I'm glad you liked the post re Greek sculpture. But your post suggests that you 
don't agree with one word of what I said. Of course those ideas were not my own 
fantasy but were learned from leading scholars ands close examination of the 
objects. I'm especially interested in your preference for the closeness by 
which a ball player looks like the Discobolus.  Now that is truly one of the 
more abstract ancient sculptures made in the transitional classic era.  It is 
planar in the sense that the figure had been flattened into a narrow volume of 
space, a pose that would be impossible for a living person to take without 
having bones and muscles crushed and torn.  There are numerous art scholarly 
works you can turn to to verify that. See Sypher, etc.  And of course you can 
see a fine version of the work in Rome place in its own room where you can walk 
around it and be amazed at how convincing it is while it is also greatly 
distorted anatomically.  Genius. 
 Somewhat ditto for the David. On the web you'll find newer digital close up 
images of the piece.  Note especially the radical abstraction of the facial 
carving, done to manipulate light, just as the ancients did (to say nothing of 
the fact that the piece had been incorrectly measured for centuries!)  More 
genius. We think the most shapely atheletes have bodies like the ancient 
sculptures only because we prefer the cliched thought but if they did, they'd 
be horribly and impossibly distorted. Amazingly, the ancient sculptures do 
"look" convincing only because they are quite abstracted to manipulate light 
and to express stoic virtue.

There's no disputing this issue.
WC

--- On Sun, 2/22/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Definable and measurable truths
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 5:45 PM
> I'm just catching up on postings I've been unable to
> get to recently. I found 
> none more rewarding than William's excellent
> mini-lecture of Feb 12 on the 
> failures of anatomical veracity in Greek sculpture.   For a
> layman like me, it 
> was fascinating stuff. By coincidence, a friend and I last
> night saw on tv some 
> shots of the baseball player Alex Rodriguez
> ("A-Rod"). We agreed he comes 
> closer than any other ball player to the ideal male
> physique of the Greek 
> discobolus. Michelangelo's "David" is good
> looking, but the body of the discobolus 
> seems to many of us "more perfect". And certainly
> no other baseball player today 
> looks as "pretty" in the batter's box, as
> seemingly perfectly constructed to 
> be a graceful, powerful, efficient and effective an athlete
> as A-Rod. Of 
> course he plays with his uniform on, so one cannot see the
> proof of many of the 
> below-the-neck errors of Greeks.   The point: As we looked
> at A-Rod, we both 
> thought of the Greek prototype. 
> 
> I confess I can't go on to agree with William when he
> says, "Good art appeals 
> to all, I mean it offers something -- some access -- to any
> viewer.   That 
> has always been true of the best art."
> 
> William admits his 'good' is a wiggle word.
> Ordinarily I'd claim the 
> assumption, the reification, of an entity or category that
> is art, is an equally big 
> problem, but I'll skip that in this posting and focus
> on "appeal". I've several 
> times cited the celebration of Beckett's WAITING FOR
> GODOT. Some have called 
> it the greatest work of theater art in the twentieth
> century. I loathe play, 
> it does not appeal to me on any level. Notice I'm not
> saying the likes of "I 
> don't understand it." I can't grant I see any
> way in which I'd claim it's not 
> accessible to me. I've read a great deal of favorable
> comment about the work, 
> and nothing I've seen has made me say to myself,
> "I never thought of that." 
> Nothing I read about the play surprises me -- what does
> surprise is the reaction 
> of some others. 
> 
> The point: I maintain I am one of the "all". 
> 
> 
> **************
> You can't always 
> choose whom you love, but you can choose how to find them.
> Start with AOL 
> Personals.
> (http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000002)

Reply via email to