मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"

समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."

G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”

C. P. Cavafy: "I’d rather look at things than speak about them."

Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”

सदानंद रेगे: "... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."

".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."

Kenneth Goldsmith: "In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.”1 I’ve come to embrace Huebler’s ideas, though it might be retooled as “The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.” It seems an appropriate response to a new condition in writing today: faced with an unprecedented amount of available text, the problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information—how I manage it, how I parse it, how I organize and distribute it—is what distinguishes my writing from yours."

Tom Wolfe: "The first line of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath is ‘First, do no harm.’ And I think for the writers it would be: ‘First, entertain.’"

विलास सारंग: "… . . 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Sunday, September 22, 2024

लिहून भिंतीवर भुजंग भरला रंग चिताऱ्याकडून...It has been my Lifelong Dream to Paint Walls

द ग गोडसे , पृष्ठ ४३, "नांगी असलेले फुलपाखरू", १९८९:

",,, बहुधा पांढऱ्या फटफटीत कपाळाची भिंत अशुभ समजण्यात येत असावी..."

Colin B. Bailey, The New York Review of Books, May 11 2023:

"...Although he never undertook a mural decoration, Edgar Degas confided to his dealer, Ambroise Vollard, that “it has been my lifelong dream to paint walls.” “Painting is done, is it not, to decorate walls; so it should be as rich as possible,” Pierre-Auguste Renoir explained to Albert André as he was completing his last monumental figure painting, The Bathers (1919)....

...Both books survey a number of decorative cycles, from Paul Cézanne’s early series The Four Seasons (1860–1861) to Claude Monet’s twenty-two glorious panels of Water Lilies (1915–1924). They redirect attention to canvases executed for specific interior spaces, as overdoors and decorative panels for dining rooms, salons, galleries, even stairwells, and occasionally as insertions into actual doors. And they reveal how deeply engaged many of the Impressionists were, in the late 1870s and early 1880s, in experimenting with new techniques in a variety of media: painting fans and ceramic tiles, pioneering the use of colored mats and frames, and even patenting colored cement as a medium for portraiture and decorative accessories..."

 Decorative panel: Monet's The Luncheon, 1873

"...Both books are on much firmer ground in their analyses of the small but significant number of Impressionist paintings that were conceived of and exhibited as “decorations.” Monet’s large, glorious Luncheon, painted in 1873 but held back until the Second Impressionist Exhibition of April 1876, shows the aftermath of an elegant luncheon at his villa in Argenteuil (see illustration on page 43). In a garden full of flowers, sunlight dapples the white tablecloth on which are visible the remnants of coffee and dessert. An early reference to the picture described it more accurately as “after the luncheon.” Relegated to the background at the upper right are the hostess, Monet’s companion, Camille Doncieux, in a white summer dress, and her parasol-bearing guest. Also easy to overlook is the little boy in a straw hat—the six-year-old Jean Monet—seated in the foreground at left, playing with his toy. The dynamic angle of the circular table and the garden bench propels the bedazzled, even disoriented, viewer into this sundrenched scene. With its deep purple shadows, syncopated dabs of color, and figures relegated to the margins, The Luncheon discourages narrative or anecdotal interpretation. In the catalog of the Second Impressionist Exhibition, Monet listed the work as “un panneau décoratif” (a decorative panel)..."