What I mean, Is, that if it is as close to what one expects realism
to be, it is not
something unexpected, therefore it is more likely to satisf y than
stimulate the brain.
Something like seeing a horse as a horse instead of a blue horse, as
an extreme example.
mando
On Jul 28, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Michael Brady wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:16 AM, armando baeza wrote:
I think that the higher the degree of recognizable naturalism in
art, the less it stimulates the the mind.
I hadn't thought of it quite like that. Perhaps high naturalism
produce a reaction of marvel or wonder (impressive technique,
virtuoso attention to detail, etc.). For myself, I know that I
reallly like good drawing--not just extremely facile or highly
skilled, like Ingres, but supple, fluid, direct, definitive,
confident. And that includes the seemingly delicate touch of Jules
Pascin as much as the vigor of Schiele and Hockney and Mike Angelo,
etc. I also really like Donatello's sculptures, partly because they
are so clear, it's almost like that are drawn in outline.
Now that I think about it, I really don't warm much to Picasso's
pen-and-ink drawings (all those minotaur-artist debaucheries and
such), but I do like his drawings from the analytic and synthetic
Cubist periods).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
