Vasari, Kristeva, Freud, and ME!

As I read up on Freud's book, I noticed the very sexual analysis that he made about Leonardo.  Freud always seemed to poised to read entirely more than really (in my mind) necessary, but he does make a valid point. The memory does seem pretty darn sexual. Other than that, Freud was a pervert who falsified a of his findings anyway. At least Kristeva puts up a really strong and complex case for her analyses.

On to my own analysis of a Renaissance painting. This is Colonna Madonna by Raphael. 

Raphael may have been infinitely sweet, but that was perhaps a ruse to hide his deeply mischievous behavior and personality. Just look at the painting! Baby Jesus is putting his hand down Mary's shirt. She looks up from her reading, glances at her naughty baby, and smiles, most likely shrugging off his groping at an adorable innocent action. But he's even looking at us, saying, "Look what I've got here. And you think I'm completely pure!" Even the Messiah can be impish. It almost seems as if Mary has blush on her cheeks, another coy fact exploited by Raphael's brush. This painting is so uncharacteristic of his work in the deviousness of subject matter, but it may have been a quiet joke he put out there to test if people were really paying attention to his art and not just blindly lauding him with praise.

The Magician - Bosch

The Magician

His hands reveal
A burnished ball

The man in red
Disbelieves

He should worry about
His back

The bespectacled man
Pulls purse strings

A boy with a walking frame
Amused

By the man in red's
Scrunched up face

The lady in red
Looks on

As the man in black
Attempts to entice her

The other spectators refuse
To look in the same place

An armored dog
Hides behind the Magician's table

Who knows what trick
Was played?

Only the owl in the basket
And his master

Babies, Boobies, Bellini, and...Kristeva? Motherhood is crazy!

1. Bellini is definitely influenced by the "Byzantine" artistic traditions, "Mediterranean architectural manner," and "Flemish landscape paintings."
2. Bellini's position and birth order is quite confused, as well as the information about a biological mother. Anna, his father's wife, did not list or mention him in her will. This shows that he could very well have been a bastard child. There is no mother present thusly, which explains in some ways for his almost detached adoration of his Madonnas.
3. The paintings appear to have a very masculine focus that holds a pretty sexist view of the mother only existing for the son. Also, with biographical evidence, his father overrode his mother(s) will and "seductive" quality, which explains the male centric Madonna paintings.
4. Bellini's Madonnas are not baby centric at all, but are directly opposite; the mother is never really looking or connecting with the baby, revealing a sense of loss and unreachable space for the "painter as baby."
5. The "jouissance" is present within the folds of the Madonna's clothing especially in the walled off separation of the "hots" and "colds" embodied by the red and blue.
6. There is a sort of dual issue within art depicting Christ's death, but specifically within the context of Bellini that explains the Pieta and adoration of Christ, as well as clearly revealing the Virgin's serenity.
7. The paintings begin as quite Byzantine especially as the Madonna barely touching the baby (just her fingertips), then become more and more possessive, causing the infant to increasingly fear her, then she begins to pull away from him almost completely, her serenity turning into near hostility, as well as the infant's supposed strangulation of her leading her into guilty territory. At the end, everything is separated and the infant now fearfully clings to a man, entrusting his babyhood to a saint and realizing his abandoning by his mother.
8. His wife and son died within that span of time which caused him to retract the seductive Madonna but to at last use paternity as a path to reclaiming the maternal experience and greater capture the jouissance.

Inauguration - I know its a tad late...

What I was immediately struck by was the almost wholly religious quality the inauguration had. I don't mean it was a holy event per se, but it felt like a service with all the standing and sitting, sermon-like speeches, music, and poetry, as well as the appearance from a preacher. But this is to be expected of a country founded upon Christian ideals and beliefs, in a sense. 

But the real "presidential" feeling of this event came to me in the form of the strange, perhaps nearly royal trumpeting and band music. It was all silly pomp and circumstance in the truly American way that cannot be feared but not disregarded as fluff either. It has a quality that is grand but also hides in itself at the same time, afraid to be too overbearing. The symbiotic relationship between this music and the announcing of the filing politicians in perfect coordinated lines, timed, and released as to seem appropriately stately, had a few slip ups but perhaps if it was too polished it would seem rehearsed and too rigid. 

One of the moments that really defined the day for me was when President Obama received his title officially. He seemed so excited that he didn't wait long enough to listen to all he had to repeat and jumped ahead like a little boy excited to recite his poem in class. 

I can't explain my admiration for this man. There is a weird sweeping emotion that catches me whenever I see him and hear him. I feel that even parts of his speech seemed like scripture for example, "they did it for us" just as "Jesus sacrificed himself for us sinners." 

Yeah, I cried. I'm a baby. Its probably a product of feeling as part of an entity, a group, and subsequently lose my own individuality, by surrendering it to the all consuming ecstasy of the "United States." Solidarity can sometimes be frightening and make you feel inhuman, but this time I experienced no such qualms or bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this day ushered in my life as a true "citizen" of this country and world. 

Popes and Presidents - A How To On Big Name Portraiture

While these two power figures are different, the way they are depicted has seen a slow process of emotional value over the years. The early portraits of the Pope's in the severe and stoic expression wouldn't really swing in today's world. The portraits of the most recent Pope's are so positive they are almost disturbing, especially in the case of the portraits of Pope Benedict. Francis Bacon's play and experimentation on the archaic solemnity produces truly disturbing results with Pope's who seem to be either in peril or insane or they are placed with strange and controversial objects, such as chimpanzees, or seem to in cages, their faces melting or segmenting. What is the right way to do it? Perhaps all of them work for their purpose but either one type makes me laugh (the Bacon popes) or makes me uneasy (the recent portraits. The one's I am most comfortable with are the Renaissance  portraits. I can look at them and analyze the technique, the scene, and appreciate as art but not enjoy it. Maybe this is my personal aesthetics at work, but maybe the only way I would be awed by or admire a papal portrait is if the Pope were riding a dinosaur, sporting some armor, or doing something else "awesome." Perhaps I wouldn't be so unsettled by Pope Benedict's portraits if he were dressed as the Emperor from Star Wars. 

In the case of Presidential portraiture, things are quite varied. George Washington's portrait was the first and that set the standard, sort of, for portraits up to those in the past 30 to 50 years, meaning from the chest up. It was clean and stoic. But John Adams' portrait showed a humorous hint of a smile and sporadically since then few others before the mid 20th century showed such emotional value. Often, if they did, the smile seemed to be almost hiding or ashamed of itself. Up until recently, papal portraits were almost always seated portraits of the popes and have only moved into the territory of various posters and located. But Presidential portraits have never been uniformly just chest up portraits but often depicted them standing, sitting in a thoughtful posture, holding something awfully presidential like a pen or some sort of symbol of power, or in the case of FDR's portrait it was basically a glorified sketch, mostly interested in his various hand positions. The materials used and color palette only began being experimented with in the early and mid 20th century. JFK's portrait is especially intriguing in its very colorful, energetic, and almost fauvist representation. Old traditions are being left behind in both cases for a more "modern" take, perhaps as to not alienate the viewer with its cold emotion or structured pose. 

I do still wish there were more portraits of Presidents and Popes riding lions or even doing something heroic and epic. 

This reminds me of the many depictions of our soon to be inaugurated President Barack Obama. I remember a very funny pop type poster of him posing like Superman mid costume change, with a giant O on his chest. Even the Change posters had a pretty impressive quality to him. Its not like people are deifying him but perhaps making him larger than life. I appreciate those examples more than the cold representations of the past. Perhaps his portrait may show him as a defender of peace... complete with spandex. 

Engagement Rings - A Personal Interest

What about this object makes a woman squeal? I myself have been turning the question over in my head ever since I saw my friend flash hers in my general direction last week. The surprise was overwhelming. Why was I so excited about the idea? Perhaps its a hidden envy or perhaps joy at an adult decision being reached by those newly out of adolescence. The more and more I considered the idea, the less and less excited I was about the notion. For one thing, she's not even out of school yet. Two, as I said earlier, she is quite young. Three, I had no idea she was dating this guy before break and it came as a shock she was engaged to him. Who is he and what makes her so eager to make such a binding "contract" with him? I mean, yes, the concept makes me giddy and the idea of proposal sends me into fits of fanciful daydreaming. But financial security, decisions about living together, buying a house, etc. these should be thought of much more in depth before a snap decision is made. You may be in love but that doesn't mean everything is just going to fall into place.

This whole issue sent me into a flurry of research. Her ring was not some super tacky diamond monstrosity, but actually an heirloom of his family. Which also nags at me; what do his parents think of giving her this precious object? One of the origins of the engagement ring comes from the Egyptians whole believed that the vein of the ring finger went straight into the heart. Diamonds were pretty rare in the Middle Ages, so only the very wealthy and royalty could purchase diamond engagement rings. Those in the lower classes could wear Fede rings (faith) much like the modern Claddagh design of clasping hands. Diamonds were quite unusual so often precious stones were used instead. After the modern boom of diamond extraction in Africa, trends went back to using rarer stones, mainly birthstones. 

In these times of financial crises and faltering economies, I'm glad her ring wasn't some gaudy piece of rock. It is hard as well to separate engagement and marriage from the material and money world. I do hope she and her partner have done some planning, because this joyous yet risky idea of belonging could be worse for her in the long run. I mean, she's not even a senior. Is it better to wait and see, than to let our eyes override our brains just because of a jewel or is it right when you "feel" it?

Giotto and other artistic anecdotes

Giotto's anecdotes, as written by Vasari, indicate fictional (or perhaps real) events that boast/explain how much of a masterful artist he really was. These seem like godly endeavors but in truth, the characterization of them truly humanizes Giotto as a childlike but extraordinary man.

Now, I present a fictional anecdote about my fictional artist Cyrus Azgana:

Cyrus lived in the small town of Cabrinni located in the almost empty Isles of Lavia. As a young boy, Cyrus worked for his father helping him mine out precious crystals in the mountain by his hometown. These crystals were incredibly beautiful but also served as reinforces for buildings due to their strength and durability. Cyrus, as everyone who knows him can attest, is often very mischievous. One day while mining his father had gone higher up the mountain face and Cyrus took the opportunity to use his chisel (that was mainly used when carving the crystals for placement in foundations) to chip away at the stone into the likeness of the crystal. He called for his father to come help him. Dazed because their work day was already long, his father looked at the stone and thought it crystal. As he began to hakc at it with his pick, he slowly realized that the stone may have had the likeness of the crystal but not the luminousity nor color of it. Cursing, he scolded Cyrus and made him work late that day mining.

Not as inspiring as Giotto's but I feel it rightfully represents the feeling those anecdotes showed.