2009/02/01
realisme
Realistic art is one of my favorite genres in the way that it tackled issues plaguing society and consisted of many believers in social justice, but there is a catch to that. I do not believe that realistic art could have succeeded if it had not come after Romanticism. We read a story in French a few weeks ago by Marcel Aymé called "Oscar et Erick". I will not bore anyone with a summary of the story, but the basic moral was that people shouldn't paint just what they see because art is supposed to be creative and about the imagination, which Romanticism certainly accomplished, and I agree with this statement. Thus, I feel that it is important that Romanticism came first because with only realistic art, art would frankly be boring, which is a problem that I feel the movement of realism runs into quite often. However, the movement came at a perfect time, when conditions for the poor were as awful, sending messages that challenged society to evaluate how these people were treated and the conditions they were forced to live in. Realism is so far from boring, in that regard, even if some of Balzac's descriptions can run on forever and depress the happiest person because he does it in the most amazing of ways.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have been reading midnightponderer, and I can see a real “realist” bent in MP's work:
ReplyDelete“Thus, I feel that it is important that Romanticism came first because with only realistic art, art would frankly be boring, which is a problem that I feel the movement of realism runs into quite often. However, the movement came at a perfect time, when conditions for the poor were as awful, sending messages that challenged society to evaluate how these people were treated and the conditions they were forced to live in.”
http://midnightponderer.blogspot.com/2009/02/realisme.html
Is realism really that boring without Romanticism to contrast it? Why is that? Is looking at reality inherently boring, so much so that we can only stand it after a bit of fantasy?
“there is something to be said about Bismark's pragmatic approach to politics. He is one of the examples from history that makes me believe that sometimes, a ruler cannot be best friends with the people or has to look at a situation in a more realistic than idealistic sense or both. While I usually prefer rulers to always consider what's best for the people, I understand that sometimes rulers need to be pragmatic about how much they act on those considerations. There is a point when we need to stop being dreamers and work in a realistic frame”
http://midnightponderer.blogspot.com/2009/02/otto-von.html
If conservative policies have proven to cause anger and revolt, why do rulers such as the Habsburgs, always return to a conservative government?
http://midnightponderer.blogspot.com/2009/01/give-up-ghost.html
This is a good question—could the answer be habit? Or fear of the unknown—when we see change is needed, we don't embrace it—we run from it. Is this human nature? Can you think of examples where meaningful reform took place?
I can see that: “Romanticism was key in that it reminded humans that irrationality could be more satisfactory that rationality, lending way for some of the most creative works to come into existence.” http://midnightponderer.blogspot.com/2009/01/aw-how-romantic.html. But does romanticism also lead one to madness, death, sleepless nights....? How cool is that, really?