1
   

Does Art Need to Be Dark to be Taken Seriously?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 05:54 pm
Farmer, I think you know what I mean by "Goth-y", a dark vampirish and excessively standardized imagery. My use of "mannerism", on the other hand, is more naive/problematical. I do not refer to the Dutch movement, but to some extent my usage would include the skinny figures--a manneristic "style"--of the days of El Greco. I do intend the term, obviously as a perjorative, a reference to a kind of inauthenticity resulting from a habit of painting in the manner of some collectivity of artists. This would not include, however, the followers of CoBra, impressionists, Fauvists, German Expressionists, etc.. Those movements consisted of "authentic" individualists who were not complying with some overarching stylistic "mannerism".
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 06:04 pm
I'm a dodo on art history, but have thought of mannerism, myself, as a later offshoot of a major 'movement' - wasn't Andrea del Sarto, Pontormo, and, oh, what's his name... slaps head, the guy, starts with an S... think he has an altar mural in Orvieto. Anyway, sort of when people are tired of the Way, whatever it is, and get a bit more expressive... and of course El Greco (forget his actual name too, right this minute.)

So by one count the German expressionists aren't mannerist, but by mine they are. Or is mannerism always a kind of decline? I am not thinking so.

I've been following this thread trying to work out my own coherent riff. Lessee, how to sequence my many thoughts on the subject. Well, later for that. Really enjoyed P'dog's riff, loved the photo of Mel the dancer.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 06:08 pm
Gee, y'know who's missing on this, is Firenze penzaforte, later known as Goldstein-Shapiro here. Not to mention Lightwizard.
My own views don't usually line up with theirs though, so I still have to work up my thoughts. Then there's Miklos --- I'd really like his take on the subject.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 06:14 pm
On types of newer art, I've gotten into genuinely enjoying all sorts of stuff I frowned at before - but also dismiss whole scenes as pabulum or some other perjorative word. I wish I had a record, though, of my mind changing over time.

Soon I'm going to have to deal with Marsden Hartley. I think I've noticed there will be a show here. I've never "gotten" him for a minute, will try one more time. Not that he's new, just rambling.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 06:50 pm
i do have a problem with "kubismus" - i really don't know how to approach it - what to see in it . i cannot find any meaning in it .
the artist would probably want us to see something , but what ? simply colours and shapes ?
hbg

http://www.bad-bad.de/burda-museum/buch_kubismus.jpg
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 06:57 pm
hamburger wrote:
i do have a problem with "kubismus" - i really don't know how to approach it - what to see in it . i cannot find any meaning in it .
the artist would probably want us to see something , but what ? simply colours and shapes ?
hbg



That looks like an exercise to me.

On the other hand, I saw a segment (surely not the whole bit) of Picasso's series of interpretations of Velazquez's Las Meninas, and was stunned. (The dirty doodles up on floor four were pretty good, too.)
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 07:01 pm
Picasso's blue period was my favorite, patio:

http://www.nga.gov/feature/picasso/images/full/tragedy.jpg
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 07:25 pm
That is more accessible, though...
not that that's bad. Just that less accessible is not always useless.

I'd be interested in that Las Meninas series... I admit to being Picasso recalcitrant. Finally sold my giant book on his work.. a total loss since I never sat down and pored over it.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 07:35 pm
Luca Signorelli, that's \the mannerist I was thinking of at Orvieto. His large work was undergoing fix-up when I was there.

To bring this back to the subject, I think of his work as dark.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 07:38 pm
Or, well, maybe not. Surely I know nothing about him.
Signorelli
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 07:46 pm
when we stopped over in oslo in august 2002 , a group of young brazilian ballplayers were visiting the statue ; their bright red uniforms - and their laughter and happiness - made it truly a piece of folkart .
hbg
(pls click to enlarge)
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/9827/oslo3qt.th.jpg
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 07:51 pm
Yes, I loved patiodog's riffs.

Definitely looking forward to what you have to say, osso. (I mean you already have, but more.)
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:00 pm
I'm feeling inarticulate so I'll just talk.

The Las Meninas thing is useful for discussion, I bet - an extremely attractive painting by most standards, in the original, and then I gather a series done in cubism??? Plus, didn't others riff on it?

Not exactly light/happy in contrast to dark, though, or is it?


Not to quibble, as we've been tangenting all over the place.




Y'know, Monet's work is not exactly fluffy, but isn't really dark to me...

I don't think of Winslow Homer as really dark either. (Maybe I don't know enough.)
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:06 pm
Osso, my knowledge of art history is so weak that I would not try to defend my use of the term, mannerism.

Hamburger, your comment regarding the cubist work ("the artist would probably want us to see something , but what? simply colours and shapes?" ). Perhaps that's it, just like a composer would want to convey beauty abstractly by means of pitch, harmony and rhythm.
That cubist work, by the way, is more beautiful that those of the earlier "experimenters" Picasso and Braque. Works of other follower-cubists like Gris and early Rivera were actually beautiful. Picasso and Braque's early cubist exercises did not even use color, as I recall.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:06 pm
And, Hamburger, the found happening of the brazilians at the lively sculpture, sort of trajanesque, in your photo, is also a kind of art...
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:08 pm
mmmm, early Rivera, tell us more...


JL, io sono stupida about mannerism, I'm just typing.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:13 pm
Howe'er it fit in in the scheme of things, I love seeing much of picasso's stuff in person. Love the man's lines.





Does art need to be ... taken seriously?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:19 pm
JL et al, I am rather stupified and petrified by people who really know art. I am just trying out weak art muscles when I talk at all on this forum. And yet, some of the smartest art people turned out to have foibles. Oh, say Anthony Blunt, and Bernard Berenson. I've read/have a few Berenson books, and own, though haven't read, one book by Blunt, or Blount, forget the spelling. I'm just interested. But I think all of us interesteds add a certain light to some tunnelling, as a group.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:23 pm
patiodog wrote:
Does art need to be ... taken seriously?


There is that..!

What do you think?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:32 pm
..........*******....................
.......*************.............
......*..I'm so dark!...**.........
.....*.......Take me!.......*.......
......*....Seriously!.....**........
.........*************............
..............******..................
.................***....................
..................**.....................
.................*........................
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38791000/jpg/_38791227_art150.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2020 at 07:46:57