Two movies make the cut
It is tremendously refreshing to watch movies which persist with a life-affirming spirit.
"Apocalypto", as I discussed previously, is what I believe to be Mel Gibson's impassioned attempt to bring back some sort of Christian theme into art.
We have another, "300", which depicts the ingenious courage of a group of soldiers, who in the face of certain death, give up their lives to ensure the eventual defeat of their enemy.
And both have been canned as being too simplistic, and branching off from the historical accounts and verging onto fantasy.
I won't dispute the historical criticisms these movies have received, but some sources do say that they're not far from the truth at all.
But, more than the 100% factual accuracy, what is encouraging about these movies is that Art seems to have won the day.
They are lushly, even exquisitely, made with all the paraphernalia of modern film making. And art, together with bullish optimism is a powerful combination.
I should also add, there were some clear Christian imagery in "300". I'm not sure of the director's background, but it certainly was deliberate. I'll elaborate on this later.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Reaping and Sowing
Idolizing ugliness
Lucien Freud, the grandson of Sigmund Freud, is considered one of the leading portraitists alive today.
The problem is, he paints very ugly portraits. His infamously unflattering portrait of Queen Elizabeth earned him a “Freud should be locked in the Tower for this” admonishment from Royal Photographer Arthur Edwards.
And Edwards is no hypocrite, since one of his last photographs of the Queen Mother shows her in sympathy and sweetness that is possible at any age, and perhaps more so at the advanced 100 years of this lady.
The Queen Mother leaving the Order of the Garter ceremony at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on June 19, 2000. - Royal Photographer to the Sun, Arthur Edwards
I get the feeling that Freud's sitters do not want to appear vain, and accept any rendition of them which Freud paints, which is usually awful. But, ugliness – especially false ugliness – is as bad a crime, and as idolatrous, as overzealous beauty. What counts is truth, and maybe sympathy, neither of which Freud possesses.
So, what does this have to do with reaping and sowing?
Well, one of Freud’s (40 or so) children, fashion designer Bella Freud, has notoriously entered the Palestine/Israeli conflict in her own manner. She’s making appearances in Britain television denouncing the Israeli "occupation", and makes charitable contributions to Palestinian causes.
This, from a Jewish woman who's family had to flee Nazi Germany for fear of persecution, and whose land the Arab Palestinians have made it their life's mission to destroy.
Lucien Freud gives as deadened portraits, and his daughter takes this one step further and wishes death on own her Jewish nationals.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by Lucien Freud, 2001
| Galatians 6:7-8 7 For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life. |
Lucien Freud, the grandson of Sigmund Freud, is considered one of the leading portraitists alive today.
The problem is, he paints very ugly portraits. His infamously unflattering portrait of Queen Elizabeth earned him a “Freud should be locked in the Tower for this” admonishment from Royal Photographer Arthur Edwards.
And Edwards is no hypocrite, since one of his last photographs of the Queen Mother shows her in sympathy and sweetness that is possible at any age, and perhaps more so at the advanced 100 years of this lady.
 |
I get the feeling that Freud's sitters do not want to appear vain, and accept any rendition of them which Freud paints, which is usually awful. But, ugliness – especially false ugliness – is as bad a crime, and as idolatrous, as overzealous beauty. What counts is truth, and maybe sympathy, neither of which Freud possesses.
So, what does this have to do with reaping and sowing?
Well, one of Freud’s (40 or so) children, fashion designer Bella Freud, has notoriously entered the Palestine/Israeli conflict in her own manner. She’s making appearances in Britain television denouncing the Israeli "occupation", and makes charitable contributions to Palestinian causes.
This, from a Jewish woman who's family had to flee Nazi Germany for fear of persecution, and whose land the Arab Palestinians have made it their life's mission to destroy.
Lucien Freud gives as deadened portraits, and his daughter takes this one step further and wishes death on own her Jewish nationals.
 |
Monday, March 5, 2007
Tiffany Out the Window
The slow erosion of art in America
L.C. Tiffany: View of Oyster Bay
One of the astonishing things I learned about Tiffany's stained glass art works is that his masterpieces were destroyed ("massacred" to use the words of historian Paul Johnson) after his death during the Great Depression of the mid-1930s.
Although this may be attributed to the rejection of luxe and affluence that Tiffany's works induced, I think it was more of a rejection of beauty and aesthetics in art in general.
In fact, his popularity was waning even before the 1930s mainly due to newer developments in art.
His art nouveau style, which emphasizes nature, was being taken over by the more mechanical and industrial art deco, and Tiffany never took to the modern movements - fauvists and cubists to name the two that he disliked most.
He reacted to the introduction of modern art at the New York Armory in 1913 by making even more elaborate objects to decorate his homes.
Finally, though, his pieces, collected from various locations and by astute admirers, now fetch huge (and deserving) prices.
But, not until the damage was done.
 |
L.C. Tiffany: View of Oyster Bay
One of the astonishing things I learned about Tiffany's stained glass art works is that his masterpieces were destroyed ("massacred" to use the words of historian Paul Johnson) after his death during the Great Depression of the mid-1930s.
Although this may be attributed to the rejection of luxe and affluence that Tiffany's works induced, I think it was more of a rejection of beauty and aesthetics in art in general.
In fact, his popularity was waning even before the 1930s mainly due to newer developments in art.
His art nouveau style, which emphasizes nature, was being taken over by the more mechanical and industrial art deco, and Tiffany never took to the modern movements - fauvists and cubists to name the two that he disliked most.
He reacted to the introduction of modern art at the New York Armory in 1913 by making even more elaborate objects to decorate his homes.
Finally, though, his pieces, collected from various locations and by astute admirers, now fetch huge (and deserving) prices.
But, not until the damage was done.