Fascinating Art of Gil Elvgren, Best known for his Pin-up Paintings

 

Wait... Oh No! Did You Hear That Noise? It's My Husband!, 1948

 

अपुरा, नित्य नवा राहिलेला मोरगावचा नंदी...Wabi sabi

 Maria Popova writes:

"Wabi sabi is a beautiful Japanese concept that has no direct translation in English. Both an aesthetic and a worldview, it connotes a way of living that finds beauty in imperfection and accepts the natural cycle of growth and decay..."

द ग गोडसे मोरगावच्या अष्टविनायका समोरच्या अपूर्ण नंदी बद्दल पृष्ठ १११-११२ वर, त्यांच्या 'समन्दे तलाश', १९८१ पुस्तकात लिहतात:

What is More Dangerous? Salt or Zombie Parents?

Today November 14  is Children's day

Artist: K J Lamb, The Spectator UK, April 2016

वॉचमनच्या नजरेतून मेट... Patrick Bringley's The Metropolitan Museum of Art

After losing his brother to cancer in 2008 Patrick Bringley quit his job in the editorial events office at the New Yorker magazine and spent the next decade as a guard in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

 Patrick Bringley, 'All the Beauty in the World: The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Me', 2022:

"...Looking back, it makes me think of Pieter Bruegel’s great painting The Harvesters. In that picture, a handful of peasants take their afternoon meal against the backdrop of a wide, deep landscape. There is a church in the mid-ground, a harbor behind, gold-green fields rolling back toward a distant horizon. Closer to the picture plane, men mow the grain with scythes and a woman bends low to bundle it. And at the nearest corner of the foreground, these nine peasants—comical and sympathetic—have broken from their labor to sit and sup beneath a pear tree.

Looking at Bruegel’s masterpiece I sometimes think: here is a painting of literally the most commonplace thing on earth. Most people have been farmers. Most of these have been peasants. Most lives have been labor and hardship punctuated by rest and the enjoyment of others. It is a scene that must have been so familiar to Pieter Bruegel it took an effort to notice it. But he did notice it. And he situated this little, sacred, ragtag group at the fore of his vast, outspreading world.

I am sometimes not sure which is the more remarkable: that life lives up to great paintings, or that great paintings live up to life."

 

 Pieter Bruegel the Elder- The Harvesters 1565

 

 

Francisco Goya's Junta of the Philippines c1815...Modernity: its Bareness, Staginess, and Deliberate Cultivation of Mystery

 Robert Hughes writes in his book "Goya", 2003:

"... It was the largest picture he ever made—some eight feet by ten—and one of the stranger productions of his long career: the grandfather of all boardroom portraits, crowded with dozens of figures set in a gloomy interior. It was intended to commemorate the patronage extended to the Junta de la Real Companñía de Filipinas by Fernando VII, who made an unexpected visit to the general session of the company’s board that was held on March 30, 1815, attended by fifty-one members and shareholders. Nothing seems to have happened or been resolved at this session; it was merely ceremonial, and dull ceremony at that. Fernando stayed only an hour and a half. However, his appearance at the meeting was meant to affirm his belief in the world designs of Spain and the continuation of its empire. This faith was, needless to add, vain. It was a collective delusion of the royalist right, believed in only by Fernando and his camarilla of incompetent advisers. The Spanish economy had been completely ruined by the war, and though the Royal Company of the Philippines had once been intended as a powerful instrument of trade and control like the British East India Company, it was now so unprofitable and useless that it was hardly more than decorative. Thus Fernando’s appearance was a futile gesture of belief in a hollow empire; a little more than eighty years later, Spain would lose its Philippine empire when the cannon of Commodore Dewey sent its whole navy to the bottom of Manila Bay.

For anyone who has had to endure a full shareholders’ meeting of a large modern corporation, its mood is instantly recognizable. No figure gets real precedence over any other; the king is at the center of the table on the dais, but he and his flanking officials are pushed into the background, and the only emphasis he gets is a small heightening of color in his costume—plus his location at the vanishing point of the perspective. The most prominent single zone in the painting is a rectangle of sunlit, inlaid floor. It is a crowded composition that speaks, paradoxically, of emptiness and solitude; an image of droning discussion that conveys only a sense of silence; a theatrical presentation—for this vast room resembles a stage on which all action has stopped and nothing happens, with light streaming in from the wings on the right, a light that seems almost unearthly in contrast to the gloom of the chamber. Yet the obvious antecedent of this morbid space, with its large orthogonal divisions of ceiling and floor, lies right at the heart of Spanish painting in the “Golden Century,” in the work of the artist whom Goya admired to the point of filial piety: the big, brown, receding chamber in which Velázquez set the figures of Las meninas.

So Junta of the Philippines looks both backward and forward. Backward because of its enormous size, its sense of monumental occasion, and its clear invocation of Velázquez. But forward, too, because of what one could fairly call its incipient modernity: its bareness, staginess, and deliberate cultivation of mystery in the middle of what, by rights, should have been a straightforward narrative of an official event. One hesitates to invoke the word “Surrealist,” and yet there is something about the whole tone of the painting that suggests if not Surrealism iself, then certainly the aching distances and enigmatic half-events of its precursor, the pittura metafisica of Giorgio de Chirico."

 

 

Fernández-Armesto explains in his new book 'How the Spanish Empire Was Built: A 400 Year History':

 

"The work belongs in the tradition of what might be called Spanish ‘anti-portraiture’, from Velázquez’s ‘Las Meninas’ to Goya’s own devastatingly candid royal family group, ‘Familia de Carlos IV’, moral as well as physical delineations of regal vacuity. King Ferdinand VII appears amid the company’s directors, who, enveloped in shadow, seem to ignore him while they talk among themselves, apparently clueless as to why they are there or whether it matters."

W H Auden's Stop All the Clocks and R K Narayan's The English Teacher

 I have a feeling that this poem was on R K Narayan's mind when he wrote one of his best ( and partly autobiographical) novels "The English Teacher" where he describes his loving wife's death by typhoid...

R K Narayan:

“There are no more surprises and shocks in life, so that I watch the flame without agitation. For me the greatest reality is this and nothing else…Nothing else will worry or interest me in life hereafter.”

 

 (The English Teacher, 1946)

 

 

राम गणेश गडकरींचे 'एकच प्याला' कशावर आधारित होते? Othello or The Gin Palace (L'Assommoir)?

र वा दिघे (१८९६-१९८०) (रा ग गडकरींशी झालेले बोलणे आठवत):  

"... शेवटी एमिल झोलाच्या 'Gin Palace' ची त्यांना आठवण करून दिली. तेंव्हा गडकरी रागावले. कारण Gin Palace + देशमुख वकिलांची गोष्ट = एकचप्याला होता. गडकऱ्यांना स्तुतिपाठक आवडत. टीका करणारे आवडत नसत..."

(पृष्ठ : सतरा, प्रास्ताविक, "साहित्यिक गप्पा दहा साहित्यिकांशी", लेखक: जयवंत दळवी, १९८६-२०१३)

'संपूर्ण गडकरी', खंड १ ह्या  प्रथम १९८४ साली प्रसिद्ध झालेल्या पुस्तकाच्या १५८ पानी दीर्घ प्रस्तावनेत आचार्य अत्रे काय म्हणतात पहा:

 

1879 poster for an American theatre production of L'Assommoir by Augustin Daly

मला दिघेंचे म्हणणे जास्त बरोबर वाटते...

Elections...When Turkeys Rain from an Airplane Hanging from Rudimentary Tiny Parachutes

 

Artist is Walter Molino (1915-1997). Picture is titled Election Poultry (how appropriate) for publication La Domenica del Corriere, 1951

Caption reads: In Francavilla al Mare (a comune and town in the province of Chieti, Italy), during a rally for the local elections, a speaker made propaganda leaflets, chocolates, flowers and, supreme flattery, live chickens and turkeys rain from an airplane hanging from rudimentary tiny parachutes. 

Illustration for Courier Sunday, 17 June 1951.

मागें वळूनि पाहणें विसरलीस का? माधव विश्वनाथ धुरंधर यांची पाठमोरी पौर्णिमा...Sublime Beauty in Visual Art of 19th Century Maharashtra

बा सी मर्ढेकर;
"...
अडलिस आणिक पुढें जराशी
पुढें जराशी हंसलिस;
___मागें
वळूनि पाहणें विसरलीस का ?
विसरलीस का हिरवे धागे ?
..."
(२५, पृष्ठ ९६, मर्ढेकरांची कविता, १९५९-१९७७)

(बा भ बोरकरांची 'पाठमोरी पौर्णिमा' ही सामान्य कविता आहे पण त्याचे शीर्षक आवडल्याने ते पोस्ट च्या शीर्षकात घातले.)

माझी माझ्या फेसबुक वरील दीनानाथ दलाल पेजवरील मार्च १२ २०२४ ची पोस्ट:

आज एक विलक्षण चित्र, अगदी वेगळे, मी पहिल्यांदा पाहिलेले, पण त्याचे सौन्दर्य मनातून कधी हटणार नाही असे, 

 

कमरेवर कळशी घेतलेली, संपूर्ण पाठमोरी, नववारी खणाचे लुगडे आणि चोळी नेसलेली मराठी स्त्री ... माझ्या सुदैवाने माझ्या लहानपणी मी अशी स्त्री प्रत्यक्षात काहीवेळा तरी पहिली आहे .. 

 

लुगडे इतके छान नेसले आहे की तो नेसण्याचा वस्तुपाठ ठरावा , केसांचा छोटा जुडा/ अंबाडा , गळ्यात बेताचे मंगळसूत्र असावे , दोन्ही हातात बहुदा काचेच्या बांगड्या, लहान चण, एकूण नेटकेपणा मन भारून टाकणारा... 

 

त्यांचा तोल बघा, त्या उजव्या उचलेल्या टाचेने तो अगदी परिपूर्ण साधला आहे.

 

आज १३१ वर्षानंतर ह्या बाई मागे वळून आपल्या समोर आल्यातर!

 

ह्या चित्राबद्दलच्या माहितीवरून समजते की ही स्त्री एका तत्कालीन माळीबुवांची पत्नी होती आणि ती कळशी मातीची आहे. 

 

ह्या चित्रावर मराठीत कविता कशा लिहल्या गेल्या नाहीत याचे सुद्धा मला आश्चर्य वाटते.  

 

१९व्या शतकात मराठी चित्रकला कोणत्या उच्च स्तराला पोचली होती याचे एक उदाहरण म्हणजे हे चित्र असे मला वाटते. 

 

कलाकार: रावबहादुर माधव विश्वनाथ धुरंधर ( १८ मार्च १८६७ - १ जून १९४४ )  

 

 चित्राची तारीख : जी खाली उजव्या कोपऱ्यात बरीच दिसती आहे, १८९३

 

 हे चित्र मला इतके आवडले की तसे आणखी कुठले चित्र आहे का ते मी शोधले, त्यावेळी मला डाली यांचे हे चित्र सापडले आणि ते पाहून मला धुरंधर यांचे चित्र किती महान आहे हे जास्त जाणवू लागले... 

Salvador Dali, Sitting girl seen from behind, 1925

कोण जिंकले, कोण हरले? जॉन रस्किन का द ग गोडसेंचा आवडता जेम्स मॅकनील व्हिसलर?...Nocturne in Black and Gold, a Meaningless Blob?

 दत्तात्रय गणेश गोडसे यांनी "नांगी असलेले फुलपाखरू"- १ आणि २ असे जेम्स मॅकनील व्हिसलर (१८३४-१९०३) ह्या कलावंतावर दोन लेख लिहले हे आता त्यांच्या  "नांगी असलेले फुलपाखरू" (प्रसिद्धी १९८९) ह्या पुस्तकात समाविष्ट आहेत. 

त्या बद्दल मी पूर्वी लिहले आहे. 

त्यातील काही भाग व्हिसलर आणि तत्कालीन प्रसिद्ध टीकाकार जॉन रस्किन (१८१९-१९००) यांच्या मधील न्यायालयातील खटल्यावर आहे. गोडसे हे  व्हिसलर यांच्या बाजूने आहेत, मला तर वाटते ते स्वतः व्हिसलर सारखे आहेत असे त्यांना आयुष्यभर वाटत होते. 

 ह्या खटल्यावर इंग्लिश मध्ये अलीकडे एक पुस्तक प्रसिद्ध झाले Paul Thomas Murphy's "Falling Rocket: James Whistler, John Ruskin, and the Battle for Modern Art", 2023.

तो खटला सुरु झाला कारण मर्फी यांचे पुस्तक सांगते “…A true work of art, by Ruskin’s definition, conveyed a great number of great thoughts. These dark and discernibly unfinished messes conveyed nothing but physical and spiritual emptiness. They were nothing but variations upon the plague cloud. All of this might have occurred to Ruskin as he contemplated these paintings—but might not have. His written reaction to them is less intellectual, much more visceral: overwhelming, instinctive contempt and disgust. He had his Theoria, but did not need it: in this case, Aesthesis—sensation alone—was more than sufficient. He loathed these poor excuses for art.

One painting of the seven stood out as worst of the bad: the darkest, most chaotic painting of the lot. Not only was Nocturne in Black and Gold a meaningless blob; it was also an effortless one—clearly the work of an hour or two. To ask a couple hundred guineas for this—this nothing: it was an obscenity.

Ruskin left the Grosvenor Gallery with rage in his heart and soul, surely mulling over the thunderbolt he would hurl at the two men responsible for this affront to culture: Sir Coutts Lindsay, for thinking this thing art, and James Whistler, for thinking himself an artist….”

 “Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket”, 1875

ह्यामुळे अब्रुनुकसानीचा खटला सुरु झाला आणि तो व्हिसलर यांनी कोर्टात जिंकला, पण Without costs: that is, with each side saddled with its own costs.!

"But if James McNeill Whistler touted his victory, and John Ruskin acknowledged his defeat, few others saw it that way. In the eyes of the world, the victory the jury had given Whistler with its verdict it had simultaneously taken away with its derisory damages, which posited Ruskin’s loss, while real, to be insignificant. Whistler’s great wit on the witness stand might have proved him to be a master of the mot, but it convinced few if any that he was a master of the palette. Many critics and most of the public continued to be baffled by his work. Sales of his paintings, if anything, shrank after the trial. As time passed and Whistler underwent his highly reported insolvency, it became clear that he and not Ruskin had suffered the most from the verdict."

"Who then, Whistler or Ruskin, had the most lasting and impactful legacy? Quantifying and comparing achievements so diverse, so full, is an impossibility beyond the fair deliberation of any jury. Who won Whistler v. Ruskin? In the greater contest between the two men—the contest of two centuries rather than two days—neither did.

Or rather, both did."

 

 Punch magazine’s (Dec 7 1878) verdict on Whistler v. Ruskin- as a  loss for both sides, if you look at the "cost" serpents at the bottom

 

खटल्या संबंधित महत्वाच्या गोष्टी (खटल्याने त्याला जवळजवळ दिवाळखोर केले) आणि त्याचे झालेले अनेक दूरगामी परिणाम गोडसे सांगतच  नाहीत! त्यासाठी मर्फी यांचे पुस्तक वाचा. 

मराठी लेखकांच्या वैयक्तिक तीव्र आवडी निवडी काही वेळा त्यांच्या पुस्तकांमध्ये वाचकांना सत्यापासून दूर ठेवतात.