Comments on: Confessions of a Cross-religion Art Lover

By: TheSadducee

TheSadducee — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:46:40 +0000

Almoni

I don’t know enough about sexuality and art – it is an area I’ve never really looked at before, but I am aware of it in ancient Greek/Roman art. There is quite a catalogue of it on a variety of media (pottery, murals/mosaics/frescoes/sculpture).

As to Sinan, he might not have had an opportunity to build in Constantinople but he would have had an opportunity to build in other parts of the Ottoman Empire. And besides, I’m not that keen on his personal story – he was a forced convert you know.

By: Chaim

Chaim — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:25:55 +0000

You weren’t trying to actually sell or reclaim hellenism on Channukah were you?

By: Chaim

Chaim — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:04:17 +0000

I believe the only issue with sexuality (and it is pervasive in Kabbalah and Talmud) is not the sex or attractions/desire itself but when it becomes overwhelming and you lose control of mind over body… You are not making rational, educated decisions on your behaviour (to whatever code you ascribe to) and are therefore just like an animal… not thinking about consequences to yourself or others. If anything we could realise how important and potent it is to us… we can definitely utilize it for betterment of ourselves and mankind and not as a power tool over others or for pure gratification. Unless of course you just consider yourself another animal species…

The issue with hellinism was not sexuality or beauty but rather the given significance of the individual person and “physical ideal” rather than to social and spiritual causes.

By: Almoni

Almoni — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:16:58 +0000

Actually, Sadducee, I am increasingly of the opinion that if we were faced with a deluge of unadulterated Byzantine or Renaissance Art we would find the stuff kitch, overstuffed, and suffering from overkill.   And if the Turks hadn’t taken Istanbul, Sinan, one of the greatest architects who ever lived would never had got to have a go! History is cruel.
Part of the mystery of such art to me is that you get hints of what might have been –a sort of artistic Dina von Teese (isn’t that what La Gioconda /Mona Lisa is all about) and countless other suggestive smirks and winks to get the juices going?    I’ve spotted quite a few works of art from the period which have more than a nudge nudge wink wink about them. The Museo di Capodimonte in Naples has some let’s put it mildly, filthily stimulating pictures masquerading as religion. They are well worth a look at.
If you get the opportunity, watch out for girls (and boys) copping a good look at Michelangelo David’s anatomy in Florence, and there’s a modern take on David now on display in Venice –an 8-foot high sculpture of a boy holding a frog, on the Grand Canal. It’s remarkable. If it was on show in Australia, I am positive it would be classified as pornographic. See this link (but his front bits aren’t visible )
But too much of a good thing isn’t good for the right hand side of the brain. I realise this when I force myself to look at everything or see three museums in a row. I can’t remember a thing a week later but it was great at the time!   On the other hand, there are some lost works that are true losses to humankind, and all we have are pre-war black and white photos or Hellenistic copies.
In any case, ‘nod nod wink wink’ raises the issue of sexuality in art (and the connection with pornography), and this probably also explains traditional prurience because of halachic rules about modesty and ‘Hellenism’.
I’d be interested in discussion about this, because of the pervasiveness of sex and sexualization in contemporary media. What is off limits (like the boy and his frog)? Can we deny the sex drive and the creative urge?   Just because our brains respond so strongly to such stimulation in art doesn’t mean that we are perverts or anything else. It’s a fact, like the fact that we kill animals and eat them (most of us do).

By: TheSadducee

TheSadducee — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:14:25 +0000

Wondeful article and I wholeheartedly agree - there is a lot of value in the art for art’s sake and its aesthetic appeal has probably not been matched since (with the exception of the neo-Raphaelites who were imitating) in modern art.

Its also a wonderful call for Jews to also examine contacts in this period with our art and cultural expression in these locales.

The only shame is to imagine how much more beautiful the Haghia Sophia would have been before it was significantly damaged by the Turkish occupation.