> One can hardly claim that Pontormo didn't have a wildly alternative view from what had been current fifty years before. (Kate Sullivan)
But one can claim that his view was not "wildly alternative" in order to qualify as important art. Rather than seeking validation, the art of that period (indeed, of every period of human civilization other than our own) was made to offer it -- to the various institutions of church, state, or clan. That's why it was so good. It had to be. And it had to be inventive, too -- because institutions are always changing. (even the apparently private art of calligraphy and landscape painting in dynastic China - which is why it was so important for each Emperor to practice and collect it) >I thought you said you were emulating Pontormo and Bronzino both of whom had some very beautiful criteria. No, I had never seen a life drawing by Pontormo until about 5 years ago, at a wonderful exhibit of the "Art of the Medici" (yet another example of an institution seeking validation from art, rather then vice versa) I'm afraid that like Mando (and unlike the great artists of the past) I only draw to please myself - and, for whatever reason, Pontormo and I are fellow travelers. >Could you explain the ideology behind your preference for drawing to draw like Bronzino. It is possible to have preferences that are not based upon an ideology -- and they are none the worse for it. ____________________________________________________________ Pledge your allegiance with a beautiful new flag! Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxR8OvbzEs11XfKM5QuHyr5Sv ZfbGl5okkZo8FvQBj51M4bJSIrcUQ/
