Thomas II
Contributor
"The Birth of Venus", By Sandro Botticelli
-
Features
Favorite Paintings?
- Thread starter WAB
- Start date
"The Birth of Venus", By Sandro Botticelli
Thomas II
Contributor
WAB
Contributor
Speaking of hyperrealistic painting:
https://mymodernmet.com/new-surreal-hyperrealistic
- from the page.
https://mymodernmet.com/new-surreal-hyperrealistic
Thomas II
Contributor
WAB
Contributor
How about some humor:
Apoplectic Cardinals Harvesting Tomatoes on the Shore of the Red Sea, by Alphonse Allais.
Apoplectic Cardinals Harvesting Tomatoes on the Shore of the Red Sea, by Alphonse Allais.
Thomas II
Contributor
Thomas II
Contributor
WAB
Contributor
Methinks the artist never saw an actual horse in person? Very human-looking eyes. And what's with the nostrils?
On this theme, it's interesting how many paintings show a horse with all four feet off the ground. Photography showed that this never happens.
This one is especially inaccurate. It's called "Warming Up" Jockey Galloping a Horse with a Plaited Mane, signed "WV".
This artist wasn't the only one to show a horse in such an impossible attitude.
The following is by Alfred Dedreux: White Horse with Two Dogs:
Concerning a famous painting showing a horse in such a 'flying' position, which I can't locate, there was a to-do among critics, one of whom claimed that, despite the unrealistic position of the horse, it was still a great picture, since the 'flying' position showed movement and speed more dramatically than more realistic paintings.
ETA: Oops, I was a bit wrong, but not entirely:
- emphasis mine.
From this page: https://io9.gizmodo.com/7-things-we-learned-about-the-world-thanks-to-photograp-453528816
Thomas II
Contributor
Plus the proportions are all wrong.
Horses run like this
DBT
Contributor
I've been wondering that myself. I did a quick search but couldn't find an explanation.
WAB
Contributor
I did a fairly thorough search, but didn't find an explanation either. One would think, for such a famous painting, that there would be some discussion somewhere. In fact I believe there must be, but no matter what terms I enter, neither of the two search engines are yielding anything at all about there even existing two versions, let alone information about them.
Could be that in Victorian times someone, perhaps the artist himself, made a version with Lilith's breasts covered. That period was known for its resistance to sexual expression and anything prurient. At least outwardly, of course.
But note that on the top coil the patterns are virtually identical to the one around her other naughty bits (Python). I can't imagine the artist, or any reputable copyist, would do that. Perhaps the modest version was photoshopped and eventually got into circulation? One would imagine that there are plenty of religious types who would prefer the covered-up version.
James Brown
Suspended by Member Request
WAB
Contributor
I guess it depends on the translation. The only (possible?) mention of Lilith in the Bible is in Isaiah 34:14; but it depends on which of the many versions of that text is most accurate, and as for that I have no clue.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah 34:14
I see your point, though. Nonetheless, someone created the covered-up version for a reason. I can't imagine any reason other than some prudishness (which could be secular) or puritanism. Maybe it's some doctored-up image intended for children's textbooks?
There's got to be an explanation somewhere on the Internet.
ETA: Someone refusing to use the original Collier image, wanting something less offensive:
https://github.com/huxi/lilith/issues/11
And here's some chowderhead removing Lilith's navel because, well, she wouldn't have had one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2zgZdeQP4w
What a dope. No respect for art. In the famous Keats sonnet, "On First Looking Into Chapman's Homer", Keats writes "Cortez" when he should have written "Balboa", but no-one ever presumed to alter his sonnet for the sake of accuracy, not even his contemporaries who knew his error.
My bet is that the image is one that was photoshopped, due to the identical patterns in the lower and upper coil of the snake - no artist would do that. The Lilith painting shows up in advertising and promotional material, where the modest version is sometimes used, as in this example:
and this:
and these:
https://www.redbubble.com/people/cliqueone/works/23813896-lilith-with-a-snake?p=samsung-galaxy-case - phone case
https://www.redbubble.com/people/cliqueone/works/23813896-lilith-with-a-snake?p=hardcover-journal - journal
https://www.google.com/search?q=Lil...UIDigB&biw=1200&bih=487#imgrc=cAw2vWYKUCZxnM: - travel mug
Amazing that nudity is commonplace in fine art (even back in the Renaissance when religion was the order of the day - when you could be burnt alive for a theological quibble, like Michael Servetus) that so many, in America at least, have an ongoing fear of the female breast.
Last edited:
DBT
Contributor
So which version is more interesting, that is the question. 
James Brown
Suspended by Member Request
No question in my mind.
WAB
Contributor
I find the desecration of great art to be interesting, but not in a good way. Frinstance, this fouling of Lilith interested me for several hours, so much so that I needed an answer, which I don't have.
I find Collier's version the only one to take seriously: not because it shows her breasts, but because that's what he created. If he had chosen to cover her breasts, that would have been fine, and the picture would still be compelling and beautiful.
Seems like Queen Victoria had a problem with Michaelangelo's David:
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/d/davids-fig-leaf/
While I would much prefer that people around me were clothed (with a modicum of exceptions I won't go into), and while naked people aren't necessarily beautiful, I hold to the notion that great art ought not to be altered. If an artist submits something for critique, say in a workshop environment, and willingly implements changes suggested by others, that's entirely different; but when the artist calls a work finished, and especially when he/she is dead, their work should remain untampered with, with the exception of expert restorations - though I have seen restorations that made me ill.
I find Collier's version the only one to take seriously: not because it shows her breasts, but because that's what he created. If he had chosen to cover her breasts, that would have been fine, and the picture would still be compelling and beautiful.
Seems like Queen Victoria had a problem with Michaelangelo's David:
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/d/davids-fig-leaf/
While I would much prefer that people around me were clothed (with a modicum of exceptions I won't go into), and while naked people aren't necessarily beautiful, I hold to the notion that great art ought not to be altered. If an artist submits something for critique, say in a workshop environment, and willingly implements changes suggested by others, that's entirely different; but when the artist calls a work finished, and especially when he/she is dead, their work should remain untampered with, with the exception of expert restorations - though I have seen restorations that made me ill.
Last edited:
I've visited a good number of galleries, and seen a fair bit of art, and for the most part I usually enjoy it for it's historical content. And with that in mind the stuff I've really given attention to is the pottery I've come across. A few months ago we were in the archaeological museum in Rhodes, and there was a room with examples of pottery from (I could be off here) ~ 3 - 4 thousand years ago. No photography was allowed.
Other examples I've seen is stuff like this from ancient Iran:
It fascinates me to see the artwork of people who lived so long ago.
Aztec and other art from indigenous South America is also pretty cool:
Once you get to the medieval and renaissance era I enjoy the artwork of the Dutch, who moved away from religious imagery and into day to day scenes. Stuff like this:
After that point, I dunno, after the late 19th early 20th century that's where I start to fall off. Modern art can be good, but it has little historicity, which is what I'm in it for.
Other examples I've seen is stuff like this from ancient Iran:
It fascinates me to see the artwork of people who lived so long ago.
Aztec and other art from indigenous South America is also pretty cool:
Once you get to the medieval and renaissance era I enjoy the artwork of the Dutch, who moved away from religious imagery and into day to day scenes. Stuff like this:
After that point, I dunno, after the late 19th early 20th century that's where I start to fall off. Modern art can be good, but it has little historicity, which is what I'm in it for.
repoman
Contributor
I like artwork that has multilayered geometric shapes in it, overlapping textures
WAB
Contributor
Fantastic, both posts by rousseau and repoman. I will try and respond sometime tomorrow.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,743
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Plus the proportions are all wrong.
Horses run like this
Depends on the gaiting of the horse.
Paintings are not to be taken as literal, factual depictions but as artistic representation. Also, cameras can catch and isolate movement as a series of stills while the human eye and brain do not and cannot. It is wrong to fault the artist for painting what his eyes and brain saw, particularly when one considers the impossibility of convincing any horse to hold a pose mid-gallop.