RE: ' If you require illusionsim to mean precisely imitative of actuality then you are missing most of what it is, the symbolic "as if" actuality and that leaves enormous room for variation or deviation.'
I was simply using the word as a convenient label for what you had described. You recall that you said: " I used to tell my students that the ancient Greeks would have had moving, speaking sculptures on the Parthenon if they had the technology (as in Las Vegas!). We're still trying to come up with convincing virtual sculpture in digital games, etc. The ancient Greeks would love it. " I don't care really what label you put on what you are describing - though illusionsim doesn't seem far from the mark. My basic point is, as I said, that I do not agree with your proposition at all. I think in fact that the Greeks would have been scandalised by anything like that placed on the Parthenon. The gods were not copies of the-Greek-in-the-street - mere facsimile human beings like something out of Mme Tussaud's. That would have instantly deprived them of their god-like quality. It would have been a sacrilege. RE: ' Anyway it's annoying to be continually rewritten by > you, blinded as you must be by your bad school-day > experiences with standard art history books...which > may have included an aversion to close viewing and > nuance.' But it does seem to me that you are in fact advocating the same kind of "Greeks = naturalism" myth that I used to read all that time ago - and still read quite often even in recent texts. (It is a tenacious myth.) How else can one read your statement I quote above? RE: 'Grumpy and pushed into sarcasm by your condescending > comments.' William, I don't really notice any difference. This is the normal tone you use to address me. And I just don't see how you get 'condescending' out of what is simply a disagreement with your point of view. DA http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:07 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I keep forgetting that you have a severely limited > understanding of illusionism in art. It's not a > wrong understanding as such but just too, too limited. > If you require illusionsim to mean precisely > imitative of actuality then you are missing most of > what it is, the symbolic "as if" actuality and that > leaves enormous room for variation or deviation. And > what becomes the standard for actuality in your > limited definition of the term, some insipid 19C > painting? Too ludicrous. > > Actuality has infinite measurements, and at least a > wide variety in human bodies. This is certainly not > to say that Greek sculpture, being a distortion of the > body , actually imitates a distorted person or persons > (although late examples do exist). It distorts for the > sake of illusion. > > All art is a distortion of something even as it claims > to be identical to something. Merely representing > somethin absent is a distortion, to say nothing of > translations in media, etc. So illusionism, if we > give the term any justice at all, must be more than > mere efforts to duplicate a model , which is an > impossibilitiy. It includes the very things you say > about the Parthenon sculpture, the expression of > aliveness, and so on. > > There's ample evidence that the Greeks were aiming at > aliveness, a illusion of sensual, physical animate > aliveness. They did it abstractly in many ways, of > which I mentioned a few. There's more, such as the > flow of drapery, illusionistic, suggesting more in > both time and space than is actually depicted. > > Anyway it's annoying to be continually rewritten by > you, blinded as you must be by your bad school-day > experiences with standard art history books...which > may have included an aversion to close viewing and > nuance. I've seen dozens and dozens of scholarly > books and articles on ancient Greek art and original > sculptures, too, and nowhere do I recall anyone saying > or seeing that the Greeks strove for or produced > narrowly imitative exact copies of the human form, > whatever the "model". But then I had a first class > education in art history where not one book to be > studied was a general art history text. You are still > choking on your misreading of Gombrich. Illusionism > is a very big word and it's very metaphorical. > > I can speak of illusionism in Egyptian art, too, of > which ample evidence is easily found. Ditto Near > Eastern art. > > In the ancient world, the Romans achieved the most > convincing illusionism in their relief sculpture (and > some painting) by making stone seem almost to melt > into air while distorting wildly. > > And just for the hell of it, can't you come up with > other artists than those few Frenchmen you mention so > often? How about a Nazarene or a Pre-Raphaelite, just > to change the menu a bit. > > Grumpy and pushed into sarcasm by your condescending > comments. > > WC > > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Re: 'Yes you can doubt it. It's your nature to be >> contrary >> to everything, often over mistaken trivialities. ' >> >> I am disagreeing with *you*, not with 'everything'. >> And the question >> is by no means trivial. It is quite misleading to >> characterise Greek >> art - even of the later classical period - as in >> search of 'living, >> speaking, moving likeness', if that implies a kind >> of illusionism; >> and it is most certainly not the case for earlier >> Greek sculpture - >> the Parthenon and earlier. >> >> Greek sculpture is in its way just as 'stylised' as >> Egyptian or >> African or any great art. It is simply that its >> style often makes more >> use of 'naturalistic' devices than many others. The >> only style that >> approaches true illusionism (with one or two minor >> exceptions) is, as >> I say, the 19th century academic style and its >> modern avatars. And >> those of course are abject failures - not art at >> all. >> >> I remember when I was young being told over and over >> again - and >> reading over and over again - the good old art >> history mantra that >> Greek art is a 'triumph of naturalism', 'realism' >> etc. It was only >> when I began to see how misleading this claim is >> that I really began >> to admire Greek sculpture. The Victory of >> Samothrace (eg) is not a >> triumph of naturalism at all, and neither are the >> Parthenon works in >> the British Museum and much else besides. They are a >> triumph of >> something very difficult to define - a kind of >> spirit of freedom, of >> human independence, of nobility perhaps - and no >> mere illusionism is >> ever going to achieve that. (One has only to put a >> Cabanel etc beside >> a photo of the Brit Museum works to see at a glance >> what is at stake.) >> >> DA >>
