QOTD

[randy_byers]

'"Real" can't be the point. We already have real.'

-- Christopher Sorrentino, interviewed by Glenn Kenny: Christopher Sorrentino on "Death Wish," the so-called "New York film," received critical wisdom, and a little more...

Or maybe I should have gone with this:

'If we were to catalog the social responsibility of all existing works of art solely on the basis of the community standards existing at the time of their creation, Deep Throat would end up being a more socially responsible work than Jude the Obscure.'

Comments

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

I'm reasonably sure Randy was just making a joke about the contrast between the words "illusion" and "reality."

OTOH:

"You may disagree, but this viewpoint has a pretty hefty pedigree."

Ah. So it's not just recently wrong, it's been wrong for a long time? Well, then.

I also point out, in the page you've cited, the sentence, "Such is the seductive beauty of his paintings that their subtle artifice often goes unnoticed," right after the phrase, "illusion of reality." Often != always. I'd say Vermeer is a bad example of "illusion of reality," actually... his light is very specific to him. (Not unlike Christopher Walken's line, it's really tough to go hire a "Vermeer type.") It's precisely because I have a sense of how difficult Vermeer's light is to work with that I had a very strong positive reaction to the cinematography of Eduardo Serra in Girl With a Pearl Earring -- because he came so close, and got it so right.

You may disagree, but this viewpoint is based on direct empirical observation.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

"Oxymoron" was probably the wrong word, but I do think there's an interesting tension between the words in the phrase "illusion of reality," as you have pointed out, and obviously there's a long philosophical debate on the nature and goal of artistic representation. Christopher Sorrentino's line is a good summation of one angle on the debate.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I didn't say it was wrong, just that what I pointed to is not just some randomly offered viewpoint. Authority is not necessarily right (whatever "right" may mean), even the National Gallery of Art on art theory, but it does mean that their view should be taken seriously, and not just brushed aside because Some Guy On The Internet dismisses it, even if he has a Sondheim lyric to back him up.

I agree that Vermeer has a specific kind of light, but I don't see that as being incongruent with "the illusion of reality."

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"(W)hat I pointed to is not just some randomly offered viewpoint."

I can see why you'd think so. I couldn't possibly comment.

"I agree that Vermeer has a specific kind of light, but I don't see that as being incongruent with "the illusion of reality.""

Reality is reproducible. Either that, or the whole edifice of science tumbles. If Vermeer's light is idiosyncratic to him, then definitionally, it has no element of "reality," illusory or not.

"(T)heir view should be taken seriously, and not just brushed aside because Some Guy On The Internet dismisses it, even if he has a Sondheim lyric to back him up."

Or even if Some Different Guy on the Internet randomly offers a page from the National Gallery of Art that has no discernible connection to the topic at hand, to back him up. It's not the NGA's fault they're being cited by humorless crack pots, after all.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Guys, I think this has gotten too personal, so I'm turning off comments.