About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 140

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

                                                    ~Intermission~

 
Here, this ought to set some fires- a nice repository of visionary art: http://www.visionaryrevue.com/index.html

Hey, I think I remember Ellen enjoying it when I sent it over to her.

Surreal, archetypal, mystical, yup. As far from appropriate romantic realism as it gets.  I can see some hatin' going on with this stuff, but maybe you'll appreciate the technical skill. Johfra is amazing.


GEOLOGICAL WANDERING

rde
Always the guy who started the porno circulating at Jr. High.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/19, 12:16pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 141

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Right, Rich, I did enjoy that when you "sent it over." And I was interested by the whole e-zine -- and posted a link to it on Jeanie Ring's list.

The composition of that painting, and general effect, is just the sort of thing I for years had in my mind's eye for hanging over our living room fireplace. Except the color palette wouldn't work. Meanwhile, we'd found what we want for that over-the-fireplace slot. A photograph, actually, taken by my husband, but one that looks as if it were a painting. It's a photograph which he took in early light at the Grand Canyon, looking down from a cleft in the rim over the Bright Angel Trail, which winds up the center of the photo. Mystily to each side of the trail are rock formations. It conveys that effect of some "lumen" (in the sense of an opening to another dimension of experience) out there in the distance.

Thanks, J., for the art-history lesson. ;-)

Ellen

___
(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 12/19, 1:50pm)


Post 142

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, Ellen, that sounds like a great piece!

I'm in the process of redoing a study/personal studio thing at home, and I might use some of the visionary stuff... I can let it get pretty wild in there.

rde


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 143

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 4:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Funny, how one picture can give me a very clear perspective on Ellen, Jonathan, and Rich. I get it now. You guys come from the Palin School of Esthetics. We’re not on the same page nor in the same book.

Michael


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 144

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 5:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Possibly needless to say, I haven't the least idea what the
"Palin School of Esthetics" is.

Here are the other two art works we have on our living room walls:

A copy, not a print, of El Greco's "View of Toledo."

An original still life, titled "Pink Foil," by Joan Mitchell Blumenthal.
It's a delicate watercolor, a swath of pink with greyish swirls tapestry
across from top left; on that three pears, one of which is on a small
pewter-looking platter, behind it a small ceramic vase, also pink
and grey tones, to the left of the vase a sprig of pine branch --
all framed in a 3-1/2" dark, antiqued wood frame (which came
with the drawing).

The living room is small (unfortunately, since I like a feeling of
uncluttered space), and is dominated by a baby-grand piano
(the living room serves as our music room for playing piano
and violin duets; I'm the pianist, he's the violinist). The total
effect gives as much spaciousness as we can get, and a sense
of cool serenity.

Ellen

[I just measured the picture frame; it's 3-1/2", almost
exactly, not "about 4"," as I originally wrote.]
___
(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 12/19, 5:30pm)


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 145

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You guys come from the Palin School of Esthetics.

ahahahahahahahaha ..........

ROFL

Michael, I bought you a painting as a Christmas gift, here it is below:




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 146

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 6:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That is so typical of you George.. ;-)

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 147

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 9:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George! I hope you didn't spend a fortune on it!

Who's who?

I think Hong is the very clever gray and white dog one on the far left, holding her cards close to her heart.
I gotta be the handsome one on the far right, little tilt of the head going on, indicting a very sensuous soul happen'n.
I think, George, you’re the white ugly bulldog who cheats!
Lets see...who else?
...who would take an a ace of spades from you?...hmmm, I bet you're just setting hm up...fat ass, generic color, someone who likes to get away with things, Phil Coates? Nope, don’t know why but its gotta be Joe M.
The serious looking sleek greyhound one, next to me on the right, the one smoking a pipe and looks totally calculated, is Joe Rowlands.
The worried looking big one is MSK, he is not reading the cards but thinking about how Lindsay addressed him!
Ah, the one on Hong’s left? I got it. Its Mike Erickson, and if I am right, he’s got a damn paw on her knee!

(Afer a little thought, yep!!! Its Joe M.. He doesn't understand your passing him a card, he thinks your playing footsies with him.)

(Edited by Newberry on 12/19, 9:25pm)

(Edited by Newberry on 12/19, 10:27pm)

(Edited by Newberry on 12/19, 10:38pm)


Post 148

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 2:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael wrote,
"Funny, how one picture can give me a very clear perspective on Ellen, Jonathan, and Rich. I get it now. You guys come from the Palin School of Esthetics. We’re not on the same page nor in the same book."

Michael,

How has a picture that Rich posted, a picture that I haven't commented on, given you a "very clear perspective" on ~me~? I've very recently posted a passionate defense of Vermeer's work, but instead of using ~that~ as a basis of getting a perspective on my tastes, you prefer to assign me the tastes of another poster?

J


(Edited by Jonathan
on 12/20, 2:37am)


Post 149

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 2:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ellen wrote,
"Thanks, J., for the art-history lesson. ;-)"

Thank ~you~ for giving me opportunities to be a pedantic art geek. ;-)

J

Post 150

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was wondering how long it would take for the dog pictures to show up. It had to be either that, or black velvet Elvis (the right decision being made, given that Elvis is generally sacred on some level to even the most fervent modernist).

Visionary art is one of my interests, but it is certainly not the only one. I admire the skill levels, and I also enjoy the way some of them work with mythical archetypes.

rde
On his way to the Holiday Inn for a "starving artist" sale, to get some real high-level shit... :)


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 151

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Michael,
You should be shot. Many times over. It's a miracle that you are still alive today...


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 152

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 3:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich Engle wrote:

"Visionary art is one of my interests, but it is certainly not the only one."


Likewise. Some of the work in that genre appeals to me, but by
no means all of it. Some of it is mannered and gimmicky. And
there's significant variation in the technical expertise and
degree of artistic, forgive the pun, vision. Among the artists
whose work was discussed in the issues I perused of the Visionary
Review, the only one I'd classify as ranking among the world's
great artists was William Blake.

Blake has long had a place in my admiration and affections, both
for his works of visual art and for his poetry. In my husband's
study we have a good print of "The Ancient of Days Striking the
First Circle." And among various books I especially treasure
is a Heritage edition of *The Divine Comedy* illustrated by Blake.
That book as a total package is a work of art, including the
typographical design and the red tapestry-like binding.

I resist questions of the form, "Who's your favorite artist?"
or "Which artist do you consider the greatest?," since there's
always the complexity with both type of question: In what
respect? However, I suppose that were I pushed to name the
two (it would have to be two; I'd refuse to answer if I could
only choose one) I admire most all-round amongst visual artists,
I'd say Michelangelo -- and Vermeer.

Georgia O'Keefe, as I indicated earlier, is a special personal
favorite. I feel a strong sense of a kindred spirit in her.

And I'm intrigued by an artist AR herself much admired: Capuletti.
In my downstairs bedroom I have a photo of the Capuletti nude
Rand bought. Although none of the photos I've seen of this
painting gets the skin tone to show with the strange living-marble
quality it has in the painting, the photo I have, while being
less accurate than some to the precise (alabaster) hue, does
a better job of capturing the unusualness of the look of the
skin. And it does a much better job than do any of the
reproductions I've seen on the web of capturing the power
of the eyes. When I was at the 1970 Hammer Gallery Capuletti
exhibit in which that nude was displayed, I kept feeling --
when I could tear myself away to go look at the other paintings --
that the eyes kept drawing me back. The eyes are AR's eyes,
of course: the face is hers (the body is Pillar's, Capuletti's
then wife).

I'll add that an important feature in Capuletti's appeal
for me is a tension and drama in which I discern and in which
he himself discerned (he said so when I queried him about it
during the Hammer Gallery showing) a similitude to that in
Frida Kahlo's work.

Ellen


[spelling edit]
___

(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 12/21, 12:23am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 153

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 3:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Among your many talents, you are also a stand-up comic?

(Whoever said I was big? Huh?... My thing is kitty-kats, anyway...)

Michael


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 154

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 4:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan asked: "How has a picture that Rich posted, a picture that I haven't commented on, given you a "very clear perspective" on ~me~?"


Its simple. It was a catalyst in which I saw many things clearly. I would be very cruel if I went into any detail. But here is an indication: you ain't got no respect.

Michael


Post 155

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 6:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Edited by Newberry on 12/20, 6:34pm)


Post 156

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ellen - you write, "The eyes are AR's eyes, of course: the face is hers (the body is Pillar's, Capuletti's then wife)."

Are you sure?

If you have inside info, I'd love to know more...



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 157

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote, "The eyes are AR's eyes, of course: the face is hers (the body is Pillar's, Capuletti's then wife)."

Adam asks: "Are you sure? If you have inside info, I'd love to know more..."

It doesn't actually need inside info, just seeing the painting -- by which I mean "in the flesh," as it were, the painting itself -- and having seen Ayn Rand's eyes numerous times. "Everyone" -- that is, everyone I spoke to at the time about it -- noticed. The outline of the face is "idealized," made more regular and considerably younger than Rand was then. The image borrows from the Ilonya portrait of Rand. The focus of the eyes in that portrait is looking somewhere into the distance, as if toward an elevated plane of perception, not at the person standing in front of the image. The eyes in the Capuletti painting are done that same way.

An interesting thing about his paintings -- I believe this was checked out and documented when there was quite a bit of talk about "Desnudo," as the painting is named, having AR's face -- is that he almost never painted his female figures full face until after he'd met AR; and then he used her face -- idealized -- in several paintings.

A little story about that painting. I was overwhelmed by it from the minute I walked into the gallery, and, as I've said, kept going back to it. There was this man standing there examining the painting one of the times when I returned to look at it. I didn't like the way he was looking at the painting. Hammer came over -- the guy was a rich collector and told Hammer that he especially collected nudes. There was somethin "interesting" (he drawled the word) about the skin effect, and he was thinking of making an offer. To my relief, Hammer said that the painting was sold.

So when the guy left, I followed Hammer, sort of bubbling with glee, since I suspected... I told him that I'd love to know who bought the painting. For a few instants he was stern -- "I can't reveal that information," he said. But I guess something in the way I asked, and my expression, whatever, got past his professional reserve. So he said, "Well, I'll tell you. Ayn Rand bought the painting." (Oh, goodie; yippie.)

Thing is... Capuletti admired her writing, best as he could read it -- he wasn't at all fluent in English. And I'm sure he was more than savy enough to realize, after that article she wrote about his work, that there was a market to be had amongst her followers. He painted a number of paintings which were guaranteed hits, shall we say, with Objectivists (the "Not Guilty" one, e.g.). I think that, as well as making a tribute to her, he knew she'd be flattered by that nude and would want to buy it. The pose is just so thoroughly an image in keeping with the style of Rand's depictions of the sexual psychology of her heroines.

Ellen

___






Post 158

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, Ellen,

I’d like to see that Capuletti work, but I didn’t catch the name. Would you post the name so I can find it? Thanks!

Jon


Post 159

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 8:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Its simple. It was a catalyst in which I saw many things clearly. I would be very cruel if I went into any detail. But here is an indication: you ain't got no respect.

Michael


Oh, heck, you should just go for it- we're all big boys and girls round hyeah.

rde
Can't decide between the dogs playing cards one, or the dogs playing pool one.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.