The reading this week focused quite a bit on Titian's painting style and how progressive it was, so bear with me while I articulately recap and share my thoughts on everything.
One of the really cool things about Titian was his working relationships with his patrons at the time. Titian, often at the request of his patrons, was allowed to choose his own subject matter when painting, and was allowed to present these works as commissions. This was an astounding level of freedom at the time, when painters were commonly stuck in business transactions where the subject matter of their art was chosen for this. This was an unprecedented amount of artistic freedom, and we really wouldn't see it again until modern times.
Now, on to Titian's paintings themselves. This dude is totally a pro. Here, don't just take my word for it. check out the Venus of Urbino;
This idealized form of beauty brings us to the next point in the reading, namely the misogyny that this and other nudes may or may not represent. And honestly, I'm...not sure how I feel about that. "Not every culture distinguishes the erotic from the pornographic," as Fidlen states, but I really don't see the Venus of Urbino as a pornographic representation. Titian's nudes have an undeniable air of class and grace, despite the whole "laying there naked whilst giving you the eye" thing, and while there's certainly an erotic subtext, I wouldn't necessarily argue it as a pornographic one. At least not one that was meant to be deliberately pornographic.
Save that thought ("whilst giving you the eye thing") and repost when we get to Titian. Note on the syllabus when readings are due -- not that I want you to WAIT, but just wondered if you were aware of the syllabus. . .
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Impressionist didn't really paint nudes. Manet did his, based on Titian, but he was not "an Impressionist" at the time. Renoir painted nudes, but only after he got tired of Impressionism. Impressionists didn't like nudes because they were so much a part of the academy.
ReplyDelete