to so much trouble to point by point be like "hay, i dont really care about any of these reasons bc this is a message board?"

idk id check it out irl, i remember that book being only okay

teleological views of art history and "progress" are an invention of the enlightenment

Vasari's preface has a fairly teleological view of things, comfortable talking about improvement and decline. Don't know much about art history, but in general Greece/Rome give Renaissance Humanism its yardsticks.

http://www.oilpainting-frame.com/upload1/file-admin/images/new17/Felix%20Vallotton-243742.jpg

this valloton cracks me up

teleological views of art history and "progress" are an invention of the enlightenment, modernism and "art history" and their imposition on work made outside these contexts disregards their historically specific meaning.

gave an answer to this iirc

i think you mean that the works have "historically specific meaning" outside of our own (necessarily post-enlightenment) discourse, and that it can be reconstructed, or s.thing

i don't, and i think, basically, yes, constructing a history means seeing things as contemporaries did not see them, and im ok with that

Mmmm, romano pepper.

xpost

really like this vallotton guy

also plax <3 and yr art historicity but maybe u should ~chill~

The art history of every age is going to reflect the values of its time, obv, and it's going to privilege certain kinds of work and ignore others. When a new paradigm ensues, people find a thrill in discovering art of the past, neglected by the prior dominant mode, that better reflects the new mode of thinking about art. Sometimes in our excitement we overstate the case for some earlier artist being a "modernist" or a "surrealist" or an "impressionist" or a "postmodernist" or whatever. But I also don't agree that we have to be beholden to the context of the work, as long as we recognize the context. There's no reason not to enjoy the outright weirdness of Bosch from a contemporary sensibility even if we know that he had some kind of religious/moral understanding of his paintings. I love looking at medieval Virgin Mary w/Christ Child paintings just for the thrill of the strange and scary baby Jesuses, for example. I mean the whole reason they're in museums to begin with is already out of context, so whatever.

which is why if the thread had been called "bizarro old shit" id be totes cool w/ it

oh, i'm sure there would be some problem.

FWIW the Bosch posted at the top of the thread looks like a really fun party.

it's actually not the thread i was after but it's the thread nakhchivan started.

anyway the thread was a spin off of a discussion about Holbein's The Ambassadors.

http://umlautampersand.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/ambassadors.jpg

ok yeah that is weirdly out of time, its like that charlie chaplin movie where a woman is on her mobile

haha.

can someone explain that painting? that's wild

whereas i was sort of just after a "look at this amazing old painting which you can say something about if you wish" thread. but this can be that, maybe, or i'll make it.

what do you want explained goole?

still tho "flying tortoises! how modern!" like really?

Also it's easy to forget that people in other eras probably enjoyed the shock of the new and strange as well. Curiosities, oddities, novelties -- not entirely contemporary concepts.

Isn't cultural history in all areas generally the most whiggish of all historical narratives? As practiced I mean, not from necessity.

plax otm yeah, although unmoored weirdness for its own autotelic sake is a distinctly modern flex as far as I can tell. Sorry if the point has already been made, I haven't read the whole thread.

‘Judith Slaying Holofernes’ by Artemisia Gentileschi, 1610.https://t.co/RuaoBc6DNR

{Photo: @sylviethecamera} pic.twitter.com/qrn9fVyDIT

— Cora Harrington (@lingerie_addict) September 24, 2019

Nice recreation! Brings to mind a few years ago a load of us including emil.y recreating Las Meninas in a Barcelona apartment.

https://www.wga.hu/art/a/arcimbol/4composi/1vertum.jpg

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/jadensadventures/images/a/a4/Vegetable_Gremlin.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160824073044

Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on...