I've seen them in the flesh, which doesn't seem a bad metaphor in
this case. If anything they're worse in person. Imagine those small
images blown up to eight feet tall.
If the protoViking world of Nerdrum's imagining ever existed, these
would have been its socialist realism.
Mark
At 11:13 AM 11/15/2008, you wrote:
>An interesting, complex argument, Stephen, but what about those of us
>who agree with all you're saying about the possibility of liberation
>in such a stance & yet simply aren't that impressed by the paintings?
>I admit one probably needs to see them in actuality, but while not
>disliking the ones on line, I also felt no desire to spend much time
>with them. As opposed to a lot of art I know, or own.
>
>What pulls the eye back again & again?
>
>It doesnt seem to be there, in Nerdrum's work, for me....
>
>Doug
>On 14-Nov-08, at 3:07 PM, Stephen Vincent wrote:
>
>>I do appreciate Nerdrum's honesty and vigor as a self-advocate in
>>the face of folks who opposed his work (clearly 'jerks '!)
>>
>>Stephen
>
>Douglas Barbour
>[log in to unmask]
>
>http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>
>Latest books:
>Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
>http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
>Wednesdays'
>http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
>
>Art is always the replacement of indifference
>by attention.
>
> Guy Davenport
|