The most poetically beautiful English prose?( Fiction) [Archive]

cafolini

09-23-2011, 09:01 PM

A very old man with enormous wings by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

By the end of the third day of rain they had killed so many crabs inside de house that Pelayo had to walk across his flooded patio to throw them back in the sea, because the newborn had spend the night with high fever and they all thought the crab pest was the cause. The world was in the saddest grey since Tuesday. The sea and the sky were both made of the same ash, and the sands at the beach, which in March showed the radiance of sun powder, now showed the broth of a swamp with putrid seashells. The light was so tame at noon that when Pelayo made his way back to the house after having finished his chore with the crabs, he had a hard time figuring out what was moving with lamentations, in the back of the patio. He had to walk very near to discover that it was a very old man, laying on his chest and sinking in the mud, who in spite of his great effort could not get up because his enormous, wet wings, were too much for his age. Scared by what he believed was a nightmare, Pelayo run into the house to look for Elisenda, his wife, who was trying to cure the baby with mustard patches, and he took her to the back to look at his finding. Both observed the fallen body with terrified stupor. He was dressed like a hobo. He had just a few pieces of discolored cloth left on his body and a completely bald skull, very few teeth, and his condition of miserable great grandfather sunk in the crab broth had evaporated all his greatness. His enormous wings, dirty and close to featherless, appeared to be anchored forever. Pelayo and his wife observed him for such a long time that at last they overcame their amazement and ended up thinking he had been very familiar from the beginning. Then they dared speak to him, and he answered with a unheard dialect but with a good navigator’s voice. It was thus that they no longer thought so much about the wings' inconvenience, and concluded with very good judgment that the old man was a solitary victim of a foreign shipwreck battered by the storm. Nevertheless, they called on a clarevoyant neighbor who knew all things about life or death, and she needed no more than a quick look to rescue them from any bits of terror that were still left in their souls. “It’s an angel,” she said. “I’m sure he was coming for the baby, but the poor thing is so old, so old, that he was downed by the rain.”

mal4mac

09-24-2011, 07:45 AM

From the opening chapter of Bleak House by Charles Dickens:

"Fog everywhere. Fog up the river, where it flows among green aits and meadows; fog down the river, where it rolls defiled among the tiers of shipping and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city. Fog on the Essex marshes, fog on the Kentish heights. Fog creeping into the cabooses of collier-brigs; fog lying out on the yards, and hovering in the rigging of great ships; fog drooping on the gunwales of barges and small boats. Fog in the eyes and throats of ancient Greenwich pensioners, wheezing by the firesides of their wards; fog in the stem and bowl of the afternoon pipe of the wrathful skipper, down in his close cabin; fog cruelly pinching the toes and fingers of his shivering little ’prentice boy on deck. Chance people on the bridges peeping over the parapets into a nether sky of fog, with fog all round them, as if they were up in a balloon, and hanging in the misty clouds.

Gas looming through the fog in divers places in the streets, much as the sun may, from the spongey fields, be seen to loom by husbandman and ploughboy. Most of the shops lighted two hours before their time — as the gas seems to know, for it has a haggard and unwilling look.

The raw afternoon is rawest, and the dense fog is densest, and the muddy streets are muddiest near that leaden-headed old obstruction, appropriate ornament for the threshold of a leaden-headed old corporation, Temple Bar. And hard by Temple Bar, in Lincoln’s Inn Hall, at the very heart of the fog, sits the Lord High Chancellor in his High Court of Chancery."

Think of George Osborne as he sits in the fog of the latest economic collapse in No 11 Downing Street, sucking on a chicken legs, as he dines with his banker friends and doles out the latest £1000 000 bonuses for wrecking lives...

JBI

09-24-2011, 09:25 AM

All this just to not read poetry, oh how impoverished :p. If you want poetic prose, why not just try poetry.

Raven Falcon.

09-24-2011, 09:51 AM

All this just to not read poetry, oh how impoverished :p. If you want poetic prose, why not just try poetry.

I've read Paradise Lost. It's beautiful. Its use of English language is unmatched.

But poetic prose supported by strong plot and believable characters are what make the best of literature, in my opinion.

Not saying that poems don't have narrative, because some poems do.

stlukesguild

09-24-2011, 10:57 AM

I've always thought Herman Hesse had great prose, specifically Narcissus and Goldmund

Ummm... Hermann Hesse didn't write in English... neither did Gabriel Garcia Marquez:shocked:

But poetic prose supported by strong plot and believable characters are what make the best of literature, in my opinion.

It could be that your opinion is far from reality. The novel is a rather recent development in terms of the history of literature, while poetry is far older. Member Mortalterror threw up a list of literary works on another thread including:

1.The Iliad
2.The Odyssey
3.The Divine Comedy
4.The Plays of Shakespeare
5.The Shahnameh
6.The Mahabharata
7.War and Peace
8.The Dream of the Red Chamber
9.The Aeneid
10. The Ramayana

I might add the Bible, Paradise Lost, The Canterbury Tales, Les Fleurs du mal, Leaves of Grass, and a good many others all ranking among the greatest works of literary art ever. Of these, only War and Peace and The Dream of the Red Chamber are novels... concerned primarily with character development and plot conveyed through prose.

I'm not suggesting there aren't great novels out there or that that narrative (story telling) and character development are not of merit... but the novel... the art form that is most centered upon these elements... is a relatively new development and certainly doesn't account for anywhere near the majority of the strongest literature out there.

I would also suggest that it would be difficult to define "poetic prose" when you consider that poetry itself varies greatly in style. There's another thread on "prose stylists" that explores a similar idea:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64397

kiki1982

09-24-2011, 12:29 PM

And that's why I do not like Dickens. It annoys me, it is too obvious, it is too poor, his choice of words is unoriginal.

Much as I was annoyed by the too obvious nature of The Picture of Dorian Gray (for a novel), Wilde's descriptions were worth the name. Original in wording and flowing like the river in Dickens's piece should have flowed, but did not really.

George Eliot sometimes does well too.

And Hardy, of course. Sometimes he has weird ideas and images, which make his descriptions interesting.

I wish i could list Dutch writer Marcellus Emants, but he didn't write in English, although he works remarkably well in it.

JBI

09-24-2011, 12:37 PM

The most famous parts of Dream of the Red Chamber are mostly found in its poetry. In truth, the poetry has been paid far more attention by scholars than much of the plot development, with the exception of the scholarly field designated to try to guess the correct ending.

Traditional Chinese novels in general make extensive use of poetic interjection - most of which is mediocre.

The novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms for instance relies heavily on poetry, as the book was assembled from readings of storyteller's books, which would open with poetry describing what was going to be narrated that day, and close with a summary - as well as use poems for flavor and to keep people interested.

Red Chambers offers a different poetry, where Cao has imbued each character with its own poetic sensibility, which is perhaps the most interesting part of the book, and what in general has made it so enduring and famous.

As for poetic prose - that's an oxymoron. Prose fiction in English really developed out of a mentality of neo-Platonic neo-Classicism that tried to regulate. Our whole idea of novel in English prose fiction is rooted in morality and rigidity.

Seriously, most people are just afraid of verse - I am yet to meet someone who understands it yet doesn't enjoy it.

osho

09-24-2011, 12:42 PM

We are unfortunately lost in a world of English and Americanism. Go beyond that narrow periphery to embrace the more beautiful prose of ancient Sanskrit texts. Can you compare any book ancient or modern with the Mahabharata and the Ramayana? Can you find anything to match with the philosophy o f the Mahabharata? All get dazzled. Our blinkered attitudes made us marginal thinkers

The Panchatantra - have you ever heard about it? -is such a beautifully written poetic prose work this is simply matchless

mal4mac

09-24-2011, 12:59 PM

War and Peace is only one of several novels of similar stature. Middlemarch, Bleak House, Moby Dick and Don Quixote would not look out of place on MortalTerrors list, and are (surely) at least as worthy to appear as Les Fleurs du mal or Leaves of Grass.

MortalTerrors list seems biased towards Ancient Literature. I don't see that 'Ancient = Strongest', only that 'Ancient = Most Influential'. This has to be the case as Ancient Literature has had more time to influence matters! Creating a more even balance with post 17th century literature would have to include several novels.

I'm certainly nor arguing that one shouldn't try some other literature, but one shouldn't despair if you end up reading mostly novels. There is no one who can say that such a diet is impoverished, except yourself. If you feel that your reading is impoverished then maybe it's time to try something else...

I read mostly novels and feel far from impoverished. I do dip into poetry now and again - I'm doing five pages a day of Milton at the moment - about all my poor little brain can take before retreating to a novel... and *yes* I can see there is beauty in the language, and power in the narrative, but I still can't wait to get back to the current novel.

And that's why I do not like Dickens. It annoys me, it is too obvious, it is too poor, his choice of words is unoriginal.

The London fog is a fairly obvious metaphor for the fog of legal proceedings, I agree, but that is no reason not use it, if you have the powers of prose-poetry that Dickens can command.

Can you point to a similar passage by an earlier writer that has such power to evoke an atmosphere of hidden corruption? Or simply just the atmosphere of an atmosphere - that captures the smoggy London of Victorian times so well?

I can't see how you can call the passage poor - I can only think you are deaf to that particular music.

Where is the original for his choice of words?

stlukesguild

09-24-2011, 01:37 PM

We are unfortunately lost in a world of English and Americanism. Go beyond that narrow periphery to embrace the more beautiful prose of ancient Sanskrit texts. Can you compare any book ancient or modern with the Mahabharata and the Ramayana?

The Bible, The Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, War and Peace, etc... all are more than able to stand up to comparison with the great Indian texts. Add to this the Arabian Nights and the Shahnameh among Persian literature and undoubtedly JBI could cite several Chinese works of equal merit. We might also need to consider that the texts you cite are largely compendiums... anthologies... a collection of tales and poetry not unlike the Bible. They are not a single work of art created by a single artist. One might as well compare the great buried army of Qin Shi Huang...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6178565342_81eafe5109.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6178565380_7f3f9ea657.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6170/6178040239_322fe0a286_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6160/6178565462_032c81a155_z.jpg

or the Cathedral of Chartres:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/6178565734_54a8c613df_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/6178040481_865fda8395_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6178040415_751b122f98_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/6178565828_8c357d2157_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6151/6178565500_528915ece7_z.jpg

... both of which are the product of literally thousands of skilled artists and craftsmen contrasted to the masterwork of a single artist... even the most prolific and superhuman:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6166/6178042151_0ba94cdf8b_b.jpg

The comparison is of little worth.

Can you find anything to match with the philosophy of the Mahabharata? All get dazzled. Our blinkered attitudes made us marginal thinkers

As others have suggested, you make too many presumptive uses of the terms "we" and "us". There are more than a few of "us" who have more than a passing familiarity of the artistic achievements beyond the West... and "we" recognize its merits... which are in no way inherently superior to those of the West. The Mahabharata may offer what you imagine to be the most profound philosophy... but a good many would argue that the Bible, Plato, Michel de Montaigne, Lucretius, Shakespeare, and many other Western writers offer a philosophy that is no less profound.

KazooOchestra

09-24-2011, 01:49 PM

The Nellie, a cruising yawl, swung to her anchor without a flutter
of the sails, and was at rest. The flood had made, the wind was nearly
calm, and being bound down the river, the only thing for it was to
come to and wait for the turn of the tide.

The sea-reach of the Thames stretched before us like the beginning of an
interminable waterway. In the offing the sea and the sky were welded
together without a joint, and in the luminous space the tanned sails
of the barges drifting up with the tide seemed to stand still in red
clusters of canvas sharply peaked, with gleams of varnished sprits.
A haze rested on the low shores that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness.
The air was dark above Gravesend, and farther back still seemed
condensed into a mournful gloom, brooding motionless over the biggest,
and the greatest, town on earth.

-Heart of Darkness

ftil

09-24-2011, 02:18 PM

We are unfortunately lost in a world of English and Americanism. Go beyond that narrow periphery to embrace the more beautiful prose of ancient Sanskrit texts. Can you compare any book ancient or modern with the Mahabharata and the Ramayana?

The Bible, The Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, War and Peace, etc... all are more than able to stand up to comparison with the great Indian texts. Add to this the Arabian Nights and the Shahnameh among Persian literature and undoubtedly JBI could cite several Chinese works of equal merit. We might also need to consider that the texts you cite are largely compendiums... anthologies... a collection of tales and poetry not unlike the Bible. They are not a single work of art created by a single artist. One might as well compare the great buried army of Qin Shi Huang...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6178565342_81eafe5109.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6178565380_7f3f9ea657.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6170/6178040239_322fe0a286_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6160/6178565462_032c81a155_z.jpg

or the Cathedral of Chartres:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/6178565734_54a8c613df_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/6178040481_865fda8395_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6178040415_751b122f98_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/6178565828_8c357d2157_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6151/6178565500_528915ece7_z.jpg

... both of which are the product of literally thousands of skilled artists and craftsmen contrasted to the masterwork of a single artist... even the most prolific and superhuman:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6166/6178042151_0ba94cdf8b_b.jpg

The comparison is of little worth.

Can you find anything to match with the philosophy of the Mahabharata? All get dazzled. Our blinkered attitudes made us marginal thinkers

As others have suggested, you make too many presumptive uses of the terms "we" and "us". There are more than a few of "us" who have more than a passing familiarity of the artistic achievements beyond the West... and "we" recognize its merits... which are in no way inherently superior to those of the West. The Mahabharata may offer what you imagine to be the most profound philosophy... but a good many would argue that the Bible, Plato, Michel de Montaigne, Lucretius, Shakespeare, and many other Western writers offer a philosophy that is no less profound.

Well said. :thumbsup: I prefer West philosophy and literature. It is very personal what we like or not. But I read religious or philosophical texts with a critical eye.

Osho wrote:
Our blinkered attitudes made us marginal thinkers

LOL!

kiki1982

09-24-2011, 03:03 PM

The London fog is a fairly obvious metaphor for the fog of legal proceedings, I agree, but that is no reason not use it, if you have the powers of prose-poetry that Dickens can command.

Can you point to a similar passage by an earlier writer that has such power to evoke an atmosphere of hidden corruption? Or simply just the atmosphere of an atmosphere - that captures the smoggy London of Victorian times so well?

I can't see how you can call the passage poor - I can only think you are deaf to that particular music.

Where is the original for his choice of words?

Oh, I am not talking about the metaphor in itself. Rather about the way it is described. To me, the language is poor, too obvious and unoriginal. True, he was writing for a publc wchich was not going to comprehend the kind of high-brow vocab Hardy used, but please. To me, and that is why I would like to chuck a Dickens book against the wall after about two pages (if he is lucky) it is as if, firstly, he had a good idea but failed to execute it well and secondly, did not have the vocabulary to do it properly. Say Turner but without the ability to capture and with his paint falling off the canvas after a few years.

The metaphor is fine, but do you have use the most obvious words? Repeat fog over and over as if for the first time it was not enough? He could have opted for another word.

Again, give the same to Hardy and he makes it something out of this world. Or maybe to Scott? His descriptions of the Highlands in Waverley were eye-watering sometimes. Although I did not get into that novel, he did capture that spirit.

"Fine old Christmas, with the snowy hair and ruddy face, had done his duty that year in the noblest fashion and had set off his rich gifts of warmth and colour with all the neighbouring contrast of frost and snow." (George Eliot, The Mill on the Floss)

Can't remember whether it is a metaphor, but it is certainly much shorter and exactly gives you the feeling it should give, and it is a great idea in itself as well.

Hardy's description of Tess listening to Angel playing on his lyre (?) when they are both working at that dairy farm is also pretty special. Some reminiscences of Apollo or something... There is an Eden feeling in the whole passage and the sancing of the light in the high grass (?) was most captivating.

Also Marcellus Emants, Dutch writer and as yet not translated apart from one late book of his, outdoes himself sometimes. What he has flowing from his pen... And yes that is later, and?

My point about Dickens is that he is too obvious in his use of words. He picks nothing that is original, special, interesting.

Take his description of Venice in Little Dorrit. At that time it was the most disgusting and filthy place in Europe. Run down because the wealth of its inhabitants was squandered in the 18th century, full of diseased people, crammed together in the tiny area. He presents it as an airy place of dreams, most wonderful. You would swear he had never been there, yet he was there twice! If anything the state of it was worse than London. It had once been a place of dreams, but in the 19th century it was a place wehre nothing was going on, where there was no future. Think Whitechapel, London, but ten times the size at least.It is as if he just looked around and decided that Venice must be the place of dreams, romance etc. (as it is marketed now), only totally out of place. Or otherwise I missed something.

Tournesol

09-24-2011, 04:13 PM

I have to agree with Kiki, about Thomas Hardy. His descriptions both of landscapes and of characters tend to be quite poetic.

Also, I find Samuel Selvon, in his short story 'My Girl and the City' is very, poetic prose. It's such a beautiful story that it sometimes makes me want to cry!

Stewed

09-24-2011, 05:38 PM

Ragnar Freund

09-24-2011, 05:49 PM

[Falcon Raven] But poetic prose supported by strong plot and believable characters are what make the best of literature, in my opinion.

[stlukesguild] It could be that your opinion is far from reality.

And what reality would that be? Raven Falcon explicitly stated that this was his opinion, so either you equate your opinion with reality, or else you claim that there is some objective, absolute yardstick of which I'm unaware.

I agree with rest of your comment, and I'm actually in the process of writing a post decrying the downfall of the short story and the rise of the novel as the major product of modern literature.

JBI

09-24-2011, 06:04 PM

I don't know - to me the strength of Dickens lies in his comic-strip creation of characters - I don't think anybody else can come up with such interesting caricatures, even minor characters have their comedic flair.

Comedy writing is a strange art - Dickens had an aptitude for it, regardless of the chunkiness of his prose. It's really a question of how much one can stomach prose-fiction. In general most Victorian authors suffered from similar problems, such as Trollope, or even the more Gothic Brontes.

As for those Terracotta Warriors, meh, kind of boring to be honest, it's like a big factory with a bunch of boring statues. In the Chinese tradition, what does it for me are Buddhist sculpture - the Terracotta warriors are interesting since they are numerous, and since nobody is particularly sure how they were created, but in the end look even more ridiculous with their paint on them.

Now, as for the great Rock Grottoes

Da Zu
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9176
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9177
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9178
Longmen
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9179
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9180
Yun'gang
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9183
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9182
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9181

As well as the ones in DunHuang which I have not been to. Note, for the Dazu ones, most of the most famous artwork is in a darkly lit cave where photography is not allowed, as goes for the Yungang ones.

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-24-2011, 06:24 PM

But poetic prose supported by strong plot and believable characters are what make the best of literature, in my opinion.

It could be that your opinion is far from reality. The novel is a rather recent development in terms of the history of literature, while poetry is far older. Member Mortalterror threw up a list of literary works on another thread including:

1.The Iliad
2.The Odyssey
3.The Divine Comedy
4.The Plays of Shakespeare
5.The Shahnameh
6.The Mahabharata
7.War and Peace
8.The Dream of the Red Chamber
9.The Aeneid
10. The Ramayana

I might add the Bible, Paradise Lost, The Canterbury Tales, Les Fleurs du mal, Leaves of Grass, and a good many others all ranking among the greatest works of literary art ever. Of these, only War and Peace and The Dream of the Red Chamber are novels... concerned primarily with character development and plot conveyed through prose.

I'm not suggesting there aren't great novels out there or that that narrative (story telling) and character development are not of merit... but the novel... the art form that is most centered upon these elements... is a relatively new development and certainly doesn't account for anywhere near the majority of the strongest literature out there.

I would also suggest that it would be difficult to define "poetic prose" when you consider that poetry itself varies greatly in style. There's another thread on "prose stylists" that explores a similar idea:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64397
As could yours, StLukes. :D

JBI

09-24-2011, 06:41 PM

Or perhaps a far different kind of artwork - that of accidental agriculture:

The Yuanyang rice terraces - pictures not mine (the fog and distance cannot really take without a proper lens, I got maybe one picture of the top of one terrace view in my personal collection, though I bought the stacks of postcards)

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9187
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9184
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9186
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9185

Now that is what I call collective effort.

Gilliatt Gurgle

09-24-2011, 09:00 PM

Or perhaps a far different kind of artwork - that of accidental agriculture:

The Yuanyang rice terraces - pictures not mine (the fog and distance cannot really take without a proper lens, I got maybe one picture of the top of one terrace view in my personal collection, though I bought the stacks of postcards)

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=9184

Now that is what I call collective effort.

I'm at a loss for words. I'll just say amazing!
Thanks for sharing.

.

kinesj

09-25-2011, 02:07 AM

In no particular order: John Milton, William Faulkner, Thomas Wolfe, Robert Penn Warren, and Cormac McCarthy

kiki1982

09-25-2011, 05:11 AM

Repeating "fog" again and again gives the impression of a repeating beat: it's deliberately incantatory; and there are very serious writers of prose who deliberately choose simple language and short words.

I know some writers use that, and that does not bother me, but to me, he repeated it just that little bit too much so that it became rather annoying and actually distracted from the image he was trying to create in my mind. Also, for there to be a beat, there must be sentences somewhat similar with the same rhythm, which bothered me as well.

As Chaucer so brilliantly captured the tremblings and roars of war in that passage in The Knight's Tale. And I know that is verse, but he adjusted his rhythm especially.

Usually, when words are repeated, it makes a kind of tension that culminates in a climax. None of that either in the passage above (or otherwise the last bit was left out).

MarkBastable

09-25-2011, 05:38 AM

That bit of Dickens is one of my favourite passages of prose.

mal4mac

09-25-2011, 08:14 AM

Dickens is *so* good at beginning novels. Here's another "poetic" beginning, cast into the form of poetry to make the point :)

It was the best of times,
It was the worst of times,
It was the age of wisdom,
It was the age of foolishness,
It was the epoch of belief,
It was the epoch of incredulity,
It was the season of Light,
It was the season of Darkness,
It was the spring of hope,
It was the winter of despair,

We had everything before us,
We had nothing before us,
We were all going direct to Heaven,
We were all going direct the other way...

Beginning the first nine clauses with "It was"! The outrageousness of genius...

I know some writers use that, and that does not bother me, but to me, he repeated it just that little bit too much so that it became rather annoying and actually distracted from the image he was trying to create in my mind. Also, for there to be a beat, there must be sentences somewhat similar with the same rhythm, which bothered me as well.

He'd already done that in "Tale", ("it was...", "it was...")... perhaps - being a great original - he was aiming for a more swirling, inconstant beat this time - thereby reflecting the nature of fog, and the law, in his way of using language.

Drkshadow03

09-25-2011, 10:58 AM

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
The novel is a rather recent development in terms of the history of literature, while poetry is far older.

While, I would agree poetry is older than the novel, the tradition of the novel is older than you're giving credit. The novel it turns out is really not that novel. The Ancient Greeks and Romans had novels (http://www.amazon.com/Collected-Ancient-Greek-Novels-Reardon/dp/0520256557/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316961837&sr=1-2).

stlukesguild

09-25-2011, 11:07 AM

so either you equate your opinion with reality, or else you claim that there is some objective, absolute yardstick of which I'm unaware.

I questioned the truth of the statement, "poetic prose supported by strong plot and believable characters are what make the best of literature..." which Raven Falcon admitted was but a personal opinion. I am not challenging anyone's personal opinion with regard to what he or she likes. I tend to prefer poetry over novels. I am simply questioning the idea that what one individual prefers in terms of artistic intention is not necessarily what "makes the best literature."

It would seem that looking across the spectrum of literary history one discovers that the best literature is not necessarily limited to that written in "poetic prose" with a strong plot and character development... or any single genre or form. The best literature exists in a multitude of styles/forms/genre and explores a vast wealth of artistic intentions. The form/structure/emphasis of the traditional novel may be prevalent today, but in no way does it account for the lion's share of the greatest literature across the whole of history. Even among modern and contemporary writers we find any number who would in no way emphasize "poetic prose supported by strong plot and believable characters..."

Again, if Raven Falcon prefers a given genre and approach to literature, I have no qualms with this... because I recognize this is true of all of us... even those among us who have read a vast array of literature. We still have personal biases and preferences.

While, I would agree poetry is older than the novel, the tradition of the novel is older than you're giving credit. The novel it turns out is really not that novel. The Ancient Greeks and Romans had novels.

Well, of course we can always debate what counts as a true "novel". Prose narrative is not the sole definition. Stories and historical/fictive narratives and romances long predate the novel, and you undoubtedly know that the very term, "novel" is but a shortening of novella romance.

Richard Elliott Friedman, a Biblical scholar, has expanded upon the so-called Documentary Hypothesis which ascribes various different writers to different parts of the Hebrew Bible. Many scholars, even Harold Bloom in his Book of J, have recognized certain similarities between the so-called J-writer, responsible for much of the central narratives of Genesis and Exodus, and the S-writer or Court Historian who composed much of the Saul/David/Solomon. Bloom went so far to suggest that the two writers ... possibly women... may have known each other at the court. Friedman pushes the hypothesis further with an analysis of the choice of vocabulary and other textual clues to suggest the J-writer and S-writer are one and the same. Removing their contributions from the surrounding interpolations of later authors, Friedman suggests that what we discover is essentially the first novel in which the narratives of the creation, the fall, the first murder, the flood, the Exodus, etc... act as precursors to the great rulers of Israel and their tragic failings:

http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630043/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316963394&sr=1-1

The Wikipedia entry on the novel (surely a source that cannot be questioned:smilewinkgrin:) suggested another aspect required of the true Novel or "novella romance" and that was the existence and transference of the text through the means of mechanical reproduction (printing). certainly the printing press had an immense impact upon reading and the accessibility of books and broadening of the literate audience... which in a like manner, undoubtedly had a major impact upon the development of certain popular forms of literature, such as the novel.

As for those Terracotta Warriors, meh, kind of boring to be honest, it's like a big factory with a bunch of boring statues. In the Chinese tradition, what does it for me are Buddhist sculpture - the Terracotta warriors are interesting since they are numerous, and since nobody is particularly sure how they were created, but in the end look even more ridiculous with their paint on them.

I'll take the buried army of Qin Shi Huang over most of the Chinese Buddhas. I agree that the number of figures is essential to their merit. Of course I'm not big on most Chinese art, far preferring that of Indian and Japan among the achievements of Eastern art. The separate surely lack the individuality of the sculptural figures of Chartres... let alone Michelangelo, Bernini, and Rodin. They are mass-produced in many ways... and yet there are individual elements with regard to the ethnicity of various warriors, clothing etc...

Or perhaps a far different kind of artwork - that of accidental agriculture...

You are surely pushing the definition of "ART" here. We can find any number of visually arresting landscapes of human constructs:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6181267583_f3f1cc3d2d_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/6181791972_4fdbe418f2_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6167/6181791376_9945599d32_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6153/6181791602_fe7c17cace_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6170/6181268459_e9d6d484c6_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/6181792610_fc886e98e1_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6181268637_c939c40098_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6181792370_46733d4d9b_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6167/6181792500_5e6ebcdcfa_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6164/6181269025_e380b8cb68_z.jpg

And what of these lovely abstractions seen from above?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6152/6181792698_46623fd40c_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6175/6181792834_e16a7c2709_b.jpg

Deadly beauty. Both are toxic waste sites... the second from Canada.

irinmisfit92

09-25-2011, 12:04 PM

John Ajvide Lindqvist. <3

mortalterror

09-25-2011, 02:28 PM

As for those Terracotta Warriors, meh, kind of boring to be honest, it's like a big factory with a bunch of boring statues. In the Chinese tradition, what does it for me are Buddhist sculpture - the Terracotta warriors are interesting since they are numerous, and since nobody is particularly sure how they were created, but in the end look even more ridiculous with their paint on them.

Check these out:
The 500 Arhats of Qiongzhu Temple
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/GroupoffivehundredarhatsQionzhuTemple.jpg
These were mass produced by a team of artists just like the Terracotta Warriors but but they retain their individuality.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/800px-Qingzhu_arhats_2010_jan_2.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/800px-Qiongzhu_arhats_2010_jan_13.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/800px-Qiongzhu_arhats_2010_jan_14.jpg
Or this lovely statue of the goddess Guan Yin
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/Guanyin.jpg
I'm pretty sure these statues come from the caves of Dunhuang
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/3301972961_c25017e965_b.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/IMG_3666.jpg
Here's another arhat from the Lingansi Thousand Buddha Hall
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/LingyansiThousandBuddhaHallArhat.jpg
And a couple more to round things out
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/ThousandeyedthousandarmedGuanyinZhonglongshan.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/standingthousandeyedthousandhandedguanyinDabeipavi lion.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/Saliari/Statue_of_Lao_Tzu_in_Quanzhou.jpg

Raven Falcon.

09-25-2011, 02:34 PM

What do those pictures above (and on the previous page) have to do with poetic beauty?

How would you describe those pictures or sceneries in prose form?

Prose form not in the vein of Wikipedia description, but in the way which authors describe the settings in their novels.

I thank you all.

stlukesguild

09-25-2011, 03:58 PM

I have mixed feelings about these Qiongzhu figures:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6161/6182440750_4c93e8400f_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6174/6182442392_fb52dcfbe6_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6161/6182444262_7050c7ab78_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6182444440_93fa8c60e3_z.jpg

Completed in the 20th century, there is something mannered... almost comic about these figures. I am reminded of the works of Gerard Mas... his ironic parodies of Renaissance sculpture:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6162/6181911335_2c407d58e9.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6167/6181911443_ef59548756.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6152/6182433456_be9b111b62.jpg

Or Ron Mueck's figures rooted in the techniques of the Hollywood special effects artist:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6182434470_27ea4bb9e2_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6162/6181912215_b48dae2f33_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6163/6182434076_b827e71775.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6174/6181912241_fe35f6d87a.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6167/6181912405_c9d4ee4c9e_z.jpg

Or even more so... the work of Tom Keubler who exhibits a similar individuality...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6164/6182433686_a516cbe7df_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6175/6182433820_f90ae53bab_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/6182433896_b77f9a514c_z.jpg

For all the individuality... and all the undeniable mastery of craft... there is something unsettling... unnerving... and embarrassingly comic... for better or worse... to all these works.

The Guan Yin, on the other hand, is quite exquisite... although it clearly owes much to the sensual forms of Indian sculpture.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6182079407_d31176c22f_z.jpg

Hira

09-25-2011, 04:25 PM

D.H. Lawrence and Virginia Woolf.

JCamilo

09-25-2011, 05:42 PM

Mortal's image make me think more of Brazilian Baroque, also much maneirism, but the african influence brings some comic sense where is none, due the allegorism...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Aleijadinho-cristo-congonha.jpg/402px-Aleijadinho-cristo-congonha.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rV0EUyDSdYY/SDoG3bnHddI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5qQBczWuyyA/s200/Imagem+053.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SO93jPYPW0Y/0.jpg

Raven, some authors are quite good to describe scenaries. Chesterton was one. But this does not imply giving that same feeling.

cyberbob

09-25-2011, 06:29 PM

Thread derailed, LOL.

But these works of art are pretty cool. Keep em coming please!

JBI

09-25-2011, 07:40 PM

The lighting in the room that the Qiongzhu statues are kept is terrible - they are pretty much in an abandoned storeroom, no lighting or pictures.

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-25-2011, 08:39 PM

For all the individuality... and all the undeniable mastery of craft... there is something unsettling... unnerving... and embarrassingly comic... for better or worse... to all these works.
This is exactly why I love these pieces (sans "embarrassing" adjective, though). I love sculpture/visual art that evokes unsettling feelings, or exhibits a sense of morbidity. I'd be quite surprised if these artists (the modern/contemporary ones) aren't going for that feel.

One of my favorite artists, Bruce Holwerda, is excellent at doing this:

http://www.adamholwerda.com/bruceholwerda/assets/pages/steamroller/IMAG0000.JPG

http://www.gasparilla-arts.com/images/posters/poster02.jpg

http://dbprng00ikc2j.cloudfront.net/work/image/298986/qg7swq/Synchronicity_-_Bruce_Holwerda.jpg

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kz1nx1zIi11qar678o1_500.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J_cJNRlBZto/TbRa5waxwKI/AAAAAAAAUO0/esPTipB61uY/s1600/Bruce+Holwerda4.jpg

mortalterror

09-27-2011, 02:16 AM

Well, of course we can always debate what counts as a true "novel". Prose narrative is not the sole definition. Stories and historical/fictive narratives and romances long predate the novel, and you undoubtedly know that the very term, "novel" is but a shortening of novella romance.

I have to second Darkshadow's contention that the Ancient Romans and Greeks had novels. I know what a novel looks like and those are novels. They aren't primitive proto-genre type things. They had centuries of tradition, fully formed masterpieces. If Satyricon or The Golden *** were published for the first time in our day they could be massively successful.

MarkBastable

09-27-2011, 02:59 AM

D.H. Lawrence and Virginia Woolf.

I think that there's an objective element to this kind of discussion. In other words, we would probably all agree, roughly, who the contenders might be - based on common and shared criteria concerning what constitutes the good stuff.

When it comes down to the final choice, though, things get much more subjective. Each of us is still judging against criteria, but at that level of appreciation the criteria are specific to each of us - they have more to do with our individual expectations of art than with any distributed consensus.

So, if, at that second level, one were to select Davy L as the creator of the most poetically beautiful English prose, it would be difficult to construct an argument to the contrary.

Except, for me, he wouldn't even make the first cut.

ftil

09-27-2011, 04:24 AM

Mutatis-Mutandi wrote:
This is exactly why I love these pieces (sans "embarrassing" adjective, though). I love sculpture/visual art that evokes unsettling feelings, or exhibits a sense of morbidity. I'd be quite surprised if these artists (the modern/contemporary ones) aren't going for that feel.

I hope not! There are many painters who prefer the opposite feelings. :banana:

William Whitaker

http://www.williamwhitaker.com/A_PICTURE_FILES/17_GALLERY_6/LARGE/teddy.jpg

Taras Loboda

http://s60.radikal.ru/i167/0910/7e/949621c2fdea.jpg

Michael and Inessa Garmash

http://www.piersidegallery.com/artists/garmash/gar2005b-giselle36x24.jpg

Fabian Perez

http://www.paragonfineart.com/images/perez/cynzia-at-las-brujas1.jpg

Anna Razumovskaya

http://i061.radikal.ru/1008/33/00ab46725cad.jpg

Richard Young
http://www.ryoung-art.com/Image%20files/Oil%20paintings/The%20Passion%20of%20Dance.JPG

Juan Medina

http://www.artisticanatomyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/artistic-anatomy-juan-medina-midsummer-nights-dream.jpg

Willem Haenraets

http://img0.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/c/3/74/980/74980822_Willem_Haenraets15.jpg

Aldo Luongo
http://www.oceangalleries.com/gallery/artwork/luongo/TwoFacesOfTheHawk.jpg

mal4mac

09-27-2011, 10:50 AM

... Plato, Michel de Montaigne, Lucretius, Shakespeare, and many other Western writers offer a philosophy that is no less profound.

Lucretius doesn't desrerve to be in the same sentence as the other three *true* giants. I read a prose translation, so I can't comment much on its poetic merits, but 'content' has to count for something - certainly Plato Montaigne and Shakespeare could live on content alone.

The main content of De rerum natura is (truly awful!) Roman physics. The interesting ethical ideas only occupy a few pages and are stolen from Epicurus - who does deserve to live with the greats...

I forced myself to read all of De Rerum natura last year, because of my interest in Epicuruis, and my professional background in physics - it was certainly my most disappointing literary experience last year...

JBI

09-27-2011, 12:25 PM

Lucretius doesn't desrerve to be in the same sentence as the other three *true* giants. I read a prose translation, so I can't comment much on its poetic merits, but 'content' has to count for something - certainly Plato Montaigne and Shakespeare could live on content alone.

The main content of De rerum natura is (truly awful!) Roman physics. The interesting ethical ideas only occupy a few pages and are stolen from Epicurus - who does deserve to live with the greats...

I forced myself to read all of De Rerum natura last year, because of my interest in Epicuruis, and my professional background in physics - it was certainly my most disappointing literary experience last year...

Meh, Plato's prose style is crap, but he had some interesting thoughts, we still read him :p

stlukesguild

09-27-2011, 05:14 PM

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-27-2011, 06:22 PM

I have a feeling the decision to ignore that pictures I posted is due to the fact that probably everyone else doesn't like it. :lol:

Alexander III

09-27-2011, 06:35 PM

I am no big fan of a lot of 20th century art - for the very reason that the celebration and pursuit of the grotesque is so prevalent. But there are still many paintings focused on simple beauty ala impressionism or social realism which I love.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/Matisse_-_Luxembourg_Gardens_%281901%29.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Matissetoits.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Edward_Hopper_Road_in_Maine.jpg

http://fascinatingpeople.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/edward-hopper-excursion-into-philosophy.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5bVN3kXOxFc/TEl6eQg6lAI/AAAAAAAABhI/VyyUlklHPyU/s1600/01.jpg

MarkBastable

09-27-2011, 06:46 PM

I think that the grotesque (if, indeed, we could come up with any definition of that, in this context) has always been a prevalent part of art. The Raft of the Medusa? Recurrent images of Salome? Most of Bosch?

I'm tempted to ask StLuke to summon some pre-20c examples. I suspect it would take him about ten minutes to cover as many centuries.

But the point is that an aversion to the grotesque isn't really a support for not liking 20th Century art specifically.

Brett Cottrell

09-27-2011, 07:31 PM

Herta Müller
She doesn't write in English, but the translations are fantastic. The Passport and The Appointment are absolute poetry on the page. Raw, acerbic, beautiful. She won a well-deserved Pulitzer within the last few years. If you haven't read her and you enjoy amazing prose, give her a read.

Stewed

09-27-2011, 08:59 PM

Plato's prose style is crap? that's just being provocative, isn't it? (I'll say nothing about the art because I know nothing about art. I wish I knew more.)

stlukesguild

09-27-2011, 09:50 PM

But the point is that an aversion to the grotesque isn't really a support for not liking 20th Century art specifically.

Exactly. There are plenty of examples of 20th century art by artists of relevance and/or artists that have moved beyond pastiche that are undeniably beautiful. First we need to remember that many of the great 19th century masters were still active well into the 20th century. We can't exclude John Singer Sargent or the Impressionists (arguably the first great Modernists) from 20th century art any more than we can exclude Rilke and Proust from 20th century literature:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6190626056_4f6f27d564_z.jpg

Indeed, Monet and Degas produced many of their most influential works well into the 20th century:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6005/6190626176_0d38fd56ca_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/6190108081_2af0aecfd5_z.jpg

The two central figures of Modernism were unquestionably Picasso and Matisse. While Picasso is charged by many with shattering the great tradition of European painting, no artist actually loved that tradition more. He could produce the most elegant paintings in a near classical manner when he so desired:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6002/6190108803_2f3237c2dc_z.jpg

Matisse, in spite of his Modernist credentials, was often accused of being a hedonist as a result of his unabashed love of visual splendour and colour:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/6190626820_677ac7310e_z.jpg

Bonnard took Matisse's love of color and visual spectacle even further. He was misunderstood by many artists who were seemingly more radical (Surrealists, Futurists) but in many ways he was the visual equivalent of Proust... the artist of memory... the artist who remembered the banal details of every day life as glorious magical scenes drenched in light and color:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6190108271_7b6e338f76_b.jpg

Edouard Vuillard, Bonnard's partner in the Nabi movement, was another poet of the intimate:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6121/6190626420_db9b23fdd7_b.jpg

Aristide Maillol had almost disappeared from view, when he was introduced to a beautiful young and intelligent model late in life who became the muse for his greatest work, one of the strongest bodies of nude drawings and sculpture in the history of art:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/6190108373_157f5b949d_b.jpg

Paris was the unquestioned center of art for the first half of the 20th century and artists came to the French capitol from around the world forming the so-called School of Paris. Beauty and color were in no way unknown:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6161/6190626900_85763ecc8f.jpg
-Raoul Dufy

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6017/6190626868_30afb9188d_b.jpg
-Amadeo Modigliani

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6009/6190625906_d7810e9ba6_b.jpg
-Marc Chagall

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6023/6190627146_838b0d220c_b.jpg
-Balthus

Of course Paris wasn't the sole art center. In Vienna artists were responding to the music of Mahler, Richard Strauss, Bruckner, and the Second Viennese School, the plays of Hugo von Hoffmansthall, and the writings of Sigmund Freud. The central figure of the Viennese School was undoubtedly Gustav Klimt, whose beautifully patterned and gilded paintings were eagerly sought by wealthy collectors. His most famous painting, The Kiss, remains the single most reproduced painting to this day, suggesting that 20th century art is not without it's admirers... especially when it openly embraces visual splendor:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/6190626608_01d14da500_b.jpg

Germany was another major artistic center... indeed, it may have passed Paris had it not been destroyed by the rise of Hitler. The Russian painter, Kandinsky, working at the famous Bauhaus, merged elements of Russian folk art: patterns and brilliant colors in producing the first true abstract paintings. Avidly collected by the Guggenheim family, these would have a profound impact upon American Abstract Expressionism:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6159/6190626776_b97b099100_b.jpg

***********

stlukesguild

09-27-2011, 09:51 PM

At the other end of the spectrum in Germany, the painter Max Beckmann combined a French love of color and sensual handling of paint with an almost medieval crowding of space and a social commentary worthy of Bosch:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6166/6190188231_691290e2a0_b.jpg

In comparison, the American art scene remained quite conservative... provincial even. Realism remained the dominant style... and would never disappear... even at the height of Abstract Expressionism. Even so, American artists brought a social awareness to the language of realism rooted in the experience of living in the great cities. This city life was not without its own form of "beauty":

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6161/6190626036_fed5f84d17_b.jpg
-John Sloan

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6125/6190201357_2725e2e269.jpg
-Edward Hopper

Edward Hopper's paintings, which often suggest stills from film noir, became a major influence upon the settings in the films of Alfred Hitchcock

The paintings of Maxfield Parrish, on the other hand, would inspire the stage sets of endless Hollywood films, and his use of color and photographic references would have a major impact upon Pop Art and even the commercial art of the 1960s:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/6190108567_bc87270b28_b.jpg

Following World War II, New York became the center of the art world with the Abstract Expressionists building upon Surrealism and chance, and the abstract paintings of Kandinsky. It was an Armenian refugee from the Turkish imposed genocide, Arshile Gorky, that led the way. His painting, The Liver is the ****'s Comb (titled by the French Surrealist poet, Andre Breton) is a spectacular abstract landscape:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6170/6190626950_b64dc2bac1_z.jpg

A great many had difficulty in appreciating the beauty of abstract art... even the most exquisite examples...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/6190627630_932dc7857d.jpg
-Paul Feiler

...but American art did not abandon the beauty of figurative painting. Painters such as Fairfield Porter and Alex Katz and Daniel Ludwig and many others continued to build off the tradition of Impressionism:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6154/6190109035_f5369b43b7.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6152/6190109209_7f798a5b3f.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6128/6190109419_5e6b32e518_b.jpg

Realism remained strong... throughout the century and any number of beautiful "realist" paintings can be found that in no way ever slip into the banality of kitsch and pastiche:

George Tooker and Robert Vickry both continued in the tradition of Social Realism:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6190109077_70bd5c15c3_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/6190765828_6f7560f989_b.jpg

While the major art critics and art periodicals focused upon the seemingly endless array of experimental avant garde art, the public and collectors never abandoned their love for well-painted realism:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6164/6190627642_250315b41a.jpg
-Jean Duval

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/6190110287_57b9d38806_b.jpg
-Martha Erlebacher

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6166/6190627664_dd7eebd6c2.jpg
-Henk Helmantel

*************

stlukesguild

09-27-2011, 09:53 PM

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6153/6190109531_0336d0332e.jpg
-Frederick Linden

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6133/6190109635_9e46ca40d0.jpg
-Niel Welliver

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6167/6190627852_b9290eb982_b.jpg
-David M. Lenz

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6123/6190109585_a256667abb_b.jpg
-Boris Koller

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6013/6190627868_afe6900133_z.jpg
-Lu Cong

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6139/6190109731_e5722d4aa0_z.jpg
-Will Cotton

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/6190109761_a6b61b3bc5.jpg
_Iain Faulkner

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/6190109783_290fbce1ee_z.jpg
-Harry Holland

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6190109815_273ea8cf7f_z.jpg
-Jeremy Lipking

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6137/6190628048_cecfa77514_z.jpg
-David Remfry

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6154/6190628142_5352bd0705_z.jpg

William Whitaker's drawings really are something special.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6178/6190628172_be29e9eedc_b.jpg
-Gerhard Richter

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6003/6190110201_c4f629cb3e_b.jpg
-Aron Wiesenfeld

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6146/6190110225_5e3aafd1c9_z.jpg
-Bo Bartlett

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6168/6190628400_fdc3d2d2b5.jpg
-Sean Beavers

************

stlukesguild

09-27-2011, 09:53 PM

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/6190110309_6e44ca013e.jpg
-Rob Evans

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6124/6190110361_91574a1029_z.jpg
-Claudio Bravo

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6004/6190110397_c828e51172.jpg
-David Ligare

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/6190628580_5e8cecfa5d.jpg
-Scott Fraser

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/6190110495_73fbf2dbeb_z.jpg
-William Bailey

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6128/6190628596_8b07c70985_z.jpg
-Daniel Sprick

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/6190247941_67fdc7c31d_b.jpg
-Leonard Kocianski

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/6190110531_7bc7acacca_z.jpg
-Scott Prior

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6190628662_545cbc6ef4_z.jpg
-Scott Prior

Robert Hughes noted that in the second half of the 20th century it was two "Andys" who were the most known artists with the majority of the public... Andy Warhol... and Andrew Wyeth... the great realist who will quite likely outlast the Pop Art icon. Like Bonnard and Vuillard... and Fairfield Porter... Wyeth uncovered a beauty in the banal world around him... albeit his world was that of a stark New England:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6026/6190362823_e8ff296144_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6174/6190880652_bde904bbcd_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/6190363059_0f2c93fd93_b.jpg

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-27-2011, 10:41 PM

It's hard to believe some of those latter realism paintings are actually paintings and not photographs, especially the train and the one by David M. Lenz.

I like paintings that straddle the line between abstract and realism (I guess that would be expressionism?), sort of like what I posted. I like bizzarre art, but at the same time I don't like something that I think I could do, like throwing paint at a canvas. I get all the arguments in support of these abstract methods, but I just can't get past it.

ftil

09-27-2011, 11:03 PM

I hope not! There are many painters who prefer the opposite feelings.

Of course not a single one of the artist you cite is considered a major contemporary figure by any stretch of the imagination. Juan Medina perhaps comes closest and I will acknowledge that William Whitaker's drawing is quite lovely but I seriously question whether you have the least grasp of the art of the last century or understand the idea that mere craftsmanship does not make an artist relevant nor does pastiche.

I agree with the notion that not all Modern/Contemporary artists were/are aiming for morbidity and nihilism... but surely you can find some better examples.

LOL! Thanks for a good laughter. But let’s get serious. I don’t know what you mean by saying, "‘ I seriously question whether you have the least grasp of the art of the last century or understand the idea that mere craftsmanship does not make an artist relevant nor does pastiche." Do you mean that I have to blindly follow scholars who tell what art is good or not. :lol: I have never said that I am art scholar. You know that as I have clearly stated in my response to you that I was lucky to be free from any influences. I love art and I don’t need “authority” confirmation that the art I like is good or not. It doesn’t matter. I have already posted a couple of “famous” paintings that I would want to have..….to sell as soon as possible. :ihih:

Secondly, I work with art in very different way than you do. I have already told you that. I choose art that evokes my feelings as well as the art that touches my soul. Images access our unconsciousness and it is a very powerful tool of self- awareness. In other words, I feel art and I use art for both therapy and to feed my soul.

Finally, we both love art but we love different paintings even though I love many painters as you do. But I try to avoid judging artists' work. Art is one of the way to express oneself so that judging somebody’s art is judging another human being. I love freedom of expression of who we really are. :banana:

stlukesguild

09-28-2011, 12:48 AM

LOL! Thanks for a good laughter. But let’s get serious. I don’t know what you mean by saying, "‘ I seriously question whether you have the least grasp of the art of the last century or understand the idea that mere craftsmanship does not make an artist relevant nor does pastiche." Do you mean that I have to blindly follow scholars who tell what art is good or not.

"Blindly" approaching any art is the issue. Art is far less impacted by "scholars" than literature. The formal study of art history doesn't begin until the 19th century. Prior to that what we mostly have is the writings of artists: Vasari, Cellini, Leonardo, etc... but these are not what defines good or bad art. Art is primarily defined by artists and the art loving public.

I have never said that I am art scholar. You know that as I have clearly stated in my response to you that I was lucky to be free from any influences.

No one is free from influences. In spite of admitting such, I will state that art criticism and art theory are of little influence upon my judgment and opinion of art. My opinions are based upon my eye after having looked at a broad array of art across the scope of history and culture.

I love art and I don’t need “authority” confirmation that the art I like is good or not. It doesn’t matter. I have already posted a couple of “famous” paintings that I would want to have..….to sell as soon as possible.

No... but just as it helps to have enough of an ear for literature to recognize the qualitative differences between Dan Brown or the Twilight books and Keats, Yeats and Proust, it is of real importance to have developed enough of an eye to discern kitsch from a masterpiece... or even just good art.

Secondly, I work with art in very different way than you do. I have already told you that. I choose art that evokes my feelings as well as the art that touches my soul. Images access our unconsciousness and it is a very powerful tool of self- awareness. In other words, I feel art and I use art for both therapy and to feed my soul.

Admittedly, I am not interested in "using" art for therapy... or anything else. I am interested in creating art and as such I am interested in the mechanics of art... how as image communicates well without resorting to cliche.

I try to avoid judging artists' work. Art is one of the way to express oneself so that judging somebody’s art is judging another human being. I love freedom of expression of who we really are

The notion that art is little more than self-expression is an idea born of the Romantics... and almost enough to make me really despise Wordsworth. One of the greatest hurdles faced by the 20-something art student is getting over the notion that as an artist their art is an expression of who they are... and as such any criticism of their art is a criticism of them as individuals. Both the creative process and the individual are far more complex than that. No work of art that I have created gives but the least idea of who I am as an individual. My entire oeuvre reveals part of me... but comes nowhere near to "expressing" myself... the whole me. There is a real danger in combining Romantic ideas of "self expression" with post-Freud notions of art as a means of analyzing or diagnosing the individual.

Whether we care to admit to it or not, every time we look at a work of art, part of our judgment is based upon comparison. This work of art stands out (or fails) in comparison to others in teems of handling of paint, color, line, contrast... etc... We compare the handling of all the elements to those as employed in other works we know. "Good" and "bad" and other value judgments are relative terms. We base these opinions upon our knowledge of the whole of art as we perceive it... and as T.S. Eliot noted, this concept changes every time we are confronted with a truly new or original artistic voice that enters into our notion of some imaginary canon of art.

MarkBastable

09-28-2011, 01:55 AM

I read it before dinner as we sat on the terrace, Pablo smoking ceaseless cigarettes and topping up his glass of claret after every sip.

“What do you think?” he asked, when I put the sheaf on the table and stood the bottle on top to stop it blowing away in the light breeze.

“I like the tone and the detail. The problem is structure. It hasn’t got one.”

“It has. It’s the structure of me. My thoughts go that way and that’s how I write. It’s valid.”

I have often been confronted by authors making this argument. It’s a variation on the idea that self-expression is, by definition, interesting and consequential – a philosophy that was the bane of every twentieth-century art form, as if ‘honest’ self-expression obviated the need for the presumably mendacious application of technique, style, structure or even talent.

“Pablo, if you made tea-pots and you came up with one that had the handle on the bottom, and a spout eight feet long, and the whole thing made of chicken-wire, would you still say that that was how you made teapots, and that therefore it was a ‘valid’ teapot?”

“Probably, yes,” he said, flipping a cigarette into his mouth.

“And you have the right to, I suppose. But you would have made a teapot that never fulfilled the function of containing and pouring tea. One, in fact, that couldn’t fulfil that function. So it would not be, in any observable sense, a teapot, would it?”

“I thought the whole idea was that we’re after my story, as told by me.”

“But comprehensible to other people.”

Pablo sighed and picked up the empty claret bottle. “All right. I’ll try.” He stood and walked into the house, then paused, sniffing the air. “Something’s burning,” he said.

“Oh, bother,” I said, getting to my feet. “The goulash.”

As I brushed past Pablo on my way to the kitchen, he said, “If it’s burnt, congealed and inedible, it doesn’t in any observable sense fulfil the function of a goulash, does it?”

ftil

09-28-2011, 02:16 AM

:lol:
No one is free from influences. In spite of admitting such, I will state that art criticism and art theory are of little influence upon my judgment and opinion of art. My opinions are based upon my eye after having looked at a broad array of art across the scope of history and culture

I meant that I am free from “academic understanding” of art. I don’t need to understand art but to feel it. It is a big difference. When we look at Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Titian, or Rembrandt we don’t need a scholar to tell us about the paintings but we feel the beauty of it. Please don’t forget that the art we like and choose reflect our emotional and mental states. I like deferent paintings of Caravaggio than you like, for example. Do you think that something is wrong about that? :biggrinjester: Or, are you telling that I don’t have a right to post the paintings I like…..because as you said that I don’t have “the least grasp of the art of the last century or understand the idea “

De gustibus non est disputandum……we are not at school, aren’t we? :reddevil:

No... but just as it helps to have enough of an ear for literature to recognize the qualitative differences between Dan Brown or the Twilight books and Keats, Yeats and Proust, it is of real importance to have developed enough of an eye to discern kitsch from a masterpiece... or even just good art.

We are talking about art not literature. It is subjective what we like and there is nothing wrong about that. The true master piece speaks for itself but some people may not like certain art or paintings even though it is a master piece. Everybody is unique. Do you think that they are inferior because of that? I highly value people who are independent thinkers and non conformists. Maslov spent his entire career to study creative people who could reach primary creativity. Unfortunately, there is a small procentage of people who fit into this category.

Admittedly, I am not interested in "using" art for therapy... or anything else. I am interested in creating art and as such I am interested in the mechanics of art... how as image communicates well without resorting to cliche.

I hear you. But why can not you accept that I use art in a very different way. I don’t push upon you my approach to working with art. I just posted the paintings I like and I got a storm over my head. :lol:

The notion that art is little more than self-expression is an idea born of the Romantics... and almost enough to make me really despise Wordsworth. One of the greatest hurdles faced by the 20-something art student is getting over the notion that as an artist their art is an expression of who they are... and as such any criticism of their art is a criticism of them as individuals. Both the creative process and the individual are far more complex than that. No work of art that I have created gives but the least idea of who I am as an individual. My entire oeuvre reveals part of me... but comes nowhere near to "expressing" myself... the whole me. There is a real danger in combining Romantic ideas of "self expression" with post-Freud notions of art as a means of analyzing or diagnosing the individual.

Well, I have already told you that analyzing and diagnosing the individual is dangerous. BTW, it was not I who made assumptions about the intentions of the artists.
Secondly, you are making assumption and you are wrong. Freud is the last one I would consider and treat seriously. :D

Whether we care to admit to it or not, every time we look at a work of art, part of our judgment is based upon comparison. This work of art stands out (or fails) in comparison to others in teems of handling of paint, color, line, contrast... etc... We compare the handling of all the elements to those as employed in other works we know. "Good" and "bad" and other value judgments are relative terms. We base these opinions upon our knowledge of the whole of art as we perceive it... and as T.S. Eliot noted, this concept changes every time we are confronted with a truly new or original artistic voice that enters into our notion of some imaginary canon of art.

Well, you can’t say we. LOL! I don’t look at art that way.Therefore, I said that I am free from unnecessary influence. My approach to art is influenced by my passion for psychology and healing with which goes freedom fo expression who we really are.

Anyway, we are not on the same page. I hope that I will not need to repeat myself again.
We have to accept differences without imposing our thinking or beliefs upon others. :smile5:

I hope that we can laugh together. I couldn't resist.:lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydaCSuujoBE

osho

09-28-2011, 03:16 AM

One book I found deeply poetic is the To the Lighthouse by Virginia Wolf. I read this book several times and its stream of consciousness has totally impressed me I in fact could not understand this book the way I can any other book. Yet it has something, despite my inability to understand it, to move me, the way she use the English language; she beautifully wove her ideas into monologues, sometimes irritatingly drifting as if I am inside the head of one of the characters of the novel. The novelist could pour out some deep desires or some human urges that overwhelm humans and yet get censored since our social conditions cannot find them palatable at all

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-28-2011, 09:22 AM

Raven Falcon.

09-28-2011, 11:26 AM

stlukesguild

09-28-2011, 06:44 PM

I think art is, for the most part, self-expression, and I think claiming it isn't is false, but it has become a necessity to combat the hyperbolic Romantic ideas of self-expression. The trick is to realize that what the artist is expressing is not a representation of the person as a whole, but only a part of the person. If I were an artist, what I create would most likely be dark and depressing. Does that mean I'm a dark and depressing person? No. There's just a part of me that would express that. I'm sure you would agree, StLukes, that when you create your art, you're expressing yourself in some way. After all, the inspiration and ideas come from your mind.

My aversion to the term "self-expression" is multi-fold. First of all we have the notions of the Romantics... and more so their less talented heirs such as the Beats. Romanticism pushed forth the notion that the artist had a single true poetic "voice". Shakespeare has no voice. There is no single character in his plays whom we can say with any certainty is closest to the author himself. We cannot say which of the heteronyms is truly Pessoa. Picasso and Stravinsky change like chameleons. Many Romantics would argue that such an approach to art is false.

Freudian theory took the idea of self-expression further. It was assumed that art commonly involves the subconscious and subliminal which properly analyzed might reveal much about the individual. The problem here is that it is often impossible to discern what aspects of a work of art were intentional ... where the artist was fully aware of the possible interpretations... and what aspects of the work of art were indeed the product of the subconscious... or even accident.

Let us look at a contemporary painting that many found particularly disturbing, Eric Fischl's Daddy's Girl:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/6193387226_572aae07b2_b.jpg

Fischl was a realist in the tradition of Manet (in terms of loose handling of paint) and Edward Hopper. As a true "realist" he rejected the notion that "reality" should be painted to look like it did in a painting by Caravaggio or a 19th century French academician. He recognized that "realism" was what he saw all around him. He was an upper-middle class American living in California. In spite of all the surface glitz and polish he recognized the underlying dramas of alcoholism, drug abuse, child abuse, isolation, infidelity, sexual frustration, etc... that were just as commonplace in American suburbia as they were in Parisian bourgeois lifestyles explored in the novels by Zola, Flaubert, etc... or in London in the novels of Dickens, etc...

In daddy's Girl, Fischl sets the scene in an ideal upper-class California setting. The hard-edged geometric forms of a Modern home and the concrete patio gleam starkly beneath the clear blue sky and intense sunlight of California. A middle-aged man lies naked upon his lounge chair... and then we suddenly recognize her... squirming in his arms is a young girl... surely no more than 4 or 5... also naked. Immediately all sorts of scenarios run through our mind. Is this but an innocent scene of a father and his child? The inclusion of a mother might have led to such an interpretation far more rapidly... and yet she is no where to be seen. Was the artist's decision to exclude her deliberate? Is this then some disturbing sexual scene? Is the daughter struggling to break free from his unwanted touch?

Look then to his extended foot. Here we have a near tangent... a point at which two lines or forms nearly touch creating a focal point that draws the eye. Think of the hand of Michelagelo's God almost touching Adam's outstretched hand. Why does the artist lead us here? What is there at that point of such import? A sipper about to fall from his foot... and a glass of iced tea precariously balanced on the edging of potted tree. Both suggesting a dangerous balancing act... bot unlike the image as a whole which also seems to be a dangerous balancing act between harmless parental love... and pedophilia.

Approaching the work as "self-expression" or through a Freudian lens we are led to wonder about the artist's own repressed sexual desires as opposed to recognizing that he may indeed be pushing our buttons''' playing with our own discomfort with issues of nudity let alone the sexuality of children. Nabokov, if we remember, faced many accusations as to his own imagined perversity as a result of Lolita by those who forget that art is as much (if not more so) illusion and fantasy as it is 'self-expression".

A good deal of that which is worst in art is the result of the cult of "self-expression"... the notion that "self-expression" is all that is needed... as if the baby crying or little Suzy writing in her diary were "art"... as if all one need to do is throw pigment around with "feeling"... and any art produced with careful thought, an awareness of composition and form and art history etc... were actually inferior to little Suzy's honestly and truly felt efforts. Of course Oscar Wilde, who was never wrong about anything:D recognized that all the best poetry (and art, I might add) was sincere.

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-28-2011, 07:03 PM

So . . . you agree with me? :lol: I'm not trying to be flippant (well, a little), and while I mostly agree with your sentiments, it still seems to me that art is mostly self-expression, just different kinds--be it painting what you truly "feel" in your soul, or expressing your desire to push people's buttons, as Fischl is doing (I assume, maybe he is a pedophile).

But, let me play devil's advocate. If self-expression plays little-to-no role in the creation of art, what does?

MarkBastable

09-28-2011, 07:12 PM

But, let me play devil's advocate. If self-expression plays little-to-no role in the creation of art, what does?

Depends what we mean by 'self-expression'. Do we mean 'the desire to communicate who you are' or do we mean 'the impulse to communicate some idea'? (They can be the simultaneous, but they are not necessarily the same thing.)

If we mean the first, then not all art is self-expression, because not all artists want to communicate anything specifically about themselves.

If we mean the second, then all art originates with self-expression - that's where the impulse comes from - but the process involves all sorts of other things - technique, allusion, illusion, talent - all of which comprise a layer of artifice.

The clever bit, of course, is to make it look like there was no artifice at all - it just came straight out of the person of the artist, raw and unprocessed. But it never, ever does.

stlukesguild

09-28-2011, 07:16 PM

ftil

09-28-2011, 11:56 PM

Depends what we mean by 'self-expression'. Do we mean 'the desire to communicate who you are' or do we mean 'the impulse to communicate some idea'? (They can be the simultaneous, but they are not necessarily the same thing.)

If we mean the first, then not all art is self-expression, because not all artists want to communicate anything specifically about themselves.

:iagree:

Hey, OP politely ask us not to hijack his tread. I want to respect it. I am bad hijacking tread with art.......but I am not alone. That is comforting.:smile5:
I am thinking where we can meet without misbehaving.:ihih:

Nissim

08-02-2013, 06:29 PM

How about this passage from Shards Of Divinities?

...This epiphany was an unexpected visitor and when it came knocking on my door I greeted it as a lover I had only ever known in the recesses of my soul and who now appeared before my very eyes as flesh and blood. This epiphany was a rose bush whose seed I planted long ago and which now burst the earth after a long and arduous winter in the unknowing, white-eyed womb of creation. And when I reached for its tempting yet thorny flower I felt a piercing pain shooting through my soul and I came face to face with the awful one, the great El-Shaddai, the principle of creation, the great veiled One, the Truth overflowing my cup. Deep in my soul an unspeaking voice woke from an eternal slumber and I at once came to know that land to which I had always felt a kinship, that realm of which I am a citizen, always will be and always have been.

or this one?

To be perfectly honest and as one is to expect, my relationship with the idols in my father’s shop had evolved over the years. As a small child they fascinated me not strictly due to their theological connotations but also due to a small child’s propensity to experience awe for such things as a rainbow, the clap of distant thunder or the dew embracing the ground during a crisp early spring morning. A young child often cannot distinguish between the genuine truth and beauty of creation and the lie of that which is made by man’s hand. The ability to marvel at the beauty of creation is an affectation of childhood that is often lost with the onset of intellectual maturity. As I matured I understood more deeply the purpose of these idols and my innocent awe was replaced with a deep and misguided religiosity. A poor man is easy prey to those who are crafty as a fox and are inclined to entice him with fool’s gold. A man denied a woman’s sexual love will succumb to those who do not honour humanity’s soul and instead are merchants of its flesh. Likewise, a man hungry for god is susceptible to the charms of idolatry as is a snake to the enticing melody that seeps freely from the charmer’s flute.