The "Scuola Metafisica"--Metaphysical School--of Modern Italian painting attempted to allow actual visual impression of the mystical, at least within the reference of the artist's creation for the viewer. Dominated by the painter De Chirico, the School made a dynamic contribution to early to mid-twentieth century modern art.
De Chirico's work may be described as dreamlike, but to me the use of mannequins and empty space produces a feeling of sterility, not spiritual connectedness. Carlo Carra and Giorgio Morandi appear a bit more accessible to me, but spiritual aspects of the school as a whole are lost on me. As an Atheist, perhaps I am lacking in some capacity to glean this experience from a painting, even if such a painting self-consciously tries to produce it.
What do you think? Did the "Scuola" manage visual innovation & spiritual insight, or simply a variation on the theme of light & shadow in more modern interpretation? Is appreciation for such limited by self/belief?
2007-09-11 18:04:52 · 7 answers · asked by Jack B, sinistral 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Edit: Love Yahoo, your question appears to be a reference to Harry Potter, and that is a subject I know absolutely noting about. I've never read any of the books or seen any of the movies, sorry!
2007-09-11 18:28:47 · update #1
Im with you Wannabe... Im going to ahve to read this again beofre I can consider it.... tick... tick... tick...
OK.. well, what we are missing in appreciating this school of thought, and when reviewing the work produced through it is the environmental context. Imagine your world... war torn Italy during WW1.... What do you long for most? Now think of the movie Matrix and locate yourself in the "white space" room with Keanu Reeves where all the machine gun racks are .... white noise.
What I find spiritual about the work is the spatial connection between reality and white noise. It's the place that I go when I sit on the ocean floor ducking a huge set of waves.. I hold the sand and I hear it moving, I look up and I see waves passing overhead and I think.. "should I return - or just enjoy this for a while longer". The paintings themselves are of mundane objects arranged in white space within the mind of the artist, only connected to reality through the observer. Fascinating stuff.
This connects with my thoughts that "good" art is contextual in terms of time and place, and is culturally specific.
2007-09-11 18:12:53 · answer #1 · answered by Icy Gazpacho 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Jack, my boy, I crawl in here to send you motherly advice and you throw a question out like this? Icy G. has just blown my mind with his answer. I have to hide my Dali prints from my mother. She thinks I'm not right in the head, and it just isn't worth arguing about. I will have two more rooms done soon, and she will never set foot in them again once I have the unveiling, then I can put up the things I love. Yes, I own the house, but she's my Mom! I am an eclectic,hippie, Gypsy freak! I can't even pick on poor Wannabe! Could this mean I might not be as spiritual as I thought?
2007-09-11 18:54:18 · answer #2 · answered by One Wing Eagle Woman 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm certainly no art critic, but the images that I looked up were somewhat dreamlike. But more like a bad dream or a nightmare. I also felt like some of the images appeared to be what I would think an "acid trip" would be like. Something about this art does not appeal to me at all; it actually bothers me on some level and I don't know why. It's harsh, unnatural, not lifelike.
I don't think belief limits interpretation, but self certainly does.
2007-09-11 20:18:32 · answer #3 · answered by Michael B - Prop. 8 Repealed! 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Painting the mystical seems to be a paradox. Kind of like putting cheese in an aerosol can. Something about it is just not right.
Not that it never happens - art can quicken the pulse and arouse the senses in a way that can only be matched by passion - but like passion it is entirely subjective. I wasn't so taken by the examples I found.
*Damn - that Gaz is deep. Sitting on the ocean floor watching the waves roll by overhead. Jack - can you draw that?*
2007-09-11 18:18:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
That relies upon on what you recommend by way of non secular. maximum factors of 'non secular' something comprise the notice 'god' someplace, and be that the case on your definition, i might say no. Chi, or qi (stated the comparable way), involves air, skill, 'from the heavens', breath, and existence. The community I hail from makes use of the notice chi as short-hand for any skill seen 'existence skill'. on the different hand, chi /skill/ looks like whoever stated it needs to connote some skill or mastery in its utility, although real or imagined.
2016-10-20 00:16:37 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Man, I am taking an Arts class which is pretty interesting but I am completly lost and needing help... this question broght this anxiety and stress feeling to me about it... I need an A+ I am a nerd... well, a nerd wannabe
2007-09-11 18:10:16 · answer #6 · answered by Love Yahoo!!! wannabe a princess 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think it is time for bed...I read your
question twice & still don't get it...
(this is WAY over my head)
2007-09-11 18:20:40 · answer #7 · answered by Kerilyn 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋