Museums

By -
They are a strange place to appreciate art if you think about it. A painting like the one below is, I think, they kind of thing that should be on the wall of your study or in your living room for years. It is something to be slowly savored, but in a museum setting you must hurry up to it, "consume" all of it you can in 30 seconds, and then move on. It is kind of like playing Bach on super-fast-forward speed to get through all of his works quickly.


On the other hand, "The Starry Night" is such a high-impact painting that it works at museum speed. Did Van Gogh realize this would be the case, or was it just fortuitous?

Comments

  1. John Goes11:12 PM

    A better way to go through a museum is to peruse all of the art very quickly and decide which pieces you'd like to spend some time with. You don't HAVE to have quickies at the museum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah3:06 PM

      Even then, it is forced. Rather than simply living with a work of art, you sit and "consume" it. With your method, I find myself thinking, "OK, have I consumed enough starry night yet?"

      Delete
  2. Anonymous12:07 AM

    That may be, but really I just think that Van Gogh saw things in a very strange way, but that even with its strange perception, it still resonated with most people.

    One of the arts that I am least drawn to is that of painting, but I still find that guys like Van Gogh, Munch, and Monet had a way of reaching those who weren't necessarily into that particular art.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more