Walter Benjamin, “Little History of Photography” in The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility and Other Writings on Media, eds. Jennings, Doherty and Levin (Harvard University Press, 2008), 293. (originally published in Die literarische Welt, September-October 1931).
I have a suspicion that Benjamin would not have liked Andy Warhol.
|—||Walter Benjamin, “Eduard Fuchs, Collector and Historian” in The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility and Other Writings on Media, eds. Jennings, Doherty and Levin (Harvard University Press, 2008), 143. (originally published: Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, fall 1937)|
El Lissitzky, 1923
The Constructor (self portrait), 1924
Anyone out there comfortable reading german rendered in gothic script? With the time and willingness to read 37 pages of it and offer a summary of relevant portions? I could really use an idea of what is contained in this text before I start hunting for someone to do a scholarly translation.
That Beauty video going around is creepy as hell. Also, it is the photoshop equivalent of playing with paper dolls.
Still lifes by Chaim Soutine (1893-1943)
Portraits by Chaim Soutine (1893-1943)
Landscapes by Chaim Soutine (1893-1943)
Painter Chaim Soutine (gallicized from Sutin) was born in 1893 near Minsk, Belarus (then part of the Russian Empire), in the Litvak shtetl of Smilavitz. The tenth of eleven children, Chaim grew up in extreme poverty, his father’s income as a tailor insufficient to cover the family’s basic needs. From a young age, Chaim drew incessently. The Orthodox community of Smilavitz viewed drawing with deep suspicion, it was at best a secular practice, at worst idolatrous. In 1909, at the age of 16, Chaim made the error of asking a respected elder, possibly a rabbi, to sit for a portrait. The man’s sons took offense to the request, taking it as a blasphemous insult. Chaim was severely beaten, and compelled to leave Smilavitz.
I really wish art history teachers would mention that no artists ever considered themselves “neoclassical” or “rococo” within the timeframes and stylistic confines described by these words. “Neoclassical” was coined in 1859, and “rococo” in 1836 – decades after the associated movements had pretty much burned out. As categories created by later commentators to describe two different stylistic tendencies with differing ideological underpinnings in 18th- and early-19th-century art, they are probably best seen as discourses which artists to one degree or another engaged rather than definitions of what artists were. Defining what an artist is constricts the possibility of understanding an artist and their oeuvre where records prove contradictory, encourages lazy historical analysis, and provides a breeding ground for runaway distortion (see: Vigée Le Brun).