Below, a rare beautiful binding of The Hobbit from abebooks.com.
J.R.R. Tolkien fascinates me for many reasons. I think of him as a super-talented Renaissance man. He created an elaborate fictional world in Middle Earth. Not only did he show himself a master of letters in his Lord of the Rings trilogy, he illustrated his stories himself with skill. He is a writer, illustrator, cartographer,letterer, philologist, simply a creator on many levels.
Tolkien's illustration of Rivendell, a region of Middle Earth
A Tolkien illustration for The Hobbit
Mary Podles, a retired curator of Renaissance and Baroque art at the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, Maryland, wrote in Touchstone magazine that Tolkien may have been inspired artistically by illustrators Walter Crane, Arthur Rackham, John Bauer and Kay Nielsen and even by the Art Nouveau jewelry of Rene Lalique, in his descriptions of various jewelry for his fictional characters. The Art Nouveau style, most popular from 1890 to 1910, would have been prevalent in Tolkien's childhood. Tolkien was born in 1892.
Lalique pendant, below
Notice that the Lalique pendant is inspired by nature just as in Goldberry's belt of golden flag-lilies, Aragorn's eagle brooch or the hobbits' enameled leaf brooches.
Reproduction of Frodo's leaf brooch from The Lord of the Rings movies
Whether or not these other illustrators influenced Tolkien, I appreciate all of them. Arthur Rackham (1845 - 1939) had a style that is sometimes described as a fusion of European Nordic style and Japanese woodblock. Rackham would do soft pencil sketches, block in shapes around his outline, add details in pen and India ink and layers of washes of transparent tints.
I know, from numerous sources, that Tolkien was influenced by Nordic mythology, so it would not be surprising that he might be influenced by a 'Nordic' illustrator. In fact, Rackham did illustrations for The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and The Twilight of the Gods by Richard Wagner. Wagner's operas were based on Nordic mythology, and Tolkien's friend, C.S. Lewis, was an avid Wagner fan. Here are some of Rackham's illustrations, one of which is for one of my favorite children's books.
An Arthur Rackham illustration for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Dancing with the Fairies by Arthur Rackham
Walter Crane (1845-1915) was an illustrator of the Arts and Crafts movement as was William Morris, whose fantasy writings such as The Wood Beyond the World, 1894, and The Well at the World's End, 1896, also influenced Tolkien's writing. Crane was similarly influenced by Japanese woodblock design. He worked in watercolor and also in woodcuts.
Walter Crane's illustration for Little Red Riding Hood
Walter Crane's illustration for Beauty and the Beast
Compare Rackham and Crane's illustrations to the examples below.
The Great Wave by Hokusai, a Japanese woodblock design
Kay Nielsen illustration
Kay Nielsen (1886 - 1957), like Lalique, was an Art Nouveau artist. Nielsen, who was Danish, illustrated a collection of Nordic fairy tales in East of the Sun and West of the Moon. He even did some illustration for Night on Bald Mountain for Disney's 1940 Fantasia.
Night on Bald Mountain from the 1940 Fantasia
I see some similarities in each of these styles, in the strong use of outline, in the contrast of dark and light and the stylized shapes. Compare the curving and arcing lines in Night on Bald Mountain with Hokusai's The Wave. Compare both to the circular billows of smoke in Tolkien's own illustration from The Hobbit. I see both Japanese and Art Nouveau influences in Crane's illustration for Beauty and the Beast.
Are we playing six degrees to Tolkien? Maybe. Really, I think the relationships would be easier to diagram with bubbles and interconnecting lines than with a linear outline. Rackham and Nielsen may have influenced Tolkien with their style of art. Japanese woodblock art influenced Rackham and Crane. I personally find it very interesting to see the different philosophical or historical influences on a new trend or movement or relationships between different artists and their influences.
Above, Shirley Jones as Marian Paroo and Robert Preston as Professor Harold Hill in the 1962, The Music Man.
I'm a fan of the musical comedy. A musical comedy can always make me smile, relax and de-stress. I know songs from musicals and their lyrics to an embarrassing degree. I once saw a T-shirt on zazzle.com that said, "Yes, I know all the lyrics to every musical, so sue me, sue me, shoot bullets through me," which was funny to me, because I recognized the "sue me, sue me" part as lyrics from Guys and Dolls.
Frank Sinatra as Nathan Detroit singing Sue Me, Sue Me to Vivian Blaine as Miss Adelaide in Guys and Dolls, 1955.
I think I like the musical, because it combines so many art forms I like into one: singing, dancing and storytelling/acting. At various times, I have sung in choirs and concerts, acted in dramas and danced for my own benefit and exercise, but I have never performed in a musical. You can, however, see how it might suit me.
Visual art is also an important element of the musical that can't be underestimated, the art that goes into costume design and set design. Musical comedies are often an explosion of color, with colors that pop and vibrate against one another...
Scene from West Side Story, 1961.
Or unrealistically monochromatic as if a whole town decided to dress alike for no particular reason.
The Shipoopi song from the 1962 movie, The Music Man
Think Pink from the 1957 Funny Face
In the above scene, the explosion of pink does have some pertinence to the plot in that it deals with employees of a fashion magazine and a new fashion trend.
It is the careful arrangement of color and beauty that adds so much to the musical experience. This past March, I went to visit a good friend in Florida. She and I visited Walt Disney World with her mother who said at one point that a visit to Disney World could give you sensory overload. The musical experience can be like that too, with so much for your eyes and ears to take in.
I realize not everyone is a fan of the genre. I remember, back in college days, overhearing a guy in the cafeteria making fun of musicals and, specifically, West Side Story. With a cheesy, pasted-on smile, he snapped his fingers and made up his own lyrics for the fictional gang members, "We've got your drugs, and we're going to kill you." Looking back on it, I laugh. I can understand why he would see the ridiculousness of a bunch of tough guy gang members slinking down dark alleys and breaking out into spontaneous dance, especially as some of the dance moves in the movie are ballet-related. (Those moves are, however, masculine.) A more modern retelling of the story might have the Sharks and Jets dancing hiphop style. Not all musicals are comedies. Some, such as West Side Story and Les Miserables, can communicate drama, tragedy and serious ideas.
Dancing Jets in West Side Story
I think it is this spontaneous song and dance in the midst of the story that those who are not fans find hard to understand. A friend of mine once, speaking to me about it, complained that musicals were unrealistic. I then told him, "Well, comic books are similarly unrealistic," since he is a fan of comic books. He then acted as if I had stepped on his toes. It wasn't my intention to insult something he liked but only to point out that people enjoy many art forms that are not strictly realistic. The 2007 Disney movie Enchanted has a song and dance scene that mocks the very idea of a spontaneous song and dance breaking out of nowhere. And you know what? I actually love it.
That's How You Know from Disney's Enchanted
I think of these spontaneous songs as like unto a Shakespearean aside or monologue. It is not realistic for a person to make little speeches to himself either. It is merely a technique to make us privy to that character's feelings at the moment. Songs in musicals serve the same purpose. Instead of expressing feelings in a monologue or dialogue or some other action, the character expresses it through song and dance. So, if you don't get hung up on the lack of strict realism, you can enjoy the format.
Maria Von Trapp, in The Sound of Music, can work out her anxiety in I Have Confidence in Me, and Anna Leonowens, in The King and I, can do the same thing in Whenever I Am Afraid.
Deborah Kerr as Anna Leonowen and Yul Brynner as the King of Siam in the 1955 The King and I
I don't think I will get tired of the musical, of discovering new ones or discovering old classics.
Last night, I was surfing channels and caught a part of a movie, Shallow Hal, 2001, that I had seen before. Soon after that finished, I caught another part of a movie, The Truth About Cats and Dogs, 1996, which I had never seen before. I saw similar themes in both movies, and though I have blogged on this theme, judging by appearances, somewhat recently, I felt I had some new thoughts.
In Shallow Hal, Hal is a guy who is constant pursuit of very beautiful women who do not return his interest, overlooking women he finds less physically attractive. Hal comes across an inspirational author who hypnotizes him into seeing the inner beauty (as outward) in the women he meets. This hypnosis trick even works on how Hal views other men (not that the story suggests that Hal is sexually attracted to other men.) Men with good hearts, Peace Corps volunteers, appear to him as more physically perfect than they are in reality.
Hal meets and dates a lovely woman named Rosemary whom Hal believes looks like, well, like Gwyneth Paltrow. The real Rosemary looks like Gwyneth Paltrow greatly fattened with some help from the makeup department. When Hal's shallow friend, Mauricio, learns that Hal is in a hypnotic state, he feels Hal's eyes should be opened and snaps him out of it. Hal then has to see if he can accept Rosemary as she really appears and, as this is a happy story, he does.
The Real Rosemary in Shallow Hal
The hypnosis aspect is interesting to me after doing some research for a previous blog entry Robot Love?. I had recently come across some Youtube videos of a hypnotist doing a comedy hypnosis demonstration at a state fair. I posted one in the previous blog. In a separate video I did not post, I came across one where the hypnotist had convinced some young guys they were seeing a naked photo of Britney Spears in a "magic" wallet. Their faces certainly registered that, in their minds at least, they were seeing something that was not there.
What was interesting to me in this movie, that I did not remember from my previous viewing, is that Hal not only sees the inner beauty as outward in certain women, he also sees the inner ugliness as outward in certain others. What if we lived in a world where evil people looked evil and ugly, and lovely, kind people looked beautiful? It rarely works exactly that way in reality.
In fairy tales and certain genres of fiction, the hero is always handsome, the heroine is always beautiful and the villain is always ugly. Real life is not so simple as that.
The Beautiful Cinderella and Handsome Prince Charming according to Disney
The Ugly Stepsisters (Who are also ugly in character)
The 1998 movie Ever After had a slightly different take on the Cinderella story. In Ever After, the stepsisters are not physically unattractive. The brunette, Jacqueline, is rather kind to Danielle (Cinderella), but she is also dominated by her mother and sister. The blonde, Marguerite, is beautiful but selfish and scheming, which makes her more threatening than an ugly stepsister when she attempts to charm the prince.
Megan Dodds as Marguerite De Ghent and Melanie Lynskey as Jacqueline De Ghent, the stepsisters, in Ever After
Drew Barrymore as Danielle (Cinderella), of course, is not unattractive either, but she is unlikely to catch the prince's attention dressed as a peasant and acting as servant to her stepmother. She first captures the prince's attention when she is dressed in her mother's clothes, acting as a noblewoman. The initial reason behind the disguise was not to fool the prince, but so that she would have the power to ransom a servant in court. She does, however, when questioned, give her mother's name to the prince, Comtesse Nicole de Lancret. As in other Cinderella stories, Danielle does go to the ball in a beautiful gown.
Drew Barrymore as Danielle in the ballroom scene in Ever After
There is a reason why physical beauty and negative inner traits often go together. Someone who receives too much affirmation for his or her looks can easily develop arrogance. Some beautiful people even learn to use their looks to their advantage as a manipulation tool.
At times, bad parenting can influence a person to be self-consumed. I've watched quite a few episodes of "Toddlers and Tiaras," the reality show about child pageants. These children are taught that it is extremely important not only to be beautiful but to be the most beautiful. They are pampered, indulged and rarely denied (unless denying the child's wishes helps her pageant chances which the parent wants more than the child does.) These children learn that their world revolves around them. This is an excellent way to foster outward beauty and bad character at the same time. On this show, I even observed one mother teaching her daughter how to manipulate her father for money to spend on pageant expenses. By being "cute" and acting charming, the girl could get what she wanted from her father. If this girl, at four or five years old, learns to manipulate her father with beauty and charm, what kind of girlfriend or wife will she be in the future?
Observe the spoiled behavior of the girl in the "Toddlers and Tiaras" video below.
I am not completely without sympathy for MacKenzie. All of the fussing that goes into preparation for pageants likely creates some stress that could provoke her to be cranky. I think she should be spared that stress. At the same time, no child should learn to speak with such disrespect towards her parents, and the parenting style has allowed her that freedom.
Evil does not always look evil. One example of that is with the "Barbie and Ken Killers."
Barbie and Ken Killers
This couple is as attractive as Barbie and Ken dolls. They do not look evil. They even had the appearance to those who knew them of being happily married. Who would have guessed that this man was an absolutely brutal serial rapist and killer and that his beautiful wife assisted him in his crimes?
Paul Bernardo bragged to police that he had raped 30 women. With his wife, Karla Homolka, they sexually assaulted and killed at least three girls. Some time ago, I watched a made-for-TV Lifetime movie about the couple and the crime spree. The movie was not at all graphic, but the nature of the crimes that are hinted at are quite disturbing even so. It was bothersome to the point that my emotional reaction, as I watched, induced a migraine or migraine aura. Bernardo was influenced by sadistic pornography, and suffice it to say that his victims went through a variety of torture, both physically and psychologically.
By looking at Bernardo, we do not see him as the type of character he is in reality. Perhaps, that is because we expect a criminal person to look the part. There are certain things we judge by appearances, sometimes with accuracy, sometimes not. If a person dresses with a spiked collar around the neck or a spiked bracelet, we may get the idea that the person is hostile. Similarly, you may get a certain idea of a person's character if they wear the T-shirt below.
I remember buying a pretzel at a pretzel stand in the mall from a young teen guy wearing a T-shirt with that very saying. I remember thinking, "What a terrible shirt to wear when you deal with the public all day." And then I wondered if his boss knew he was wearing such a shirt.
Even this area can be confusing. Not every hostile person dresses in a way as to outwardly display that attitude, and some hurting people, like a porcupine, present a prickly exterior as a defense mechanism. Hopefully, we can show that hurting person with the strange attire more kindness and understanding than he or she expects.
I am not trying to point out that all beautiful people are evil and that the average or below average looking people of the world are all stellar saints. Of course, that is not true. I do want to point out that character has a great deal more importance than appearances and that, without scratching past the surface, it is impossible to make a judgment about a person one way or another.
The Truth About Cats and Dogs explores the idea that the mate who is most suitable to you on a deeper level may come in different packaging than you expect, which, as I pointed out before, is a somewhat similar idea to Shallow Hal. The Truth About Cats and Dogs is essentially a retelling of Cyrano De Bergerac.
Cyrano De Bergerac, hidden in the bushes, woos Roxane with beautiful words, while Christian De Guiche presents the handsome front.
Cyrano De Bergerac was a real person in the 17th century. A loose biography was made of him in an 1897 play Cyrano De Bergerac. De Bergerac is in love with his cousin Roxane. He is intelligent and witty but embarrassed by his large nose. He learns that Roxane loves Christian De Guiche, another soldier in De Bergerac's regiment. De Guiche is quite the opposite, handsome but lacking in intelligence and wit. Together, they woo Roxane as one man, with De Guiche presenting the handsome front and De Bergerac writing all the love letters and poetry. Roxane marries De Guiche and corresponds with him (actually De Bergerac) while he is at war. De Guiche dies in battle, but Roxane still does not learn the true identity of the man she loves until 15 years later when De Bergerac visits her and reads to her one of De Guiche's letters which he wrote himself. Tragically, at this point, he is dying.
Cyrano De Bergerac and Roxane
The Truth About Cats and Dogs follows the story line somewhat of Cyrano De Bergerac in the confusing way that two women woo one man as one identity, but the ending is much more satisfying and happy. Dr. Abby Barnes (Jeanine Garofalo), a radio host of a show called The Truth About Cats and Dogs, has a wonderful stimulating conversation with a caller to the show, Brian (Ben Chaplin). Brian arranges a date with her, but insecure over her own looks, Abby sends instead her neighbor and friend, Noelle Slusarsky (Uma Thurman), a model who has more beauty than brains. This leads to all sorts of confusion. Brian continues to bond with the real Abby over the telephone while believing the beautiful Noelle is the actual Abby. Noelle tries several tactics, at times trying to assist her friend, and at times, pursuing Brian herself. Eventually, the confusion is sorted out, and Brian and Abby go on on a real date with one another.
From left to right: Brian, Noelle and Abby in The Truth About Cats and Dogs
There are a couple of wonderful lines in the movie. One is said by Brian, and when I heard it, it sounded like my very own thoughts, if not exactly verbatim, while watching Shallow Hal, something I have thought many times.
Brian says, "You know how someone's appearance can change the longer you know them? How a really attractive person, if you don't like them, can become more and more ugly; whereas someone you might not have even have noticed... that you wouldn't look at more than once, if you love them, can become the most beautiful thing you've ever seen. All you want to do is be near them."
In my own experience, I have found this to be true and thought a very similar thought, that an attractive person of poor character begins to look less attractive and a more ordinary person with a wonderful personality and character, begins to look better and better.
At one point, before the whole mystery is unraveled to Brian, Abby says to him, "So say you meet one of these no sparks women, and you really take the time to get to know her and then you become intellectually stimulated by her. You just really enjoy her personality, thereby igniting all your lust and passion. Have you ever thought about that?"
I don't like the word "lust" so much. I'd rather replace that word with "attraction." Even so, I would hope it would work this way. I know it did for my parents. They wrote for years before they met in person and for quite some time even before photos were exchanged.
Before I offend some female readers, I think I should preface this blog by saying that I am not opposed to all women's progress accomplished by the feminist movement. I'm glad American women have the right to vote, that we can pursue a number of interesting careers, and, especially personally, that we can write books under our own names rather than Currer Bell(Charlotte Bronte)and George Eliot(Mary Anne Evans.)I'm glad that the 19th century "Bloomers" thought it was a good idea women should have more practical clothing than skirts to our ankles for doing more active things such as riding a bicycle.
I might even agree with some of the issues supported by today's feminists such as in this partial statement from Wikipedia, "Since the 1980s, standpoint feminists have argued that the feminist movement should address global issues (such as rape, incest, and prostitution) and culturally specific issues (such as female genital mutilation in some parts of Africa and the Middle East..."
I do have a problem with ultra-feminism, where women want to be superior and not just equal to men, where motherhood and children (particularly unborn children) are devalued. That said, I will point out the anti-feminism themes I see in two movies.
I grew up listening to two Disney movie soundtracks on vinyl record. As the movies were released in the theater before I was born, I was familiar with the soundtracks long before I actually viewed the movies. One was "Mary Poppins." The other was "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang." I love both. The story of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," as presented in the Disney movie, has so many elements that I enjoy: the Victorian setting, the folk art aesthetic, a family friendly story and an absent-minded inventor/dreamer/visionary main character. It's hard for me to fully express just what I love about this movie.
In recent years, as an adult, I read the original "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" book by Ian Fleming, who is more famous for his James Bond stories. I was disappointed that, aside from the main characters and their ridiculous names like Truly Scrumptious and Caractacus Potts (perhaps to imply Cracked Pot) and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, the flying car, the book had absolutely no resemblance to the movie whatsoever. The plot is entirely different. There is no trip to Vulgaria, no Baron and Baroness Bomburst and no children banned to the underground. I have to confess I like the Disney movie plot better.
As an adult, however, I see something different in the movie than I saw as a youth. Children are outlawed in Vulgaria. The baroness who rules the land recoils from children as if they were mice or vermin.
This makes me think of China where there is a two child limit per household, and children are aborted to keep the number under this quota. But it also makes me think of the selfish ultra-feminist who devalues children as an inconvenience, who treats the unborn child as an extension of the mother's body, a lump of unfeeling flesh to be disposed of if it's inconvenient. She has the right to abort, because "It's my body" as if aborting a baby was something like trimming hair or nails. Clearly, there are two bodies involved.
A sixteen-week-old baby in utero
I have some past experience as a child care worker, and I saw an ugly side to motherhood there too, as did the writers of "The Nanny Diaries," a selfish motherhood that puts career above all else, where children are shuffled from one program to the next, to before-care, then school, then after-care to ballet or karate class. I cared for affection-starved children who wanted me to hug and cuddle them and asked me, "Pretend you're my mom."
The fact that the child-hating baroness is the villain, and the story is in favor of the children, seems to me to have a parallel to a pro-life and pro-children message, whether or not that was the intention of the Disney writers.
The other more recent movie where I saw a subtle anti-feminist message was in "Mars Needs Moms." Other reviewers saw just the opposite, but since this female-dominated world (on Mars) is presented in a negative not positive light, I see it as taking a different stance. Although perhaps it could be stated that children viewing the movie might not be able to see the subtlety.
In the female-dominated world of Mars, young girls are raised by nanny-bots, not mothers, and young boys are thrown into the trash heap where they are raised by the "hairy tribe guys." I have to think that the script writers are making a point about ultra-feminism and not a positive one.
In the end, they discover a cave painting that shows "two parents," showing that in the past Mars had a family structure more similar to that on Earth. They had forgotten about a mother's care and love for her children and the need for children to have two parents. One critical reviewer disliked the fact that the word "father" is never mentioned specifically in the movie. I can understand that, but perhaps the point was that this society had degraded to such a point they no longer understood what "father" was. However, the point of the movie seems to be that two parents is a good thing rather than otherwise.
The fact that the young boys are treated so differently than girls in the Mars society is, of course, disturbing. I remember (not verbatim) the disdainful line that the villainous matriarch of the society makes about young boys, "always laughing and playing." There does seem to be a similar prejudice in our modern society about active and excitable young boys.
I was talking some months ago to a female friend of mine who is the mother of two teenaged boys. She mentioned a female educator who unfairly made things difficult for her sons on a number of occasions and had the nerve to announce during a public ceremony that she "hated boys." Really? It reminded me of stories my own mother has told me about when my oldest brother was in elementary school. My poor brother who was a quiet, well-behaved boy who was far from being hyper was getting stomach aches from the stress his teacher put on him and the boys in his class in general. She screamed and yelled in a paranoid way even when they were behaved, and one time, my mother caught her in the act and understood my brother's stress.
Why are so many children, especially boys, labelled ADD and ADHD? It may not be natural to every boy (or girl,)especially at a young age, to sit quietly in school for hours on end. I tend to think, and this is just my opinion, that these levels of energy are more basic and normal human differences. Why is the active child "abnormal" and needs a label and a prescription for Ritalin? If these children are so abnormal, why are there so many of them? There may be some cases where medication is needed, where the problem has some root in some neurological abnormality, but I don't believe it's a good thing to label a child because he exhibits some unwanted traits or to give out Ritalin as a panacea.
The throwaway children in both movies, the underground children in "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" and the trash heap boys in "Mars Needs Moms", makes me think of another social problem that is not a direct result of feminism, street children in Peru. The problem comes as a result of the breakdown of the family, as much from problematic fathers as problematic mothers, but the boys in the trash heap of Mars make me think of the boys in the trash heaps of Peru. My pastor has written a book, Habitations of Cruelty, about this very problem and other problems affecting the world's children. There are, I believe a preponderance of street children in other nations as well, but my church in particular has concerned itself with the street boys of Peru, supporting an organization called Centro Shama.
From the Centro Shama website,
"Only in Lima it is calculated that approximately 1500 to 2000 boys, girls and adolescents, with the age among 6 to 17 years, are living in the street.
This phenomenon is consequence of the family crisis that we experience, the increment of disfunctioning families, extreme poverty, migration to Lima, that during the last two decades ascended to exorbitant percentages, the crisis of values that our society experience and the infantile abuse, that every day is increasing.
All this causes, that every day a boy escapes from his house."
I'm so happy that my church supports the shelter, care and rehabilitation of these children at Centro Shama.
A friend of mine recently talked to me about surrealist artist Joan Miro and said, "It looked like something a five-year-old would draw." Looking at this one, the painting "Sonnens" above, I tend to agree with my friend. It certainly looks like something a five-year-old would do. Actually, come to think of it, it reminds me somewhat of Wall-E from the Pixar movie, only Wall-E was much more skillfully rendered. It hardly took the skill to make this painting as it did for Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or sculpt the "David," so it does make you wonder how this is just as museum worthy as Michelangelo.
Anyone else see a resemblance?
According to Wikipedia,"Earning international acclaim, his work has been interpreted as Surrealism, a sandbox for the subconscious mind, a re-creation of the childlike, and a manifestation of Catalan pride. In numerous interviews dating from the 1930s onwards, Miró expressed contempt for conventional painting methods as a way of supporting bourgeois society, and famously declared an 'assassination of painting' in favor of upsetting the visual elements of established painting." So, "childlike" is actually mentioned in one of the opening paragraphs of the article. Obviously, my friend and I are not the only ones who've made such an observation.
Just like not all Picasso's paintings were cubist and some had more realism, for example, "The Old Man with Guitar," so Miro does have a few paintings that show a little bit more realism. I can't say the painting below, "Painting of Toledo" looks like something a five-year-old would do. It is a bit of a surrealist landscape with the unnatural colors and wavy lines in the foreground, and even the more realistic building is only semi-realistic, but I don't mind it quite so much. As a whole, it makes me think of some of the Post-Impressionists like Van Gogh or Cezanne. I can see it as a stylistic sort of illustration for, say, a fantasy story of some sort. When my focus is on the foreground, I'm reminded more of psychedelic art.
Many of Miro's paintings I've observed are more similar to the one below, "The Red Sun," an abstract and odd assortment of peculiar shapes with a lot of use of primary colors. His paintings may show a sense of balance and a use of vibrating color, but there is not an incredible amount of skill involved that is different or superior than what a lot of other artists could easily do. According to www.joanmiro.com, "Joan Miro had a very eccentric style that is the embodiment of his unique approach to his artwork." I suppose that's what is unique about him, that he defined his own style, one that may be as difficult to imitate convincingly as some individual's quirky handwriting. I wonder if anyone has tried to forge an "undiscovered" Miro? His quirky style is, however, not something I prefer. Much of the modern art in museums seem more like philosophical statements, in his case maybe the "assassination of art," than works of superior skill.
Recently, I have read about a six-year-old abstract artist, Maria Olmstead, who is selling her paintings for big bucks. When it comes to Miro vs. Olmstead, I prefer the actual child paintings to the childlike Miro paintings.
This is not something the average six-year-old paints. For instance,I remember a painting my nephew Bill created as a child where colors were swirled together and turned into a muddy puddle. No offense to Bill. His skills lie elsewhere, in math and in computer programming. :) Olmstead's painting style may not be realistic, and it may be somewhat random, but it is also a very pleasing pattern of texture and color. There is, I think, a place for that in the world of art and design. Below is her painting "Lollipop House."
I do realize that artistic preferences are somewhat subjective. "Lollipop House" is not likely a painting I would love to have framed on my wall, because my preference for wall art is more representational than abstract. It is something that I feel would be a great design for any number of textiles or fabrics, rugs, scarves, etc., where the design is repeated over a large surface. What is your preference, child artist Olmstead or childlike artist Miro?
I went to see "Brave" last night on its opening night. I won't share any "spoilers," but I will share some of my thoughts that sprang from watching the movie. The basic plot, which you might have picked up from commercials or trailers, is that Merida, the princess, must be betrothed. The fiance-to-be must win her hand in an archery contest. There is a running theme of "choosing your own fate," as most of Merida's decisions are made for her in her regimented life as a princess. Without sharing too many plot details, eventually, Merida's mother decides that she should break tradition and let her daughter find love in her own time.
During the archery scene, there is a lot of silliness with the various suitors showing off, flexing muscles and sometimes acting more clumsy than skilled. Fathers brag on their sons and their supposed macho and military feats. Of course, Merida is not impressed by their braggadocio or bravado.
Strangely enough, this made me think of modern dating in our modern culture. Watching this movie, we somehow sense that this scene, and this method of selecting a mate, is silly. But some modern people's concepts are equally silly, and sometimes, it is mature singles (at least in terms of age) who have silly junior high concepts that we can select a mate just by scanning a sea of faces and picking out the prettiest one.
Why is this? Modern people should have grown up hearing that it's wrong to be shallow and expressions like "Beauty is only skin deep," right? But we've also grown up with movies that glorify the idea of infatuation and promote it as true love, that promote the idea that love is something that will slap us silly some day, that we can't control and that we "fall into."
"Some enchanted evening, you will see a stranger across a crowded room, and somehow you'll know, you'll know even then, somehow you will see her again and again." from "South Pacific"
I admit I like the "South Pacific" movie for the beautiful music, but some of the romantic concepts are faulty. Even worse than the "across a crowded room" idea with Nellie and Emile is the scene with Lieutenant Joe Cable and the Polynesian Liat. These two do not speak the same language. On first meeting her, Cable says to Liat, "Avez-vous peur?" which is, "Are you afraid?" in French. The next moment, she has thrown herself on him, demonstrating just how unafraid of him she is, and they make out, and, it is implied...they go further. The greater theme in "South Pacific" is overcoming prejudices of various kinds, which I do appreciate. Many of the more recent romance movies are even worse in their depiction of infatuation and shallow relationships, showing people passionate about each other who just barely met.
Once, while on a dating site, I had a man chatting with me who wanted to meet me right away. I'm pleased to say that I did not agree to meet him. He kept carrying on about how I was "his type," judging from my photo. As surprised as I was that I could be anyone's physical type, I was not impressed by this flattery. I'd rather have someone look at my profile and take this approach, "Hey, I see you like (insert interest here.) So do I!" rather than "Gee, yer perty!" He was also convinced we were made for each other when he found out we both listened to one of the same radio stations, but this is also a bit of a silly conclusion, after talking to someone for only five minutes.
I perused match.com several years ago. I don't think I was ever an official member. I was astonished by one man's profile that included a two paragraph long description of his ideal mate. She had to be Italian and wear her hair a certain way and wear lots of lip gloss. His very long description was purely physical with no listing of personality, values or other inner qualifications. I thought to myself, "How can he expect that such a person, if he finds her, will 1) be attracted to him and 2) be a decent person who shares some compatibility?" This may not be kind, but I hoped he would find such a woman, and she would be his own punishment for having such a foolish idea. A person's looks alone tells you almost nothing of importance. It might tell you something about the person's neatness habits or fitness, but that's all.
I've been reading in "The World's Greatest Love Letters." In one of these historical letters, one man wrote to his wife, "Love is only friendship in a more exalted form." I wish I could recall who wrote that one! (I'll comment later if I can find it.) That, I think, is the best idea, romantic love that has a friendship basis. We can hope that Merida finds love in her own time in this manner. But, how can infatuation be "friendship in an exalted form?" Perhaps, in some cases, if infatuation settles down and matures, it could transform that way.
