Here we see movement imparted to a human figure by a simple yet ingenious artifice that requires the viewer to add something to the figure themselves. Rodin himself explains:'Take my St. John, for example,' Rodin explained to Paul Gsell, `While he is represented with both feet on the ground, a snapshot of a model executing the same movement would probably show the back foot already raised and moving in the direction of the other one.'As the viewer's eyes travels up one leg and down the other, each time finding something anatomically unexpected, the rhythm imparted by our own eye movement gives motion to the figure. We sense this bare torso is walking.
LINK: Walking as art - University of Vienna
RELATED: Art, Sculpture
6 comments:
It has no head and no arms. With no arms man cannot produce for himself, therefore he will survive only through the grace of others. This is not a human survival. It isn't even animalistic survival. It is a phyisical survival at the expense of others. It is a subhuman survival, a parasitic survival.
But worse he has no head, making him incapable of reason, the very thing man needs to survive qua man (via the mind). He will only have a survial qua subhuman if he survives at all.
To value that is the same as to value altruism in it's three flavours (mysticism, social conscience, and thugishness). The fact that the "artist" made that puts his values in questionable light, as does anyone "valuing" it put their's in questionable light.
That it shows movement is not of value. Movement proves only survival of some sort, not in general. But it's lack and arms and legs show a survival of only subhuman level, not human level, i.e. productive and rational actions that are intended to keep you alive by being to your best interests.
If you read that and wondered if I am reading or have just read Ayn Rand's book, The Virtue of Selfishness, the answer is yes.
Kane, I think you might just have fallen victim here to the error of rationalism, my friend, ;^)
Look at it as a study, as an artist seeking to essentialise and express movement before using the concept in a finished piece, and then see how you feel about it.
And then think to about Rand's point about motion and purpose...
I cannot think about Rand's point about motion and purpose. I have not yet got there.
Also what do you mean by "I think you might just have fallen victim here to the error of rationalism"? I don't quite understand.
Please bear with me here, as I am still new to Rand's work and am only just starting to read it. I am only at nearly page 90 of The Virtue of Selfishness, which is my first book of hers I have read so I am still learning and still have a lot to learn.
"...what do you mean by "I think you might just have fallen victim here to the error of rationalism"? I don't quite understand."
That's alright, Kane, I was just trying a little gently Objectivist humour with you. Here's some more: The 25 Most Inappropriate Things An Objectivist Can Say During Sex.
:-)
Oh, if it was just humour that's OK, PC. Grin. Houmour is good. I like it. Sadly I just didn't spot it that time. I am quite the kidder myself. The more I like someone the more I tease them in the way you just did. It's a sign of affection from me. So inshort, I understand and approve.
Post a Comment