http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit16/OT7.jpeg
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 16:59 (thirteen years ago) link
vasari was a p linear-chronological guy istr
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:00 (thirteen years ago) link
x-posts <3 Bruegel
― ENBB, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:01 (thirteen years ago) link
yah but vasari is pretty damn impt in that regard
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:01 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.principiosdeconomia.org/EHELP/index_archivos/prehistory/Images/venus-Willendorf.jpghttp://www.clusterflock.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/lucien-freud.jpg
― (ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:02 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.abcgallery.com/I/ingres/ingres44.JPGJean-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.
― Kevin John Bozelka, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:02 (thirteen years ago) link
http://static.artbible.info/large/cranach_adameva_1526.jpghttp://www.page291.com/blog/images/tree.jpg
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:03 (thirteen years ago) link
lol
― (ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:03 (thirteen years ago) link
lol am0n
lol - whose is the pic on the right? mcginley?
― ENBB, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:04 (thirteen years ago) link
I literally lold at willendorf/frued
― ENBB, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:05 (thirteen years ago) link
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, 30 November 2010 17:05 (thirteen years ago) link
lol sometimes i just want a fight
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:07 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― 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
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:07 (thirteen years ago) link
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcpjbpbOZl1qdu6dfo1_400.jpghttp://madinkbeard.com/blog/wp-content/images/vallotton1.jpghttp://madinkbeard.com/blog/wp-content/images/vallotton2.jpg
― boss margins, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:09 (thirteen years ago) link
"real" history, mayne?
― (ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:11 (thirteen years ago) link
real history doesnt involve a scale of values!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
― max, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:12 (thirteen years ago) link
xxpost OMG! Who is this FV?
― Kevin John Bozelka, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:12 (thirteen years ago) link
F. Volloin?
― Kevin John Bozelka, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:13 (thirteen years ago) link
Ah! Félix Vallotton! Never heard of dude!
― Kevin John Bozelka, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:14 (thirteen years ago) link
― 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.
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:16 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― Kevin John Bozelka, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:22 (thirteen years ago) link
xp would you object if the thread title/premise was changed to "surreal pre-20th C. paintings"?
― for the next throbbing minutes (corey), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:22 (thirteen years ago) link
thread should b renamed 'paintings we like'
― max, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:23 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:27 (thirteen years ago) link
vallotin is hella hip right now
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:28 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― zappi, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:29 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― for the next throbbing minutes (corey), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:29 (thirteen years ago) link
i take image threads seriously
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:30 (thirteen years ago) link
Thread has inspired me to Xmas list this book:
The Artist and the Camera: Degas to Picasso
― Kevin John Bozelka, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:31 (thirteen years ago) link
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?"
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:32 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― portrait of velleity (woof), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:33 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.oilpainting-frame.com/upload1/file-admin/images/new17/Felix%20Vallotton-243742.jpg
this valloton cracks me up
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:34 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:45 (thirteen years ago) link
Mmmm, romano pepper.
xpost
― A brownish area with points (chap), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:46 (thirteen years ago) link
really like this vallotton guy
also plax <3 and yr art historicity but maybe u should ~chill~
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 17:54 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― ball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:02 (thirteen years ago) link
which is why if the thread had been called "bizarro old shit" id be totes cool w/ it
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:22 (thirteen years ago) link
oh, i'm sure there would be some problem.
― jed_, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:26 (thirteen years ago) link
FWIW the Bosch posted at the top of the thread looks like a really fun party.
― ball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:28 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― jed_, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:29 (thirteen years ago) link
ok yeah that is weirdly out of time, its like that charlie chaplin movie where a woman is on her mobile
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:31 (thirteen years ago) link
haha.
― jed_, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:32 (thirteen years ago) link
can someone explain that painting? that's wild
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:33 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― jed_, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:34 (thirteen years ago) link
what do you want explained goole?
still tho "flying tortoises! how modern!" like really?
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:36 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― ball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:36 (thirteen years ago) link
ah i could have gone to wiki i guess:
Anamorphic skullThe anamorphic skull
The most notable and famous of Holbein's symbols in the work, however, is the skewed skull which is placed in the bottom centre of the composition. The skull, rendered in anamorphic perspective, another invention of the Early Renaissance, is meant to be a visual puzzle as the viewer must approach the painting nearly from the side to see the form morph into an accurate rendering of a human skull. While the skull is evidently intended as a vanitas or memento mori, it is unclear why Holbein gave it such prominence in this painting. One possibility is that this painting represents three levels: the heavens (as portrayed by the astrolabe and other objects on the upper shelf), the living world (as evidenced by books and a musical instrument on the lower shelf), and death (signified by the skull). It has also been hypothesized that the painting is meant to hang in a stairwell, so that a person walking up the stairs from the painting's left would be startled by the appearance of the skull. A further possibility is that Holbein simply wished to show off his ability with the technique in order to secure future commissions.[5] Artists often incorporated skulls as a reminder of mortality, or at the very least, death. Holbein may have intended the skulls (one as a gray slash and the other as a medallion on Jean de Dinteville's hat) and the crucifixion in the corner to encourage contemplation of one's impending death and the resurrection.[2]
xp yes, i was going to say, maybe it's not so "wild" -- from my v limited knowledge, the renaissance audience had a thing for novelty and trickery
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:38 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― pomenitul, Sunday, 19 January 2020 15:26 (four years ago) link
‘Judith Slaying Holofernes’ by Artemisia Gentileschi, 1610.https://t.co/RuaoBc6DNR {Photo: @sylviethecamera} pic.twitter.com/qrn9fVyDIT— Cora Harrington (@lingerie_addict) September 24, 2019
― calzino, Sunday, 26 January 2020 23:09 (four years ago) link
Nice recreation! Brings to mind a few years ago a load of us including emil.y recreating Las Meninas in a Barcelona apartment.
― lilcraigyboi (Craigo Boingo), Monday, 27 January 2020 00:00 (four years ago) link
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...
― Deflatormouse, Tuesday, 28 January 2020 03:47 (four years ago) link