Okay, that was in my email. Ludicrous, no? But! Look closely. What's going on in the background? That stooping and picking:
Are we not supposed to think of this background figure:
From this ultra-famous painting (Manet's "Dejeuner sur l'herbe" ("Luncheon on the Grass"):
I included the hand in my close-up of the Manet painting because it matches the central hand in the Barney's ad. There are other similarities in the ad and the painting... differences too, obviously.
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
The background figures are perhaps posed more closely to the Gleaners by Le Hermitte, 1898. Or, IMHO, not posed at all but rather just there.
Seems to be a paste-up. Foreground characters and major background tree are tilted about 20 degrees CCS WRT lake and horizon.
I'm going to be going to the Musée d'Orsay in December. I have been reading up on it to prepare. I'm sure the Professor would say that the reading should suffice, no need to actually travel. But Paris decorated for Christmas is not for reading up on, it is for experiencing first hand. People are tactile animals that experience things through smell and taste as well as visually. And even the best photographers can only show you a fraction of the sights you will encounter.
My first impression of the Manet is that it reminds me of some scenes from The Road to Wellville.
This is the first time I can recall when I've thought, 'she's just making stuff up'. All paintings and illustrations of hands are of... hands. All backgrounds are... backgrounds. Beyond that, no, I don't 'see the similarities'. But it's Monday morning and I have to go out to work in two minutes, so perhaps my eye is jaundiced.
Doberman gleaners.
"Seems to be a paste-up. Foreground characters and major background tree are tilted about 20 degrees CCS WRT lake and horizon."
True, but the Manet figures look pasted on too.
"Shop Men's"
"Shop Women's"
Only two choices?
I thought High Fashion would already be more inclusive to the extensive array of customer's personal identification choices.
Maybe they can just have one: "Shop Gay."
Because you know.
I am Laslo.
"This is the first time I can recall when I've thought, 'she's just making stuff up'..."
Okay, Marc, but please assure me that you've read:
1. "Why are the letters 'NIG' on the child's pajamas?"
2. "Let's take a closer look at Bill's carrot and Hillary's onion ring."
"I'm going to be going to the Musée d'Orsay in December. I have been reading up on it to prepare. I'm sure the Professor would say that the reading should suffice, no need to actually travel...."
No, you have to see paintings in person. Reproductions are something else. I put seeing art first hand as one of the big positives of travel (to be weighed against the negatives, which include the difficulty of really seeing a painting when it's in a crowded museum, possibly behind glass).
"People are tactile animals that experience things through smell and taste as well as visually...."
Do not lick the paintings.
Too much cadmium.
The background!?!?
What is the message being conveyed by the models in the foreground? Why do they look like orgasm is painful??
Musée d'Orsay
and
(to be weighed against the negatives, which include the difficulty of really seeing a painting when it's in a crowded museum, possibly behind glass).
The paintings in the Musée d'Orsay are not behind glass. You can get as close as you want, and linger as long as you want. It's my favorite.
I find the ad painful to look at.
The overwhelming trebly strain to signify Art and Importance.
Quick: must look at a Victoria's Secret ad.
I am Laslo.
AA, no, I hadn't read those other posts. Cleverness is always a pick-me-up on Monday mornings-- thank you!
As models go, the hetero normative couple aren't very attractive and, for that matter, very normative.
Simon Doonan, the guy who came up with Barney's wild window displays and is "creative ambassador" is hilarious. His interviews are fab.
Looks like a decent location to watch regatta and pound some Pimm's.
"The paintings in the Musée d'Orsay are not behind glass. You can get as close as you want, and linger as long as you want. It's my favorite."
1. From the Musee d'Orsay's own webpage: "Since 2009, the Musée d'Orsay has decided to lead a campaign to place certain paintings in its collections behind glass or in 'box frames'..."
2. It's other people getting close and lingering that bother me when I'm trying to linger and get as close as I want. And I have to hear the dull things they say, like "I love Van Gogh" and "gorgeous" and "This cost $X million." You can't exactly contemplate the thing.
Is that Meade in the blue cap?
Has a fascistic undertone. I've noticed that arty Lefties pandering to wealth dig operatic totalitarianism.
Do not lick the paintings.
Too much cadmium.
That made me laugh, thanks.
1. From the Musee d'Orsay's own webpage: "Since 2009, the Musée d'Orsay has decided to lead a campaign to place certain paintings in its collections behind glass or in 'box frames'..."
If you'd actually go, you could see for yourself.
2. It's other people getting close and lingering that bother me when I'm trying to linger and get as close as I want. And I have to hear the dull things they say, like "I love Van Gogh" and "gorgeous" and "This cost $X million." You can't exactly contemplate the thing.
But you can't contemplate them or see them at all if you aren't there!
Your problem isn't travel. It's other people. Right?
Not ludicrous. Looks like college.
It's other people getting close and lingering that bother me when I'm trying to linger and get as close as I want. And I have to hear the dull things they say, like "I love Van Gogh" and "gorgeous" and "This cost $X million." You can't exactly contemplate the thing.
Most of us don't have a degree in fine art. As a Computer Science Major I spend far more time contemplating Fortran and Assembler (neither of which I have spent one second using in the real world) than I did art works. Though I did have a required Western Civilization survey course that introduced you to the major painters and schools. And I always went to the display openings on campus, but that was mostly for the free booze and food and the opportunity to meet women.
Anyway, I suspect that a Western Civ survey course these days would emphasize how the art "normalized" oppression of the masses, that is if it wasn't offering up Buffy The Vampire Slayer as some sort of post-modern role model for grrl power. And lesbianism.
Yeah. Good on ya Althouse. Very insightful.
(Listed under; shit guys pretend to be interested in because the girl is hot)
"If you'd actually go, you could see for yourself."
I've been there, more than once.
But obviously the place is now enclosing stuff behind glass. They say so on their website. Ot everything, and not all at once, but it is done.
You can travel to see things and find them not fully visible. It's one of the many risks of travel.
Not.
Not Ot.
"Your problem isn't travel. It's other people. Right?"
There's nothing better or worse than other people.
Nothing better ( or worse ) is a high ( or low ) standard.
I particularly love the slogan: "There are no rules"
Cool! I'm going shoplifting at Barney's* wanna come?
*Assuming there's anything at Barney's I'd want.
Well, I wonder if those two in the foreground aren't the same person and it's all photoshopped because look at how artificial the woman's arm looks and also her face is covered with face cream to hide her strong jaw.
True, her ear is different from his but it's also different from all other ears.
You have to enlarge to see all this. I think Manet did a better picture but I can see the point about a nice picnic place with some weird people - (but how many?) - in the foreground.
There's nothing better or worse than other people.
That's true!
My first impression of the background was "human centipede."
I was also told that the "Luncheon on the Grass" was depicting a couple of college students taking a picnic with their hired prostitutes.
Too many Laslo posts or too little medication...
I dunno...looks to me like the white rabbit in the pseudo monk's outfit and his girlfriend who doesn't shave her legs are in some kind of a religious ecstasy, the two gay guys don't know whether to be annoyed or amused by the interruption, and the older couples in the bermuda shorts and striped pants are picking up their lawn chairs and tuna fish lunch and leaving, somewhat frightened by the dope fiends' weirdness and strange chanting.
I don't remember a painting like this, unless of course, it was a Jackson Pollock and I was just too stupid to get it.
It doesn't make me want to buy any clothes from this store or designer either. I don't want to look like any of these people. Neither does my wife.
"Are we not supposed to think of this background figure:"
You may think of your referenced painting if you wish, at any given time of your artistic sense, and you may not.
But your supposed to do what it takes for you to feel something the artist would appreciate in the artist's eyes, most likely, which I presume would mean letting the painting stand on its own without any specific references paid any attention to when considering a potential vast audience and all the references they may not synergize. Or you are supposed to reference the painting you referenced in order to help the artist pay homage and create a bond that can be capitalized.
Your focus on the shadow hand on the frontmost female along with the tree shadows forming a potential hand in the background is apt. Both shadows are potentially threatening to drag us into something.
That something has to do with struggling raising little kids, so you have to stoop and push/pull 'em around to the right place, in the shadows/background. The act of pushing/pulling keeps you in the shadows yourself.
Like the shadow hand threatens to keep our model, delirious at the potential of her Sungod Barneys, in the background muck and out of the light.
The gay guys act as a head-of-the-cock to the foremost models' full bodies. They are out in the sun, shirts off and free, looking at the folks turning to the light with a little weary query, but knowing what's behind them is the shadow, and civilization (houses/flowing river with life abounding presumably) pointing to the family's shadow, which is a dull, servitudinal background contrasting the exiting life, like you will have if you buy Barneys.
"And I have to hear the dull things they say, like "I love Van Gogh" and "gorgeous" and "This cost $X million." You can't exactly contemplate the thing."
Many times people say top-of-the-head comments in order to start a friendly conversation, not showcase their erudition. Only a fool would discount the potential of human encounters that start off pedestrian or bland.
"You can't exactly contemplate the thing" unless you focus with an eidetic memory.
I'm not that old yet, but this is an important aspect of art to me; things that recur in the mind's eye. This explains a lot of spectacle performances (G.G. Allin anyone?) as well as advertising.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा