steepholm: (Default)
steepholm ([personal profile] steepholm) wrote2007-06-04 11:05 pm

It's Art - But is it Beautiful?

I think so. And it's certainly hypnotic. But there's just a tincture of creepiness in there too, n'est-ce pas?

[identity profile] lilliburlero.livejournal.com 2007-06-05 07:11 am (UTC)(link)
I think a certain amount of sub-Berger can be talked about this, but the portraits aren't randomly selected: the artist has chosen a certain type of portrait with a certain type of sitter to make a point which must have occurred to most people who've ever been in an art gallery. Religious art apart from pictures of the Virgin -- a good source of older, crosser-looking women with faces in action rather than repose -- is underrepresented. The eyes are creepily static, but I'd be wary of ascribing that to the "male gaze" until I'd seen a control: a similar thing done with portraits of men, for example (not that a possessive gaze can't operate on men's bodies, but I don't think we can gender it so easily if that is the case). I suspect the eyes stay where they are because everybody's eyes are roughly the same place in their heads, so there are only a limited number of things you can do with eyes in a figural portrait (the artist has selected their Cubists and other moderns very carefully: a more radical Picasso, for example, would have upset things rather).