Book-It 'o9! Book #9
More of the Fifty Books Challenge! This is a recommendation from my brother.
Title: The Art of the Nude by Deirdre Robson
Details: Copyright 1995, Shooting Start Press
Synopsis (By Way of Back Cover): The nude has been a theme so perennial that from it once can virtually follow the history of art. For the Ancients it epitomized not only perfect physical beauty but also the nobility of the human spirit. During the Middle Ages the naked body was identified with temptation and sin, but with the advent of the Renaissance the nude once more became a key theme in art, a position retained until the early 20th century. Remarkable nudes have been produced over the last 2,500 years and this informative study shows how some of the most significant artists have used it to present a number of messages and moods - on the one hand love and desire, and on the other, abstract concepts such as Truth.
Why I Wanted to Read It: My brother told me recently about his interest in mythology and I lent him one of my better books. In return, he lent me this.
How I Liked It: Books on art with commentary are usually hit 'n' miss. With most of them (if you're like me) you shove past the commentary and focus only on the art. This actually had some fairly useful insight (Ingres's La Grande Odalisque I adore and decorates my bedroom but I'd never noticed the "Orientalism" of the picture in the style of headdress, the brocade, and the hookah) even when it wandered into "pretentious art enthusiast" territory (on Canova's The Three Graces: "To many modern eyes, however, this work may appear rather sentimental in its rendition and insipid in the icy smoothness of its execution.").
Notable: What do you think of when you see this picture?
Two "sisters"? Two female friends taking a nap together? Anything but an obvious portrait of two women who are lovers (possibly post coitus)? Well, apparently it is an obvious portrait of two women who are lovers (post coitus). Robson declares
"Here, for private consumption only," [is it wrong then that it's published in a book?] "is a portrayal of the staple male erotic fantasy, the aftermath of abandoned lesbian love (note the broken pearl necklace) - or at least what a man might imagine it to be!"
Okay... so what is Robson saying? That they ripped each other's clothes off (with apparently enough force to destroy jewelery) in a fit of sexual frenzy? That theory is supported I think by the comb by the blond chick's foot. Or is there something else with the beads that Robson is suggesting that I'm not getting? Or am I just a pervert?
Title: The Art of the Nude by Deirdre Robson
Details: Copyright 1995, Shooting Start Press
Synopsis (By Way of Back Cover): The nude has been a theme so perennial that from it once can virtually follow the history of art. For the Ancients it epitomized not only perfect physical beauty but also the nobility of the human spirit. During the Middle Ages the naked body was identified with temptation and sin, but with the advent of the Renaissance the nude once more became a key theme in art, a position retained until the early 20th century. Remarkable nudes have been produced over the last 2,500 years and this informative study shows how some of the most significant artists have used it to present a number of messages and moods - on the one hand love and desire, and on the other, abstract concepts such as Truth.
Why I Wanted to Read It: My brother told me recently about his interest in mythology and I lent him one of my better books. In return, he lent me this.
How I Liked It: Books on art with commentary are usually hit 'n' miss. With most of them (if you're like me) you shove past the commentary and focus only on the art. This actually had some fairly useful insight (Ingres's La Grande Odalisque I adore and decorates my bedroom but I'd never noticed the "Orientalism" of the picture in the style of headdress, the brocade, and the hookah) even when it wandered into "pretentious art enthusiast" territory (on Canova's The Three Graces: "To many modern eyes, however, this work may appear rather sentimental in its rendition and insipid in the icy smoothness of its execution.").
Notable: What do you think of when you see this picture?
Two "sisters"? Two female friends taking a nap together? Anything but an obvious portrait of two women who are lovers (possibly post coitus)? Well, apparently it is an obvious portrait of two women who are lovers (post coitus). Robson declares
"Here, for private consumption only," [is it wrong then that it's published in a book?] "is a portrayal of the staple male erotic fantasy, the aftermath of abandoned lesbian love (note the broken pearl necklace) - or at least what a man might imagine it to be!"
Okay... so what is Robson saying? That they ripped each other's clothes off (with apparently enough force to destroy jewelery) in a fit of sexual frenzy? That theory is supported I think by the comb by the blond chick's foot. Or is there something else with the beads that Robson is suggesting that I'm not getting? Or am I just a pervert?