Art Lovers discussion

7 views
Guess Who (by artist's works!) > BRING me wine, but wine which never grew (W-A Bouguereau)

Comments Showing 1-21 of 21 (21 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Dirk (new)

Dirk Van | 2692 comments BRING me wine, but wine which never grew
In the belly of the grape,
Or grew on vine whose tap-roots, reaching through
Under the Andes to the Cape,
Suffer no savor of the earth to scape.




message 2: by Chris (new)

Chris Gager (chrisinmaine) | 332 comments Sheesh, put some clothes on, people!


message 3: by Dirk (new)

Dirk Van | 2692 comments What's the matter Chris? Feeling too old for this kind of thing?


message 4: by Chris (new)

Chris Gager (chrisinmaine) | 332 comments Totally ...


message 5: by Ruth (new)

Ruth | 1889 comments Looks like fun to me.


message 6: by Connie (last edited Sep 06, 2019 08:04PM) (new)

Connie G (connie_g) | 360 comments William-Adolphe Bouguereau


message 7: by Connie (new)

Connie G (connie_g) | 360 comments Do you remember this song?

Bottle of wine, fruit of the vine
When you gonna let me get sober
Leave me along, let me go home
I wann'a go back and start over


message 8: by Albin (new)

Albin Winters | 100 comments Dirk wrote: "BRING me wine, but wine which never grew
In the belly of the grape,
Or grew on vine whose tap-roots, reaching through
Under the Andes to the Cape,
Suffer no savor of the earth to scape.

"


Oh, just a typical Friday night in Santa Cruz!!


message 9: by Ruth (new)

Ruth | 1889 comments Connie wrote: "Do you remember this song?

Bottle of wine, fruit of the vine
When you gonna let me get sober
Leave me along, let me go home
I wann'a go back and start over"


Yes indeed!


message 10: by Dirk (new)

Dirk Van | 2692 comments You mean this:

https://youtu.be/FZynyHW2hfw

My Lyrics were a bit older ;-)
It's the first lines of "Bacchus" by Ralph Waldo Emerson.
But by the way Bouguereau was correct!





I have a selection ready to post, but first a bit of breakfast ;-)


message 11: by Dirk (new)

Dirk Van | 2692 comments




















More of his 800+ known works on:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%92u...


message 12: by Heather, Moderator (new)

Heather | 8271 comments Chris wrote: "Sheesh, put some clothes on, people!"
Ruth wrote: "Looks like fun to me."

Chris, that was totally hilarious!
And somehow, Ruth, I can see you saying that. I can see you sitting in your chair, looking out the window at the ocean with a big smile on your face, some mischief in your sparkling eyes and saying "Looks like fun to me!" Of course, I've never met you in person, that's just how I see you in my mind.


message 13: by Heather, Moderator (new)

Heather | 8271 comments

I had a thought and I can't remember if this was addressed in one of my classes in college, but wasn't it somewhat of a, I don't want to say 'degrading', but like 'less respectful' portrayal of the human how in art back then, they always showed all of the full naked anatomy of a female but rarely showed the full anatomy of the male. If you look in the above painting, you see much more of the women then you do of the men.
Is there some political thought behind this at the time? Or some sort of unspoken rule in art? Or is it that the female is viewed as inferior to the male? Am I making any sense? I really don't know how to explain myself.


message 14: by Ruth (new)

Ruth | 1889 comments I know what you mean, Heather, and I’ve noticed it, too.


message 15: by Chris (new)

Chris Gager (chrisinmaine) | 332 comments An excellent point. One possible reason is that it was always assumed in the good old days that someone looking at a painting was male and therefore not interested in looking at naked men. Or ... might be made uncomfortable if required to look at a fully naked man. The classic Greeks were much into male beauty and their art showed it. Then ... things changed. This is why it can be difficult for a man to stand in front of Caravaggio's Amor Vincit Omnia and really look at it. The painting is fairly large, and that kid is REALLY NAKED and daring you to look at him. Been there, done that, and I can tell you it's a challenge(for a man).


message 16: by Ruth (new)

Ruth | 1889 comments But the classic Greeks gave their males teeny phalluses.


message 17: by Heather, Moderator (new)

Heather | 8271 comments Ha! That’s exactly what i was thinking, Ruth! You said it.


message 18: by Chris (new)

Chris Gager (chrisinmaine) | 332 comments The story I read about Michelangelo's David was that at the end(so to speak) he didn't have much marble left to work with so that's why "it's" so small. Or perhaps he and others felt that to emphasize the genitalia would detract from the ideal beauty of the work. My understanding of Greek art and culture comes mostly from reading Mary Renault's books. She wrote much more about Greek homo-love than Greek homo-sex. The implication(as I took it) was that male-male love was of a "higher" spiritual nature than sex.


message 19: by Chris (new)

Chris Gager (chrisinmaine) | 332 comments I hesitate to get into art history topics that I know little about. I see in my above comment that I unconsciously assumed that Michelangelo's David was done in a classic Greek mode. It LOOKS like that, but I really don't know.


message 20: by Dirk (new)

Dirk Van | 2692 comments Not only the Greeks, Ruth.
The "man" (really an angel) in the Caravaggio, Chris is talking about is no more than a teenager, and has a pretty small phallus. Also David by Michalangelo who is well muscled has a very modest manhood. And yet... here in Antwerp we have a 1/1 replica standing in a park with a fig leaf covering his genitals.
Modesty and prudeness have always come and gone through the ages. Look at the late sixties and now 50 years later, times have certainly changed.


message 21: by Chris (new)

Chris Gager (chrisinmaine) | 332 comments And will continue to do so, no doubt.


back to top