from what i've read he had a bit of a preoccupation with the little girls, whether it was psycho-sexual or fascination, the biographer i read implied Degas thought them little monsters.
why does art always have to be dangerous? is the world such a safe place that we need to turn to art for danger? it seems a bit snobby to me to re-define a piece of art in terms that would exclude the hoi-poloi, to re-sanctify it in order to exclude. as if only the few can see it for what it truly is - sexual and dangerous, while we poor fools we can only ah and bah and etc. and why is the sexual considered dangerous? my goodness, don't you watch MTV? But perhaps you don't mean sexual, perhaps you mean perverse. set, yes, i got it, and i do believe i mentioned it was Degas' obsession, and he was not a tutuphiliac. It seems to me the art produced during an artist's life is fluid, in that his or her thinking about it is in a state of flux, an constant evolution of thought if not in style. death freezes that, but it doesn't mean the artist had completed his thinking about it and degas was notorious for being unsatisfied with his work, to the point of taking paintings off a customer's wall and bringing it back home to re-work it. upon death the work is a fiat de compli but the raison d'etre most likely was still evolving [] --- Alan Sondheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > possibly but these seem of a piece with the > pastels/paintings etc. I'm not > sure of the reception of Degas or his own biography > in relation to them. > they remind me personally of Giacometti, denying the > corrosion in a sense. > > how did they become safe? that's the whole history > of modernism - there's > not much difference between them and the other > impressionists in that > regard. Hugo Ball still wouldn't be safe; the > impressionists were on the > road. > > personally I think they have everything to do with > dance, at least from > Degas' viewpoint. they could have been in other > poses, occupations, > situations; he chose dance, and they're one, as I > said above, with the > other dance imagery as far as I can tell. > > unless you know something I don't in this regard, > which is quite possible, > I'm not sure why you call them a 'fetish.' a series > yes, or a constant > subject matter, but that doesn't imply fetish. > > - alan > > > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Talan Memmott wrote: > > > They are safe now, yes, you are right... they get > the saccharin > > "ahhh." (which is sometimes also a yawn) > > > > but how did they become safe? > > or, how were they considered radical in the first > place? > > > > > > > > "held": I believe there are over 70 of these > figures and that only > > one was cast and shown publicly during Degas' > lifetime. The rest, > > rotting away in Degas' studio. So, by held I mean > both this holding > > back of the volume of figures -- keeping private, > coveting ... and > > how, perhaps, Degas may have 'held' them as in an > embrace. > > > > I am not sure, really, if these figures have much > to do with dance. > > > > maybe, the subversion lies in the mundane subject > matter commingled > > with the obsessional intent of the figures' > manufacture? That Degas > > can produce an overt fetish and have it go > unnoticed as such.... > > maybe? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:28:39 -0400 > > Alan Sondheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't think it's an illusion at all; I think > they're safe. But > >> they're > >> figures so they're illusion in any case, no? > >> > >> What do you mean held? The armature? > >> > >> Relate this to dance and its sexualized > crotch-lift. But that's > >> acceptable, no? > >> > >> - Alan > >> > >> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Talan Memmott wrote: > >> > >>> The word set was intentional and supposed to be > followed by a > >>> bracketed -- in stone, in bronze, in wax... > forgot to type it... > >>> > >>> what I was kinda tryin' to get at is the safety > of these icon is an > >>> illusion if you start to consider Degas' > obsession with the > >>> subject... > >>> and the private way in which the figures, but > for one, were held. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:14:54 -0700 > >>> "[]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> ok, and i never said you said they were, nor > set, as > >>>> case may be, merely addressing you directly, > [for > >>>> which, excuse me] but referencing in general > >>>> direction. however, the word phalloid, even > strictly > >>>> regarding form, suggests phalloexcentricity. > the > >>>> common term - hypo-laravaloid - is more than > >>>> sufficiently descriptive and dare i say it, not > to > >>>> mention suitably genderless. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ah, just kidding around. all in the eye of the > >>>> beholder, eh? > >>>> > >>>> [] > >>>> > >>>> --- Talan Memmott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I never actually set they were phallic, man... > one, > >>>>> just reiterating > >>>>> previous critiques... two, working with the > idea... > >>>>> What I wrote below > >>>>> is NOT phallocentric, though Degas' *private* > use of > >>>>> the wax figures, > >>>>> before being cast, may have been... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 07:28:45 -0700 > >>>>> "[]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> >oh yes, and the semenal rain fell from the > >>>>> testicular > >>>>> >clouds like a zillion little circumstantiated > >>>>> >fallacies extending and retracting brief, but > >>>>> potently > >>>>> >climactic little globular hardons > >>>>> > > >>>>> >Talan, it's phallo-centric. and more a > >>>>> hollus-bollus > >>>>> >re-construction than a deconstruction. > Naturally > >>>>> it's > >>>>> >valid, but so is my theory that Eve, of the > garden > >>>>> of > >>>>> >Eden, was a gay person. Sometimes a cigar IS > a > >>>>> cigar, > >>>>> >not a pipe. > >>>>> > > >>>>> >[] > >>>>> > > >>>>> >--- Talan Memmott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > > >>>>> >> howz 'bout 'phalloid'... they are upright, > stiff, > >>>>> >> reaching, rutty, > >>>>> >> hairy, 'waxy', and made for, as I > suggested, and > >>>>> >> (methinks) Alan's > >>>>> >> treatments of the images suggest purposes > outside > >>>>> of > >>>>> >> standing there in > >>>>> >> the museum... they may be phalloidal in > that they > >>>>> >> may not be a plaster > >>>>> >> cast of the member, but a bronze cast of > the > >>>>> fetish. > >>>>> >> solid shadows. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:11:49 -0700 > >>>>> >> "[]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> >> >That little back stage bronzed and tutu'd > rat > >>>>> >> phallic? > >>>>> >> >Jeez, where's a cigar when you need it? > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> >[] > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> >--- Talan Memmott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
