"... to input the content of the motif, the nuance of the brushstrokes, and the historical context into my brain and digest them in my own way. But it is finally done!"
I love the writer and I have read 5 books of his in the last year, with a lot of blogging, but my blogging about the artist goes back to 2008, including this trip to the Brooklyn Museum," so he gets the one-name tag.
I never was able to get into Murakami’s work until one evening when I was looking at a bunch of it while trippng. I’ve liked it a lot ever since, but maybe not for the same reasons as the rest of the art world? To some he is the Japanese Warhol, but one Warhol is enough for me. There are other “superflat” artists, like Aya Takano, who I enjoy much more. Though not necessarily for the conceptual aspects of their work.
The text in this guy's Instagram posts has an attention to detail that reminds me of a Yukio Mishima novel. The series of ten points about Kanye is brilliant.
Look at Cezanne paintings and look at Monet paintings and you should understand. Cezanne took what he saw and ran it through his analytical mind and gave us the results on the canvas. Monet stayed in the visual image and refrained (in Cezanne's view) from using a mental process. He painted the light and shade from a retinal standpoint without tainting it with knowledge of what the objects are and where they are positioned in the 3-D real world.
The brain has to learn to see. That's why a blind person needs time after sight is restored to be able to see. (That's why the blind man, cured by Jesus, said "I see people; they look like trees walking around.")
Monet (who wasn't blind but late in the game was going blind) had to disconnect the brain to get to the pure-eye level, and Cezanne understood the magnificence of the accomplishment. But Cezanne was also proud of his own work, and I presume he thought the new, high-level analysis was an even greater accomplishment. Of course, earlier artists who used the eye and the mind were less impressive.
The Modern Art Museum here in Fort Worth just wrapped up a major Murakami show in 2018. I had never seen his works in person before. They are magnificent, and many of them are done in an enormous scale too. The entire museum was used for the show. The way he honors and manipulates traditional Asian art forms reminds me of how Picasso used and re-interpreted classical Spanish painting.
I enjoyed your interesting comments on Monet and Cezanne, AA. It seems that you have given some thought to this; perhaps more than thought.
In this connection, we are reminded of how much of what we "see" is a creation of our own visual system. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis#/media/File:AcuityHumanEye.svg -- we have only about 5 degrees of optically sharp vision in the eye, but it doesn't look that way.
This suggests, and I would claim it is true, that may be possible to "see" things that are not obvious to the casual observer, but are objectively there, by the training or cultivation of the visual sense. I find this is the case for myself, when I am doing photography-- it is first of all a matter of noticing what is there.
There is much to be said for the unmediated reaction to visual experience, guided by a disciplined intelligence.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
I've put all my old Murakami tags in order.
If it's just "Murakami," it's Takashi Murakami, the artist.
If it's Murakami, the writer, it's "Haruki Murakami."
I love the writer and I have read 5 books of his in the last year, with a lot of blogging, but my blogging about the artist goes back to 2008, including this trip to the Brooklyn Museum," so he gets the one-name tag.
I love both Murakamis.
Sorry. It looks like the wall paper in a seafood restaurant to me.
The art may be the mouse.
I never was able to get into Murakami’s work until one evening when I was looking at a bunch of it while trippng. I’ve liked it a lot ever since, but maybe not for the same reasons as the rest of the art world? To some he is the Japanese Warhol, but one Warhol is enough for me. There are other “superflat” artists, like Aya Takano, who I enjoy much more. Though not necessarily for the conceptual aspects of their work.
"Sorry. It looks like the wall paper in a seafood restaurant to me."
Only wallpaper, but what wallpaper.
(That's an allusion to something Cezanne said about Monet.)
That is pretty great.
What ever happened to van art? You hardly see it anymore. Also orange shag carpeting.
Larry is a difficult name to pronounce for most Japanese men.
Looks fishy to me.
Looks like the worst cultural appropriation since the Rape of Nanjing.
The text in this guy's Instagram posts has an attention to detail that reminds me of a Yukio Mishima novel. The series of ten points about Kanye is brilliant.
The Cezanne quote link didn't work for me. I dont use FB. What's the quote?
‘Monet is only an eye. But what an eye!’
Not sure what Cezanne meant by it.
What is that "DB" mouse in the photo? Reminds me of Lileks' Twitter avi. Or was it Bissage's?
I like both the variation and subtitle of The coloring
It would make very annoying wallpaper. But, possibly, very nice curtains.
John Tuffnell said...
Larry is a difficult name to pronounce for most Japanese men.
************
So is Gary, which sounds to them like their word for diarrhea, "geri".
"Not sure what Cezanne meant by it."
Look at Cezanne paintings and look at Monet paintings and you should understand. Cezanne took what he saw and ran it through his analytical mind and gave us the results on the canvas. Monet stayed in the visual image and refrained (in Cezanne's view) from using a mental process. He painted the light and shade from a retinal standpoint without tainting it with knowledge of what the objects are and where they are positioned in the 3-D real world.
The brain has to learn to see. That's why a blind person needs time after sight is restored to be able to see. (That's why the blind man, cured by Jesus, said "I see people; they look like trees walking around.")
Monet (who wasn't blind but late in the game was going blind) had to disconnect the brain to get to the pure-eye level, and Cezanne understood the magnificence of the accomplishment. But Cezanne was also proud of his own work, and I presume he thought the new, high-level analysis was an even greater accomplishment. Of course, earlier artists who used the eye and the mind were less impressive.
I think I understand what Monet was doing, but not what "analysis" means with regard to what Cezanne was doing.
Monet is a lot easier on the eye.
So Monet was Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.
The Modern Art Museum here in Fort Worth just wrapped up a major Murakami show in 2018. I had never seen his works in person before. They are magnificent, and many of them are done in an enormous scale too. The entire museum was used for the show. The way he honors and manipulates traditional Asian art forms reminds me of how Picasso used and re-interpreted classical Spanish painting.
I enjoyed your interesting comments on Monet and Cezanne, AA. It seems that you have given some thought to this; perhaps more than thought.
In this connection, we are reminded of how much of what we "see" is a creation of our own visual system. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis#/media/File:AcuityHumanEye.svg -- we have only about 5 degrees of optically sharp vision in the eye, but it doesn't look that way.
This suggests, and I would claim it is true, that may be possible to "see" things that are not obvious to the casual observer, but are objectively there, by the training or cultivation of the visual sense. I find this is the case for myself, when I am doing photography-- it is first of all a matter of noticing what is there.
There is much to be said for the unmediated reaction to visual experience, guided by a disciplined intelligence.
“Let me put this into the computer...select the plotter...there it goes...and...done!”
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा