Jeune Fille Se Defendant Contre L'amour
Dean
As I've mentioned many times in the past, I am not at all hostile to modern art. I quite like impressionism and abstract art. For example, while I think much of Picasso's work was self-indulgent and even insulting, some of it was sublime. Cubism, dadaism: yeah, I can dig it. I understand why Philip Glass and Laurie Anderson are cool. I do. Still, have a look at this:
(Click on the image to see details)
It's entitled "Young Girl Defends Herself From Love," and was painted by William Bouguereau in 1880. (That's 125 years ago for those of you playing at home.)
I love a lot of things about this painting. Obviously, this painting is about archetypes. This is a young girl confronting Cupid, the minor God of love. In a way, I suppose you could say that if you took this painting literally, it's a bit perverse, but it shouldn't be taken that way. This painting is about ideas that relate to the human experience, and there's a lot going on here. Indeed, just have a look at their faces:
You know, I'm not certain I've ever seen anything quite like this painting. It especially amazes me that a man drew this, not a woman.
In a way, isn't this how way every teenaged girl has seen every teenaged boy she ever had a crush on?
It blows me away every time I look at it.
You can buy a high-quality print of this 1880 masterpiece by clicking right here.
(No, I get nothing for mentioning this. I just think the Art Renewal Center is way cool.)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Jeune Fille Se Defendant Contre L'amour
- Ludwig Deutsch
- Forgotten Ideas and Forgotten Masters
Is it something that our current art schools are not doing? Why do we not see art of this caliber being generated today?
(I'm personally fond of Michael Whelan. YMMV.)
The main problem, though, is what the Art Renewal Center was created to address: the fine arts community has all but completely lost interest in warm, humanistic art, in favor of highly abstract (and sometimes outright insulting) stuff. You should READ HIS SPEECH AT THE MET from 2001.
That said: there's a really good contemporary Chinese artist I'll mention next week.
By the way, I hate to mention it, but there's a significant flaw in this Bouguerau painting I posted today. The artist made a mistake. Anyone spot it?
When I posted my initial comment above I had forgotten the Quent Cordair gallery. Han Wu Shen is fantastic, as are many of the other artists there.
One of my friends is David Shevlino, an artist who paints contemporary scenes in an impressionistic style. We've talked at length about the failure of modern art to appeal to the senses. Thankfully people are realizing that much of what passes for art today is "crap on a plate" to paraphrase some local disc jockeys - who today pilloried Christo's "art" in NYC>
I'm very glad to see Quent Cordair, the Art Renewal Center, and others who are fighting to glorify art and defend the Western tradition. The great tragedy of our time is that we have allowed nihilists to re-define "art" to include such things as a crumpled ball of paper, a pile of junk found in a junkyard, a toilet, a crucifix in urine, etc.. We need to get back to the idea of art as beauty, sublimity, and style.
It appears that he put the big toe on the wrong side of her foot as it peaks out from under the cloth. However, it is not possible to tell if her legs are crossed under the cloth, so is it really a mistake or not?
Yeah. But to an extent, at a certain level, isn't that how they all see us? :-)
Deanna: Wow, you made me stop and look. I thought for a moment that you were right, but I looked carefully. Her shins are clearly crossed. Actually that makes me appreciate the painting all the more--you have to peer very closely to catch that! But if you really look you can seen her shins are crossed, and you can see the right foot behind the left.
Very good though!
I'll give you a hint: there's something wrong with cupid.
I hate to overobsess about it though. It hardly ruins the painting.
This is one of those paintings I can look at for hours and find new things to appreciate in it. But then, Bouguerau was a once-in-a-lifetime master, he really was.
I'll go check out Cupid, though!
Are you going to tell us what it is?
As for the implications, well...
Writing good poetry is as hard as painting the human face, yet men like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Blake and The Bard managed it - as did women like Emily Dickinson and Charlotte Bronte.
Is any poet alive today worthy of the title? The Beats had some semblance of beauty in their writings, but ever since ee cummings the medium has been in the fast lane on the highway to hell.
Scott: I tend to agree with you on poetry. I rarely see any I find worth reading. Rhyme and meter are now considered unnecessariliy restrictive. Saying something coherent is also considered pointless.
I have occasionally seen modern poetry I like, but not very often.
I'll believe it. If I peer closely at the JPEG here I can see where that might be the case.