Understand that the painters of his circle did not do "morality" paintings as commentary on society. Modern art itself (beginning with Impressionism) originated largely for the purpose of shedding that role, although later artists took it up again.
Of course I don't suggest that Degas actually condoned rape, whatever sexual frustrations he may have had. I suggest only that he doesn't condemn it here, either. He merely observes, as Toulouse-Lautrec observed. He is as coldly detached as the rapist.
This was something new in art: an uncritical eye that recorded the world but did not judge it or particularly wish to change it.
This question remains: Why paint such a picture? He wasn't recording a true event, surely! And if he isn't seeking to condemn this crime, what exactly is the point?
I'm guessing it's simple misogyny.
Favorite artists - contribute!
Last edited by Whistler on Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think the Degas picture is rather beautiful, despite its subject matter. The woman appears to be crying; the man looks angry or at least stern. But it is beautifully composed and painted.
I thought I'd share a few pictures that I'm fond of. I wouldn't say these were my 'favorite' artists, though I like them. I'll come back with more later. I never studied painting, but I deeply love it. Wherever I go in the world, I always visit the art museum.
Anyway... there's this, by Mary Cassatt. I love this forlorn child.
And this, by Winslow Homer:
And then this very famous painting by Edward Hopper. I saw the orignal at the Chicago Art Institute and I swear it gave me actual, literal chills. So desolate.
I thought I'd share a few pictures that I'm fond of. I wouldn't say these were my 'favorite' artists, though I like them. I'll come back with more later. I never studied painting, but I deeply love it. Wherever I go in the world, I always visit the art museum.
Anyway... there's this, by Mary Cassatt. I love this forlorn child.
And this, by Winslow Homer:
And then this very famous painting by Edward Hopper. I saw the orignal at the Chicago Art Institute and I swear it gave me actual, literal chills. So desolate.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
You should write them well in advance to let them know you're coming, Whistler.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
This thread has been wonderful to read through, but even more wonderful to gaze at. What an astonishing variety of styles and subjects and moods!
I can get absolutely swept away by Emily Carr's paintings. I love her boldness. I love her swirling colours. I love her trees.
And I love that she was this wildy feisty woman, who would camp out in the forest in her hand-built caravan, which she called "The White Elephant", with her dogs and her parrot and her monkey.
I love that she named her monkey "Woo".
Here are some of my favourite Carr paintings:
Sombreness Sunlit
Blue Sky
Strait of Juan de Fuca
Cedar
Here's a self-portraint, painted towards the end of her life:
What a woman.......what an artist.
I can get absolutely swept away by Emily Carr's paintings. I love her boldness. I love her swirling colours. I love her trees.
And I love that she was this wildy feisty woman, who would camp out in the forest in her hand-built caravan, which she called "The White Elephant", with her dogs and her parrot and her monkey.
I love that she named her monkey "Woo".
Here are some of my favourite Carr paintings:
Sombreness Sunlit
Blue Sky
Strait of Juan de Fuca
Cedar
Here's a self-portraint, painted towards the end of her life:
What a woman.......what an artist.
Last edited by Athrabeth on Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who could be so lucky? Who comes to a lake for water and sees the reflection of moon.
Jalal ad-Din Rumi
I haven't read the intervening posts, and I haven't googled the picture. I know some pictures by Degas, of dancers. I don't expect this picture is of "respectable" people either.
There is something wrong. The man is angry or upset in some way, he has that sort of posture, very upright like a rooster, sort of defiant. He's sort of looming over her, a figure of power in some way. I can't see what the woman is doing, really. Is she taking things out of a chest of drawers and putting them in her valise? Is she leaving him? Have they quarreled? She won't look at him, so she's angry or hurt in some way.
There are clothes hung sort of slapdash over the end of the bed. Now, this is a narrow bed, a girl's bed, and it's a girl's or woman's room with that figured wallpaper and lamp.
It's her room all right but she's leaving? So he's paid for it, then. And now he's telling her she has to get out? Or, he has done something really awful and she's packing up her things and running away? I think that's it. If he was kicking her out, he wouldn't be standing against the door like that, he'd be further into the room. So he's saying, "Don't be a fool, you're not going anywhere."
Has he hit her, that she is facing away? Are those her clothes on the end of the bed, or is it his coat? I see that her chemise is falling off her left shoulder. Is it torn? If it is, he tore it. I really wish I had a better reproduction.
It could be that this is really her room and he's there by force. Or, yes, she's being "kept" by him but he's gone too far in some way.
He is a frightening image. He's big, and all the light dies when it gets to him, he's in the shadows, he's like a shadow. All the light falls on her bare skin and white chemise, the open suitcase. Without knowing more, I feel sorry for her, she's powerless like that, sort of huddled away from him. I don't like this man.
And I don't like, either, the convention (if it's a convention) that women, who are weaker and smaller and less important, can always be shown half-dressed or naked. As Prim said above, it's always the robe of the goddess or nymph that trails off, revealing the body. This man, and his world, regard these women as things to be used and broken and thrown away. There he is, shirt buttoned and tucked in, even his waistcoat and coat done up, all covered and safe, and there she is, poor girl, half naked with her underdress torn and afraid to look at him.
Anyway, that's about all I can figure out, and now I shall read the intervening posts and see what I can learn.
What's the picture called?
There is something wrong. The man is angry or upset in some way, he has that sort of posture, very upright like a rooster, sort of defiant. He's sort of looming over her, a figure of power in some way. I can't see what the woman is doing, really. Is she taking things out of a chest of drawers and putting them in her valise? Is she leaving him? Have they quarreled? She won't look at him, so she's angry or hurt in some way.
There are clothes hung sort of slapdash over the end of the bed. Now, this is a narrow bed, a girl's bed, and it's a girl's or woman's room with that figured wallpaper and lamp.
It's her room all right but she's leaving? So he's paid for it, then. And now he's telling her she has to get out? Or, he has done something really awful and she's packing up her things and running away? I think that's it. If he was kicking her out, he wouldn't be standing against the door like that, he'd be further into the room. So he's saying, "Don't be a fool, you're not going anywhere."
Has he hit her, that she is facing away? Are those her clothes on the end of the bed, or is it his coat? I see that her chemise is falling off her left shoulder. Is it torn? If it is, he tore it. I really wish I had a better reproduction.
It could be that this is really her room and he's there by force. Or, yes, she's being "kept" by him but he's gone too far in some way.
He is a frightening image. He's big, and all the light dies when it gets to him, he's in the shadows, he's like a shadow. All the light falls on her bare skin and white chemise, the open suitcase. Without knowing more, I feel sorry for her, she's powerless like that, sort of huddled away from him. I don't like this man.
And I don't like, either, the convention (if it's a convention) that women, who are weaker and smaller and less important, can always be shown half-dressed or naked. As Prim said above, it's always the robe of the goddess or nymph that trails off, revealing the body. This man, and his world, regard these women as things to be used and broken and thrown away. There he is, shirt buttoned and tucked in, even his waistcoat and coat done up, all covered and safe, and there she is, poor girl, half naked with her underdress torn and afraid to look at him.
Anyway, that's about all I can figure out, and now I shall read the intervening posts and see what I can learn.
What's the picture called?
Dig deeper.
There seems to be some debate as to the title, vision! There appear to be three of them. Whatever, the brutality of the piece is pretty apparent. If Ber shows up again, perhaps she can set us straight.
Certainly it is a "genre" painting, if by that we mean a painting of everyday life. Seems a rather cold dismissal of the subject matter on the part of Degas, however. Is this really what he called everyday life?
Certainly it is a "genre" painting, if by that we mean a painting of everyday life. Seems a rather cold dismissal of the subject matter on the part of Degas, however. Is this really what he called everyday life?
Oho. "The Rape", eh? It's hard to decide what Degas meant by this picture. There is no sense, I can get no sense, that the artist thinks badly of the man. And the woman is rendered so anonymous, we can't really see her, she is more form and light than woman. What a cruel thing, to use her pain that way, to make a picture!
Artists, I am told, see composition, light, shadow, proportion. I see people, make up stories, imagine what has happened/will happen.
Emily Carr! My late mother-in-law was a teacher and also an art teacher. She had lessons from Emily Carr many long, long years ago and she painted many pictures in that style herself. (My mother-in-law was born in Vancouver in 1903.) She really admired Carr's work.
A friend of mine was given a large Emily Carr painting as a wedding present by her wealthy new in-laws, and she hated it like poison. Absolutely hated it! I wonder what ever became of it.
Another friend has two large vases made by Emily Carr. She inherited these vases from her uncle who remembered his mother buying them from this queer old lady who drove around in a donkey cart, and had a pet monkey. Those vases must be worth the earth. My friend nearly fell over when she saw two tiny pots valued on teh Antiques Roadshow for $3,000 each! So she has taken them to an appraiser and I shall be very interested to hear what value is put on them.
I like some Carr, but not all. Some of it is just too dark for me. But a formidable woman and a formidable talent. Klee Wyck.
Artists, I am told, see composition, light, shadow, proportion. I see people, make up stories, imagine what has happened/will happen.
Emily Carr! My late mother-in-law was a teacher and also an art teacher. She had lessons from Emily Carr many long, long years ago and she painted many pictures in that style herself. (My mother-in-law was born in Vancouver in 1903.) She really admired Carr's work.
A friend of mine was given a large Emily Carr painting as a wedding present by her wealthy new in-laws, and she hated it like poison. Absolutely hated it! I wonder what ever became of it.
Another friend has two large vases made by Emily Carr. She inherited these vases from her uncle who remembered his mother buying them from this queer old lady who drove around in a donkey cart, and had a pet monkey. Those vases must be worth the earth. My friend nearly fell over when she saw two tiny pots valued on teh Antiques Roadshow for $3,000 each! So she has taken them to an appraiser and I shall be very interested to hear what value is put on them.
I like some Carr, but not all. Some of it is just too dark for me. But a formidable woman and a formidable talent. Klee Wyck.
Dig deeper.
I tend to agree, vison. Although many seem to sw00n over her "Queen Charlotte" and north coast paintings (spanning the 1920's, I think), these are the ones that I like least because I find them dark and oppressive and rather flat and lifeless.vison wrote: I like some Carr, but not all. Some of it is just too dark for me. But a formidable woman and a formidable talent.
Her paintings from the mid-thirties on are the ones I like best. All of the examples I posted are from that time. She just seems to have this sudden explosion of light and movement in her art.
Here's another of my favourites from those years. It's called Scorned as Timber, Beloved of Sky, painted in 1935. I've always loved the immense halo of light that surrounds the central tree, and the two other "scorned" trees echoing its form into the distance, and that electric purple-blue of the mountains in the background. The original is just a wonder to gaze upon.
Edited to add: YOUR MOTHER-IN-LAW TOOK LESSONS FROM EMILY CARR???
vison, your life, and the stories wound up in it, never fail to amaze me.
Who could be so lucky? Who comes to a lake for water and sees the reflection of moon.
Jalal ad-Din Rumi
How odd. Back on the Degas painting, even before knowing what the painting was meant to be about, looking at it I thought it clear that the lady crying was meant as someone with whom our sympathies were supposed to lie. The man, all dark and menacing and sympathey-less, was meant to get our scorn. In other words, we feel for the girl and hate the man. She's painted all in light and softness, he's painted darkly and harshly. I definately do not see the painting not making a judgement.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I was going to say what yova said. Even if Degas is not known for making his paintings judgements, I doubt he sat back and painted this without once considering what it would represent. He does show us a scene that is very uncomfortable, and makes the woman look like she was hurt. I am probably talking rubbish now but this reminds me, by contrast, of this painting by Millais:
"Trust Me"
Now here, the scene is less dramatic but it's also about a woman faced with a man's power over her- in this case, the father demanding to see a private letter she has received. This painting I don't think makes a judgement- the woman isn't shown as utterly miserable, her father isn't shown as a tyrant. (I insist that the matter is little less important than that of rape- it also implies a sort of ownership of a grown woman) They are juxtaposed, take up an equal amount of space on the canvas and both stand tall and certain of their own right. The woman does not look away.
But in Degas' painting, the man has hurt the woman. She has been forced to give up. Like yova said, it's clear where our sympathies should lie. It's clear who the villain and who the victim is.
"Trust Me"
Now here, the scene is less dramatic but it's also about a woman faced with a man's power over her- in this case, the father demanding to see a private letter she has received. This painting I don't think makes a judgement- the woman isn't shown as utterly miserable, her father isn't shown as a tyrant. (I insist that the matter is little less important than that of rape- it also implies a sort of ownership of a grown woman) They are juxtaposed, take up an equal amount of space on the canvas and both stand tall and certain of their own right. The woman does not look away.
But in Degas' painting, the man has hurt the woman. She has been forced to give up. Like yova said, it's clear where our sympathies should lie. It's clear who the villain and who the victim is.
As I've said, personal reactions are what they are and there is no accounting for them. Perhaps my thinking is colored by my knowledge of Degas himself. We were old friends, you know, back in the 19th Century. He had an acid tongue, and I was one of the only people who could shut him up.
The Millais is very powerful. Note the use of the strong vertical line in the middle that literally cuts the composition in half, illustrating that the two are living in two different worlds. The man's reach extends just beyond the dividing line. Lots of tension here.
The Millais is very powerful. Note the use of the strong vertical line in the middle that literally cuts the composition in half, illustrating that the two are living in two different worlds. The man's reach extends just beyond the dividing line. Lots of tension here.
Yeah, you probably know what the man meant better.
In high school, my literature teacher never dared interpret any modern poets because she knew I would just go home and ask my dad to tell me what kind of people they really were. The information I got was surprising. Certainly no one teaches schoolkids about all that absinthe and weed. Pity, the bitten cat story is a good anecdote.
Funny, trying to talk about art I love makes me extremely uncomfortable and stressed.
I'm gonna leave you all to it for now.
In high school, my literature teacher never dared interpret any modern poets because she knew I would just go home and ask my dad to tell me what kind of people they really were. The information I got was surprising. Certainly no one teaches schoolkids about all that absinthe and weed.
Pity, the bitten cat story is a good anecdote.Funny, trying to talk about art I love makes me extremely uncomfortable and stressed.
I'm gonna leave you all to it for now.
I apologise.