Realism in Art

[destinie21]

Re: Re: Fashinably Late

Dest, just some clarification. Since the Vatican Council II of the late 60s the RCC (outside Rome at least) has been turning away from a focus on the crucifixion to the resurrection. In the first centuries of the church it was not the violence of Christ's death that was emphasized but his Life and actual teachings. (In contemporary theology one can read much about the 'scapegoat' theory, e.g., Christ as the sacrificial lamb of the old testament vs. the new testament 'word'.) It is why altars no longer face a crucifix as you describe. As for "good" Catholics that's a very relative term.

Perdita

Duly noted on the whole Vatican Council thing
Meanwhile There are signigant similarities with the Tabernacle of the old testament and the subsequent sacrafice of christ and the birth of christianity. BTW I was being fecetious about the whole good catholic thing hence the quotes.

I was raised catholic and I joke about it
Meanwhile you must be catholic because you seem to know way
to much about guilting folks into submission

pS: did you know the orgins of the scapegoat lie in the old testament. Somewhere in Exodus I think. Any how on the day of atonement 2 "pure" Goats were taken. The Levi's would burn one on the brazen alter then the other animal. "The Scapegoat"
would be realesed into the wilderness, taking all the sin(s) along with it. Although anything about what happened to the goat isn't mentioned in the "good"book and is just thological speculaton.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Fashinably Late

Meanwhile you must be catholic because you seem to know way to much about guilting folks into submission

Yeah, I call myself an ambivalent Catholic, way Left of Rome. I gave up guilt a long time ago; it's a way big waste of time.

 

[Pure]

The benefits of the 'guilt' approach are that certain things remain evil and dangerous, esp. sex.

I myself like the guiltiness of Catholic women; the repression makes them really hot. So I married one.

As to the Fool:

//am unclear whether the original discussion should concern realism or detail. To me, realism is related to plausibility and similarity to real life. Detail provides defining information to further clarify the artist's imagery. There is such a thing as too much detail.

Art is concerned with expressing a "defining moment." That defining moment may be a violent act or it may be a protaganist's actions associated with violent act both as the victim and as the perpetrator. Or it may have nothing to do with violence at all.//

I go with 'plausibility' and 'similarity' to 'real life' though the last term is undefined. ** BUT one gets 'similarity' through a judicious amount of detail. Realistic or Naturalistic prose has always gone for the detail, sometimes to a boring degree. Porn writing too gets its peculiar 'realism' through details of the organs, fluids,etc.

I see 'defining moment' as ffreak does, in photos, as for instance the naked girl in Vietnam, running down the road. she lives in our city, btw, and does peace work. no shit. Harder to say, for a novel, though there are several critical moments, often, and the descriptions of their contexts (other 'moments').

There certainly is too much detail, as in porn; 'too much' being in relation to the whole piece. E.G. a short story of five pages that spends 1 page on the breasts {size, weight, texture, physiological changes, color, etc.) of the fuckee, is probably porn, non art etc. Of course if the work were to go over her whole body for 100 pages, detailing what aliens did to modify each portion, then 1 page on the breasts would not be excessive.

"Too much" is also relative to the point of the work. If I want to study the mind of the serial killer, I don't need discussion of the depth of every cut he inflicts in an incident. But if it's the Peckinpah or Woo glory-art-ballet of violence, then all kindsa detail about cutting might be relevant. How the blood spurts out, etc. In that case 'too much' might apply if one talked about the jewelry the victim was wearing, the carats of her diamond ring, design etc.

J.


** this term has appeared and is not without problems. the 'real life' on the battlefield being commented on by perd and myself. it's hard to say what it is, though it's not the gloried up stuff in typical WWII movies, or in Green Berets, etc. OTOH, the experience of 'real life' depends, for instance on the degree of nihilism or faith on the part of the person being shot at, wounded, degraded, or whatever.

 

[ffreak]

Good reactions. I like this. And the point that the photographers were 'lucky' is a valid point (although the story about how hard the photographer worked to get the Ruby shot is fascinating).

Art is out of it's original, observed context when it taken from something real (as opposed to complete fiction - haven't you had a total story burst into your mind?) And as such it is a viewpoint of the reality altered by the artist's opinions, beliefs, what they want to say, etc. Sometimes I mis-hear a phrase or quote and it inspires a story - I hear a lot of horror stories in songs, for instance.

Perdita, mi amor, I can't help but want to change your mind when I hear you say: "I am not art. Making love is not art."

Maybe it is the French blood in me, but ALL women are a beautiful work of art. Making love IS art using the finest, most personal medium and tools available.

 

[Guest]

Perdita, mi amor, I can't help but want to change your mind when I hear you say: "I am not art. Making love is not art."

Maybe it is the French blood in me, but ALL women are a beautiful work of art. Making love IS art using the finest, most personal medium and tools available.

I'll concede and say, only metaphorically, that I am a work of art, you sentimental freak, you. Making love is a metaphor too, btw. What's produced? "Nothing will come of nothing" Lear said. But we strive and strive.

Perdita

 

[ffreak]

What is produced?

If nothing else, sweet Mnemosyne is born from the caress of love.

The goddess of love (Venus) is the mother of all generations, and all productions. Is it any wonder we call that little hillock the mons of Venus? Which, BTW, according to one thread posted here is the guide to the location of the G-spot. Interesting isn't it that Venus hid the point of greatest pleasure under the mons.