Francesco Hayez
Here's something a little unusual from Francesco Hayez (1791-1882) commissioned by Count Girolamo Malfatti using the model ballerina Carlotta Chabert, the nobleman's mistress.
Venus Playing with Two Doves, Francesco Hayez, 1830
Venus Playing with Two Doves, Francesco Hayez, 1830
12 Comments:
Your views of what makes art "good" and "bad" seem to be very narrow. You must've had a bad art history teacher.
:D
Poor you,
By Anonymous, at 3:49 PM
Oh... it just occured tome that this whole site might be SATIRE...
I hope that's the case. ^_^
By Anonymous, at 3:50 PM
No, of course this is not satire. I'm afraid that it is you who had some faulty education. On what grounds do you conclude that there's something bad about a "narrow" definition? Of course a definition can be overly narrow or overly broad. On what grounds do you conclude that mine is too narrow? It's certainly more narrow than the dogma that "everything is art" asserts, but I maintain that such a definition is completely useless and wrong. Do you disagree? Would you like to propose an alternative definition that's better?
--Brian
By Brian Yoder, at 5:15 PM
Hey Brian Yoder,
don't ever cave in to these brainwashed proponents of modern art, keep up your good work!
I tell you, each and every one of my friend, after seeing the pictures on Art Renewal Center, admitted that they have long thought that people like Picasso are just con artists but did not dare to speak out in fear of being called "un-educated".
You and Art Renewal Center are doing a great job bringing real art back.
Thank you!
By Anonymous, at 7:25 AM
I have many pictures of Hayez paintings scanned and have seen more that I was unable to scan in some books. They're very different in their style from French academic paintings but still with a good sense of beauty in composition. Sometime soon, I'll try to get them uploaded
By Brian Shapiro, at 10:48 AM
Brian, you have done a very good job managing this site.
However, what I would like to point out is that everyone have his/her own judgement on what is good and what is bad art. You can never universally label a piece of artwork by your own opinion. Therefore, I found it offensive that you catagorized pieces of artwork by your so called "GoodArt" and "Bad Art and Non-Art." It's not only offensive to the people who visit this site, but also to the artists who created these pieces themselves.
By susan, at 2:15 PM
susan wrote...
>Brian, you have done a very good job managing
>this site.
Thanks! I'm glad that you like it.
>However, what I would like to point out is that
>everyone have his/her own judgement on what is
>good and what is bad art.
Of course that's true. Everyone has his own judgment about every fact he observes. You can judge for yourself whether grass is green or not, whether gasoline goes into the tank or the trunk, and whether you should eat stones or hamburgers. The real issue where we disagree, I suspect, is over whether all judgments are equally valid, and on that I think that the answer is clearly not. Some judgments are valid (which is to say that they conform to the facts that they describe) and some fail to do so, and that difference is not a matter of arbitrary opinion, but a matter of objective fact.
>You can never universally label a piece of artwork
>by your own opinion.
I am not basing my conclusions on "opinion", I am basing them on observation and reason, and I can indeed label artwork. If not my own thinking, whose should I use to evaluate it? Yours? A vote of the general public? How should they know if their opinions are not valid? I know that there are a lot of people out there who think as you do on this and have a firm commitment that one must never make any claim of knowledge about artistic matters, but I have never heard a coherent argument justifying such a position.
One of the consequences of your point of view on this is intellectual dependency in the realm of art. If you have been taught that your own mind is incapable of knowing anything about art then your are dependent on some authority to tell you that Rembrandt was good or that Bouguereau was bad. If you think about it, such a claim is itself a judgment about art, which makes it pretty well self-refuting, don't you think?
>Therefore, I found it offensive that you catagorized
>pieces of artwork by your so called "GoodArt" and
>"Bad Art and Non-Art." It's not only offensive to
>the people who visit this site, but also to the
>artists who created these pieces themselves.
Well, I'm offended that someone would splatter paint onto a canvas and call it art. Lots of other people are too. I have no doubt that these "artists" would be unhappy to hear me call a spade a spade regarding their work. Are you taking the position that one must never offend anyone for any reason? By such a standard all of these bad/non-artists are committing the same mistake you are accusing me of, aren't they?
Have you had a chance to look at my FAQ page? It explains all of these issues in more detail than I can go into here.
Anyway, thanks again for visiting my site.
--Brian
By Brian Yoder, at 2:36 PM
I'm sorry, Brian, to call you a slob (and everything else I've called you). I was just angry last night, and please don't take anything personally. Still, I can't say that I'm not surprised that you found my blog. Good job!
I don't think I can do anything to change your mind, and I don't intend to. We have a very different opinion as to what can be considered art, therefore I think we should just end the argument here, once and for all. Good day to you.
By susan, at 2:37 PM
Susan,
To be honest I don’t think it’s clear to me what your own ideas on this topic are since all you did was express extreme displeasure at my own conclusions.
You are obviously very interested in art, photography, and design, so whether it’s discussing these matters with me or just thinking about them yourself, I think you would do well to develop your own explicit thoughts on what your own position is. I had a closer look at some of your previous postings and it is clear that you have a strong affinity for some paintings (like the Waterhouse and deLempicka ones you posted), so have you ever wondered what it was that makes you like those better than some other random painting? By examining that question you will begin to see what particular factors result in what particular reactions. You will find that some are purely personal (for example, a figure or scene might remind you of a happy or threatening person or situation in your own life) and some are universal in the sense that anyone with a normal brain would understand what’s going on. Don’t deny that you make artistic judgments! You obviously do. The trick is to make good ones. Master that and you’ll know a whole lot more about art and be in a good position to apply it in your own work.
–Brian
By Brian Yoder, at 4:28 PM
Well done, Brian. I think you made an excellent argument, there. I'm convinced.
Your site is an oasis for art lovers who are parched by the current "artistic" environment.
By Scarlet, at 8:26 AM
Why is it that people like you Brian who "talk" most about freedom are those who are most keen to tell others what to think. Let's face it - you are not interested in art history or truth and as for education you're not even on first base - Thank God. You make the Internet smell. Some of us are old enough to see a stinking subtext when it disguises itself behind your glib words and Art-renewal's site!
By Anonymous, at 5:29 AM
>Why is it that people like you Brian who "talk" most
>about freedom are those who are most keen to tell
>others what to think.
Well, I do tell people what I think and I think it would be good for people to think likewise (who doesn't? You?) but freedom of speech is about being free of force controlling their speech. I absolutely oppose anyone using any kind of force against against those with whom I disagree, but it seems that you don't like the fact that I say what's on my mind per se (in addition perhaps to not agreeing with something I have to say). Aren't you doing what you are accusing me of (though with no particular intellectual content)? Or do you think that I am actually going to go beat people up if they disagree or try to get laws passed that would send people to jail for disagreeing with me? Are you claiming that I have no right to say things that some people might disagree with? How is that consistent with freedom of speech? In any event, how is it that even if I was saying "I am telling everyone what to think and if you don't think as I instruct you are going to be in big trouble.", do I not have a right to say that? I think I do...if I want to.
>Let's face it - you are not interested in art history or
>truth and as for education you're not even on first
>base - Thank God. You make the Internet smell.
What kind of criticism is that? Can't you even point to anything I have said that is false or misleading? Come on, this is playground insult stuff.
>Some of us are old enough to see a stinking subtext
>when it disguises itself behind your glib words and
>Art-renewal's site!
And what exactly is this "subtext" that you seem to think is so "stinky"? This content-free sneering doesn't do your cause much good if you can't even name the thing tht you don't like. It's also not a very "adult" way to address issues and ideas.
--Brian
By Brian Yoder, at 9:50 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home