Anatomy of The Kiss// the Sacredness in Art and the Cost of Photography
"'What is Ugly?', declared that an uncritical reverence for the past results in blindness to the beauty peculiar to the prsent." -Franz Wickhoff from Klimt book
So basically my distaste from modern art comes from my admiration of past works by Baroque and Renaissance artist. That can also be said of fashion: that which looks awkward, weird or 'innovative' may be called beautiful in the future. I'm not sure about that but whatever. I am slowly opening up to certain modern artists like Andy Goldsworthy, sound artist Janet Cardiff and other random ones.
Before photography was ever invented, paintings were sacred and unique but when the camera came along, images were produced again and again: the up side to this was that everyone could be educated in art and its history. But with so many reproductions of art circulating around the world, the original piece lost its sacredness- people believing what they see in photographs is exactly what it looks like in real life. But the original differs greatly to the replicas: in the photographs the brushstrokes are lost, the small details, the texture. Paintings go from one of a kind to a commercialized print.
Art can sell itself- anything can sell itself. Why is the Mona Lisa so amazing? I don't really find it so great compared to many paintings. They say it's because they don't really know who the model is nor why she is smiling or why the eyes follow you around the room as you walk- however there are many paintings out there that do such a thing. People don't know why it's famous, they just know it is so they visit the Louvre to see something they know nothing about. It has gone from a painting to an icon.
I once heard that those who visit art museums are there to 'absorb' culture and to act like intellects- observing paintings with a faux critical eye and pretending they know all there is to know about art ("it's so deep- so fraught with meaning"). Yech, art snobs.
So right now I am writing an essay on one of my favourite artists, a Secessionist Viennese artist by the name of Gustav Klimt. I'm writing my essay based on one of his most famous paintings: 'The Kiss'. If you remember, I had painted an image of Judith and Holofernes http://web.hc.keio.ac.jp/~a01232/Gustav%20Klimt%20Judith%20und%20Holofernes.jpg
on a purse. 'The Kiss' is by the same artist whose work I really love for the twisted human anatomy looks almost lyrical and its flatness made beautiful with the application of gold leaf:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/k/klimt/kiss.jpg
What I love most about this painting is the hands and faces of the couple. Although the woman is twisted in such a way no man can really replicate in reality, it sits wells on the canvas and is not uncomfortable to look at. She is on her knees, intoxicated by his embrace as he holds her by the face and tenderly kisses her on the cheek. Her eyes are closed in ecstasy as she clutches onto his hand and neck, her toes grasping on to the flower-covered cliff. The man’s face is turned away from the viewer, his focus entirely on his lover. They are clad in robes of gold which have geometric shapes patterned on top: the male’s garb has predominantly black, white and grey rectangles and the woman colourful floral circular patterns. Both the man and woman are embracing with a gold ‘halo’ swathed around the contour of their bodies. The background is dark with copper and gold highlights: a void of mystery and shadow. The figures barely resemble that of a human save the glimpses of flesh including their faces, the woman’s arm and feet.
This painting depicts both being in love and the woman's resistance of the man (judging by the way her hands are placed). But I think it's a couple in love- the woman so close to the edge of the cliff as if she was about to fall off into the dark void. This is about the intoxication and sweetness of love, the union between man and woman- the man's clothes represent the masculinity with the geometric square and the woman in organic shapes, florals and brights.
Anyway I shouldn't be blogging- I need to write my essay.
So basically my distaste from modern art comes from my admiration of past works by Baroque and Renaissance artist. That can also be said of fashion: that which looks awkward, weird or 'innovative' may be called beautiful in the future. I'm not sure about that but whatever. I am slowly opening up to certain modern artists like Andy Goldsworthy, sound artist Janet Cardiff and other random ones.
Before photography was ever invented, paintings were sacred and unique but when the camera came along, images were produced again and again: the up side to this was that everyone could be educated in art and its history. But with so many reproductions of art circulating around the world, the original piece lost its sacredness- people believing what they see in photographs is exactly what it looks like in real life. But the original differs greatly to the replicas: in the photographs the brushstrokes are lost, the small details, the texture. Paintings go from one of a kind to a commercialized print.
Art can sell itself- anything can sell itself. Why is the Mona Lisa so amazing? I don't really find it so great compared to many paintings. They say it's because they don't really know who the model is nor why she is smiling or why the eyes follow you around the room as you walk- however there are many paintings out there that do such a thing. People don't know why it's famous, they just know it is so they visit the Louvre to see something they know nothing about. It has gone from a painting to an icon.
I once heard that those who visit art museums are there to 'absorb' culture and to act like intellects- observing paintings with a faux critical eye and pretending they know all there is to know about art ("it's so deep- so fraught with meaning"). Yech, art snobs.
So right now I am writing an essay on one of my favourite artists, a Secessionist Viennese artist by the name of Gustav Klimt. I'm writing my essay based on one of his most famous paintings: 'The Kiss'. If you remember, I had painted an image of Judith and Holofernes http://web.hc.keio.ac.jp/~a01232/Gustav%20Klimt%20Judith%20und%20Holofernes.jpg
on a purse. 'The Kiss' is by the same artist whose work I really love for the twisted human anatomy looks almost lyrical and its flatness made beautiful with the application of gold leaf:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/k/klimt/kiss.jpg
What I love most about this painting is the hands and faces of the couple. Although the woman is twisted in such a way no man can really replicate in reality, it sits wells on the canvas and is not uncomfortable to look at. She is on her knees, intoxicated by his embrace as he holds her by the face and tenderly kisses her on the cheek. Her eyes are closed in ecstasy as she clutches onto his hand and neck, her toes grasping on to the flower-covered cliff. The man’s face is turned away from the viewer, his focus entirely on his lover. They are clad in robes of gold which have geometric shapes patterned on top: the male’s garb has predominantly black, white and grey rectangles and the woman colourful floral circular patterns. Both the man and woman are embracing with a gold ‘halo’ swathed around the contour of their bodies. The background is dark with copper and gold highlights: a void of mystery and shadow. The figures barely resemble that of a human save the glimpses of flesh including their faces, the woman’s arm and feet.
This painting depicts both being in love and the woman's resistance of the man (judging by the way her hands are placed). But I think it's a couple in love- the woman so close to the edge of the cliff as if she was about to fall off into the dark void. This is about the intoxication and sweetness of love, the union between man and woman- the man's clothes represent the masculinity with the geometric square and the woman in organic shapes, florals and brights.
Anyway I shouldn't be blogging- I need to write my essay.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home