I still remember the day near the beginning of my journey away from habitual lust when I was walking through the streets of Florence and found a street artist with a nude for sale. It struck me that my initial response to seeing it was not lustful or desirous, it was simple, and much more akin to a wordless appreciation of the woman as a beautiful creation of God. It really is entirely different, even though the lustful man can never understand that.
I would agree and I think leads us towards a general dissatisfaction with the renewal of nudity in art that happened several hundred years ago. The reappearance of nudity in renaissance art came alongside a return to pagan motifs. Early Christian art had no such thing. That's not say that it's not possible to make beautiful and worthwhile nude art, but I think your reference to Titian's actual experience of the model is a legitimate criticism of wading into those waters. But then does the morality or lack thereof on the part of the artist hold some or any sway over the value of the art? Hm
Also true. My first impulse is to say that it would almost certainly be woven into the art to a degree that you can't really ignore it, but then how does that affect interpretation and my experience of it? Art exists apart from, or I guess distinct from the artist once it's been created, so will it always bear the marks of the artists mental state or can it be taken beyond them? Our role as sub-creators seems important. Maybe that pattern will point in the right direction
I still remember the day near the beginning of my journey away from habitual lust when I was walking through the streets of Florence and found a street artist with a nude for sale. It struck me that my initial response to seeing it was not lustful or desirous, it was simple, and much more akin to a wordless appreciation of the woman as a beautiful creation of God. It really is entirely different, even though the lustful man can never understand that.
Good review. I've read both books, ages ago. This brings them together into life in a new way, which I'd not have done.
I'm not convinced this distinction actually holds up.
Let's put it this way:
Was Titian's human model for the "Venus of Urbino" nude or naked? And thus what was Titian's likely mental state as he was painting her.
I would agree and I think leads us towards a general dissatisfaction with the renewal of nudity in art that happened several hundred years ago. The reappearance of nudity in renaissance art came alongside a return to pagan motifs. Early Christian art had no such thing. That's not say that it's not possible to make beautiful and worthwhile nude art, but I think your reference to Titian's actual experience of the model is a legitimate criticism of wading into those waters. But then does the morality or lack thereof on the part of the artist hold some or any sway over the value of the art? Hm
> But then does the morality or lack thereof on the part of the artist hold some or any sway over the value of the art?
Well, another question is what effect does the artist's mental state have on the art?
Also true. My first impulse is to say that it would almost certainly be woven into the art to a degree that you can't really ignore it, but then how does that affect interpretation and my experience of it? Art exists apart from, or I guess distinct from the artist once it's been created, so will it always bear the marks of the artists mental state or can it be taken beyond them? Our role as sub-creators seems important. Maybe that pattern will point in the right direction