Go to I Don't Know Much
- Add a comment
- Go to A Brief History of Art
True Art is but an expression of the times - of the realities of the times
or of the dreams of the times!
posted by
Straightforward
on August 28, 2008 at 11:36 AM
| link to this | reply
As an artist I can appreciate your stories being a guard at a museum
you surely have many. I paint in abstract and think that way too. I often wonder with time if I will find that my expressions have gain a foothold in reality...I sure hope not! LoL
posted by
mysteria
on August 28, 2008 at 8:40 AM
| link to this | reply
mousehop, I like the ending"Make it a monument to freedom of expression"
And the other is quite relevant "a better question to ask why there are human figures that aren't nude? Thank you for your thoughtful and fine comments at my blog.
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on August 27, 2008 at 9:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Many sculptures like David, Venus, Hermes and Aphrodite
were modelled after gods, not humans which is why they seem
so perfectly unblemished. Note also they have blank unseeing eyes!
Some look at art as only pleasurable. Some question it entirely?
A vast majority of us respond through our emotion. Are we not
excited sensually at the sight of an unclothed lover whether we
like it or not? The creative artist if successful, and I hope I am
a successful artist, arouses a mood or feeling others can identify
with so they can achieve a real appreciation of the aesthetic
experience that is art.
posted by
Winged
on August 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Re:
I certainly agree about the tendency to call artifacts religious. It doesn't seem that long ago that some scholar finally asked a Native American what those "religious totem poles" meant, and learned they were just accounts of people's lives. Not explicitly religious at all. Even Machu Pichu was probably a sort of mountain cabin for the Inca Rulers, and not a temple.
Major religions as works of art? Well, a lot of art has aspects of ugliness included in it . . .
posted by
mousehop
on August 27, 2008 at 7:34 AM
| link to this | reply
interesting observations 
...
posted by
BC-A
on August 26, 2008 at 2:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Nudes are more difficult to paint realistically, for me anyway. The softness and curves in realistic skin tones is much more challenging than bright colored clothing. I respect artists who can paint nudes beautifully way more than artists who can paint geometrical shapes in harmony. Aside from that, there has been a strong tendency amongst anthropologists and archeologists to categorize almost any artifact from long ago as a religious object of devotion (a representation of a god or goddess). I think sometimes these works of art were just made for the pleasure of making it and admiring it's beauty, but then again finding beauty in life is a factor in the religiosity of many people. In older societies there was not nearly as sharp a dividing line between what we today call religion and secular life. To my mind we have arrived at a time of utmost stress between the two concepts and I hope we find a worthy synthesis, Hegel style. I doubt you will agree, but I think the major religions themselves are some of the most momentous and extraordinary works of art ever achieved by humanity.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on August 26, 2008 at 1:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Excellent post, well done
posted by
Kayzzaman
on August 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM
| link to this | reply
It is more interesting to paint nude bodies than the clothed ones ...
posted by
afzal50
on August 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM
| link to this | reply