enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Page 1 of 3 (42 items)   1 2 3 Next >
More Art Stuff
by Camille Claudel
+3 Reply

What do you think of this?

Gerard ter Borch gave this to us around 1654 and it is currently on display at The Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem.

It has had two titles, sometimes mixed together: a) Gallant Conversation; b) The Paternal Admonition.

The young woman on the left seems to have her head slightly turned away and bowed. The seated man is talking to her; perhaps lecturing her. The seated woman looks down, rather disengaged. From the second title, perhaps he's her father, lecturing her on some issue; perhaps criticizing her. Gallant of him, no?

No.

For years, the above view was the received view on the painting. Today, the experts believe the gallant man is in a brothel, wanting sexual services from the standing young lady. The seated lady is the brothel's manager.

The dog and the candle on the table are symbols of prostitution (take your best guesses - they are probably right). Her dress is a little too much of this and that. The table cloth is red and to this day, in The Netherlands, red means sex.

The painting, then, was intended to be rather erotic. The received view of it was entirely, on this account, mistaken. I enjoy the fact that for centuries, men that have seen the painting could identify themselves with the seated man. And now they can identify themselves with that same man for entirely different reasons.

(The things that humour me.)

Re: More Art Stuff
by Schadenfreude
Camille Claudel:

The painting, then, was intended to be rather erotic.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Your'e wrong.
by Camille Claudel
The shame of it all was intended to be rather erotic. The guy is intended as the "hero".
Re: Your'e wrong.
by Schadenfreude

Maybe I'm kinky, then.

Camille Claudel:
The guy is intended as the "hero".
I don't think that word means what you think it means, either.

Let's forget your game.
by Camille Claudel

(But I'll point out the man is shown as strong, proud - face in full view - no shame for a man, eh? Contrast with the woman.)

Anyway - two previous theses:

1) You can't understand art by looking at it, no matter how hard you try. This is a great example.

2) (More recent discussion): Observation is entirely theory laden. (and therefore fatal to the existence of Scientific Method).

Great synthesis, eh? You'll disagree still with both, but I score many meta-points for long term consistency.....

what happened to DC's posts here?
by Camille Claudel
I was just writing a response, and they disappeared!
Re: Let's forget your game.
by Schadenfreude

The problem: you always think you've proven your point long before you have.

Leaving me twiddling my thumbs...

Do You Know or Can You Read German, QuietMan?
by Zeus-Boy

Are you fluent in the German language? What was the last book you read in the original German? Did you read it with a dictionary or were you able to read it through without the aid of a dictionary?

Be careful how you answer now, QuietMan, because I suspect you're a pathological liar. I suspect you're a complete charlatan, even an incurable idiot, and that your superficial knowledge of Boxing, Opera, Art, Film, Literature and Enlightenment Philosophy is little more than a frothy and flatulent excrescence masquerading as thought.

ein bisschen
by Camille Claudel

Last book I attempted in German was Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Long time ago. I can't read anything without the aid of a dictionary (sometimes not even English).

As for superficial knowledge - gladly plea to guilty as charged. I've been fortunate to meet a few people, in the areas you've mentioned (and a few others) who's knowledge was clearly beyond "superficial".

But the claim to superficial knowledge places me exactly where, here?

Anyway - perhaps something is bothering you - suspecting I'm a liar, pathalogical or not.

There's a difference between proving a point,
by Camille Claudel
and merely pointing someone in another direction, that they obviously hadn't thought of.
so anyway,
by Camille Claudel
that is definitely a very nice bed, with curtains around it, and the young woman may well be focusing her attention on it, rather than bowing her head as if in shame.
So much to cover
by meridiantoo

My understanding is that ter Borch explained much of this painting in a retrospective on his works he completed (in 1636?).

Per ter Borch, the guy is a Walmart Assistant Manager. He runs the meat department in the East Overjssel Walmart and has caught the girl slipping a butt portion of smoked ham under her dress (Maybe the shank cut - I forget, but any error there seems unimportant at this point). He knows that she usually wears patent leather boy shorts a tube top and green flip flops when she shops, so whenever she comes to Walmart dressed in her full skirt, the security cameras track her all the way through the store, knowing that she is trying to lift some sort of smoked meat. Sometimes, it's ham, other times smoked pork chops, or sausage. Occasionally beef, but not that often, because she is usually lifting it for the dog, who is presented as a dejected, spirit, knowing that his days of free ham bone are passing as he watches.

Anyhow, the Asst. manager is giving the girl the old Dutch what-for, demanding that she lift her skirt and show the ham, which he believes she is holding between her legs. She understands that it's either 'show the bare stuff, or do some hard time' and so she shyly resists his overtly sexual demands, suddenly feeling as if she has become a pawn in the sexual foreplay between the Asst Manager and the Store Security Manager, a spiteful old hag who spends each day judgmentally sipping boxed Paul Mason wine that she pulls from the wine section of the store, claiming carton damage has rendered the box unsellable (just look at that snobby way she holds the stemware), demanding a strip search of any Dutch lass she even vaguely suspects of boosting store inventory.

For years, art critics have speculated on the true meaning of the "07" formed by the ribbon shown hanging from the table. Some speculate it is a reference to the 1607 run at the Stanley cup made by the Vonfoosten Headcheesers in their 734 game winning streak, before they were eliminated from the quarter finals that year. Others say there is no way that ter Borch would have used such a blatant sports analogy in a painting as it would have alienated most of the Yeervestland Salamanders, Versteejeen Wormers, and many of the Pivenderstander Owl fans. Not to mention all of his home boys who unfailingly rooted for the Overjssel MadHatters. I tend to agree with this second opinion as ter Borch portrays the WalMart Meat Market Asst. Manager holding a Overjssel team MadHat in his lap, with the team colors predominately displayed in the hat band feather.

Regarding the '07", I tend to side with those who believe he is showing support for his soemtimes benefactor Claus von der Husserl, the notorious proprietor of the Danish line dance club "The 07 Lounge" out on Lake Pilkeenver.

No one has ever presented any meaningful explanation as the the "Pig sticker" sported by the meat Market Asst. Manager. I believe ter Borch included it as nothing more than a symbolic penis reference.

Ever in service to the Arts,

M2

As I Thought ...
by Zeus-Boy

Everybody's an instant expert, so why not you too?

If I had one wish for Internet discourse it would be that idiots like you would cease and desist from laying claim to knowledge you don't possess. Slim chance of that happening.

What about the other woman?
by Dawn Coyote..

Shame, vicarious shame, or was she just being demur? Is a demur gesture shame based? Somehow it seems connected, but that's neither here nor there, with regards to the painting.

And what about the foil wrapping on the woman?

Watch it bucko ...
by watt4bob

... some of this guys friends are respected curators.

PS: Todays painting is much better than the last one. Don't you think?

Page 1 of 3 (42 items)   1 2 3 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML