Idle Thoughts On A Tuesday-If I Were A Sculptor, But Then Again...

[AdamSmith]

When discussing aspects of sculpture that appear "distorted" or "too large" or "too small" to us, we need to remember where the statue was placed when it was created. There is a big difference between viewing a statue at ground level, like the Burghers of Calais (Rodin insisted that it be displayed that way) and elevated, as I believe the David was.

Exactly. That for instance is why the head is disproportionately large -- to counter the effects of perspective, as it was originally intended to be mounted high up on the Duomo.

[AdamSmith]

I always wished he had been more adventurous and edgy.

The Connoisseur by Norman Rockwell

 

Rockwell greatly admired the Abstract Expressionists. He said that if he had been younger and had started painting in that era, he would certainly be doing what they were doing.

 

When de Kooning saw the above painting, he couldn't resist cracking, 'Square inch by square inch, it's better than Jackson!'

[AdamSmith]

My all-time fave statue is Canova's Psyche Revived by Cupid's Kiss. I realize it is not as ancient as some of the ones mentioned so far, but I just love how pristine and different it looks from different angles.

Another statue where the angle of view changes everything is the Winged Victory of Samothrace.

 

http://www.fusac.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/WV1.jpg

 

The pictures in art history books always gave me the impression of it being a somewhat light, delicate thing. Due no doubt to their focus on the exquisite rendering of the thin fabric flowing against her body, etc.

 

But on encountering the real thing in the Louvre, walking up the steps pictured above, I was overwhelmed by its rather terrifyingly warlike aspect. Truly menacing and indomitable as it looms over you.

[+ Truereview]

Another statue where the angle of view changes everything is the Winged Victory of Samothrace.

 

http://www.fusac.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/WV1.jpg

 

The pictures in art history books always gave me the impression of it being a somewhat light, delicate thing. Due no doubt to their focus on the exquisite rendering of the thin fabric flowing against her body, etc.

 

But on encountering the real thing in the Louvre, walking up the steps pictured above, I was overwhelmed by its rather terrifyingly warlike aspect. Truly menacing and indomitable as it looms over you.

Isnt it supposed to celebrate a naval victory? I wonder if that's part of the indomitable look?

[+ purplekow]

I am not familiar with the Rockwells depicted.

Is the first an imagining of the murder or the civil rights workers in Mississippi? If not, it certainly could be.

The second is fun and reminds me of Magritte.

[sincitymix]

I was an art history minor in college, and always wondered why the nude males in paintings and statues were so "under hung". Not even average compared to what one sees in any locker room, but often, really tiny. Was it considered bad taste, perverted, or what, to put a more realistic sized cock on a male figure that was otherwise perfectly realistic, often heroically, proportioned and fully detailed in every other way.

 

In my life drawing classes, I faced the dilemma of portraying naked male genitalia myself. Ignoring it completely created strangely androgenous figures. Drawing or, god forbid, modeling, an exact representation of the model's penis was embarrassing and too self-revelatory in a studio class full of strangers, and required more than a couple of casual glances at the anatomy under consideration. Making it smaller than real life seemed false, making it larger attracted unwanted attention from some of the other artists (I was still in denial about my sexuality). I never did resolve the issue. As I moved into scenic design, the requirement to draw any size cocks pretty much disappeared, except for an occaisional male putto or cupid.

 

Perhaps, i should go for a PhD and write my dissertation on The Psychology of Accurate Human Penis Representation in Sculpture. Bet it's already been done. I would have to limit it to one period or one culture. Any suggestions?

 

Its because the church ordained that naked men must be shown in the perfection of innocence (basically a childs penis). They took up chisels and removed the offending sin. It is also why you will see fig leaves covering the groin area... at first to cover up the chiseled off appendage, and then for modesty.

[+ glennnn]

Its because the church ordained that naked men must be shown in the perfection of innocence (basically a childs penis). They took up chisels and removed the offending sin. It is also why you will see fig leaves covering the groin area... at first to cover up the chiseled off appendage, and then for modesty.

 

Excellent answer! It certainly makes sense for depictions of the penis in art associated with Christianity. Did you study art, or religion, or is this just a bit of that "life learning" that we all pick up by being both intelligent and curious?

[AdamSmith]

a bit of that "life learning" that we all pick up by being both intelligent and curious?

Or by being lazy in my case.

 

It started in college, going up into the stacks and then reading all the interesting stuff to one side or the other of the main task that I was procrastinating on and avoiding. Like, going up to research Oscar Wilde and discovering, on a nearby shelf, the much less talented but much weirder and, hard to believe, more flamboyant Aleister Crowley ("thy rich brown globes of sacramental meat" etc.).

[+ Truereview]

Or by being lazy in my case.

Or maybe you were being thelematic...do what thou wilt!

Now, that's an idle thought!

[+ Gar1eth]

I am not familiar with the Rockwells depicted.

Is the first an imagining of the murder or the civil rights workers in Mississippi? If not, it certainly could be.

 

You are exactly right. That is the subject matter. I was unfamiliar with it until 5 years ago when a visiting Rockwell exhibition opened up at the Tacoma Art Museum. I was quite shocked by it at the time as I had never seen it before. And I didn't know Rockwell ever painted something as stark and forbidding as this. The piece is entitled 'Southern Justice'. It's also known as 'Murder in Mississippi'. It was painted for an article in Look magazine on the murders. One interesting thing to note-the article actually used Rockwell's rough sketch rather than the finished painting as the editors thought it conveyed the mood better.

 

Here is a bit about the work in an article on 'Rockwell and Race' from the website--

 

 

http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/rockwell-and-race-1963-1968/

 

 

 

 

"Rockwell began work on his “Murder in Mississippi” in 1964, a painting which later used the name of the Look article that it ran with, “Southern Justice.” Rockwell typically worked on several projects at once, but with this project, he bore in on the work exclusively for five weeks straight. The painting, which depicts the horror endured by the three young men as they were being beaten, uses a barren, isolated rural scene as its setting, likely at the end of some dirt road in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night. The scene is lit only by an unseen torch. One man is portrayed by Rockwell lying on the ground, presumably beaten, but trying, with one arm, to push himself up from the ground. Another is standing in the glow of the attacker’s torch trying to help his colleague, who appears beaten and near death. Analysts of this painting have noted that Rockwell, rather than actually showing the murderers in the scene, casts them instead as six ominous shadows approaching from the right, indicating that the young men are outnumbered, and also perhaps, symbolically, indicating the problem is a larger societal issue.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.pophistorydig.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/1965-Look-29June-340.jpg

Norman Rockwell’s rough study sketch of beaten civil rights workers as it ran with article in Look magazine, June 29, 1965.

 

 

In considering this piece, the editors of Look were more taken with Rockwell’s initial sketch for the illustration and favored it over the finished painting, using it in the magazine. The editors felt the coarser version offered a more powerful, emotional interpretation. Rockwell at first disagreed with their choice but he did allow the sketch to be printed. In the June 29, 1965 edition of Look, it ran as a single-page illustration alongside a one-page article by Charles Morgan titled, “Southern Justice,” which focused on “segregated justice” in the South, the Schwerner-Chaney-Goodman murders, other civil rights murders and beatings in the South, and the absence of black judges in Southern courts. Rockwell’s illustration was captioned as “Philadelphia, Miss., June 21, 1964.”"

 

 

Gman

[bobchitown]

I've always wondered about the foreskin. I'm pretty sure David was Jewish.

[+ quoththeraven]

I've always wondered about the foreakin. I'm pretty sure David was Jewish.

 

Michelangelo's David is about as accurate a depiction of David as the most famous paintings of Jesus are of him. David was modeled on a Greco-Roman ideal, not a Semitic one.

 

Michelangelo also probably didn't have access to a circumcised model. I have to think circumcision was unheard of outside of groups for which it was religiously mandated. I can't imagine a Jewish man being willing to model, particularly for someone as closely associated with the church as Michelangelo, even if only for this specific feature. Back in the day, Jewish men consciously avoided the (literal) gymnasium culture of the Hellenistic Greeks because of its easygoing and required nudity. Not only would their circumcised penises look out of place, but gymnasium participation was considered immodest and decadent.

[sincitymix]

Excellent answer! It certainly makes sense for depictions of the penis in art associated with Christianity. Did you study art, or religion, or is this just a bit of that "life learning" that we all pick up by being both intelligent and curious?

 

Pretty much Life learning. I am curious about everything. I took alot of art, history, and religion classes in college..just for the fun of it, and i watched alot of national geographic and Nova.

Yes, when the roman empire went to the one god, all the old statues pretty much got the hatchet job, or smashed, beheaded, lopped off

[+ honcho]

@Truereview suggested I crosspost a video I just popped into "Friday Funnies" ... hope this not considered too gauche . .

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1125749984135172

[AdamSmith]

[+ Truereview]

I wonder what blowing that nose might look like...

http://www.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/04/1.gif

[AdamSmith]

And just one more...

 

http://www.funnyartpictures.com/pics-funny-stuff/?images/midsize/arts-entertainment/statue-of-david-michelangelo.jpg

 

...Hope this does not violate the TOS!

[AdamSmith]

OK, I lied.