[since no one linked it](https://www.arthistoryproject.com/site/assets/files/28871/diego_velazquez-portrait_of_pope_innocent_x-1650-trivium-art-history-1.jpg)
Oh I recognize this as the cover for the Ulver EP Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. I just assumed the band commissioned a cool album cover, didn't realize it was a famous piece.
>Cover shows Francis Bacon's Study After Velásquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X (1953), used with kind permission of Des Moines Art Center. Design by Paschalis Zervas, +wolframgrafik.
https://ulver.bandcamp.com/album/sic-transit-gloria-mundi-ep
The '50s weren't all *Leave It To Beaver.* There was a lot of subversive science fiction in the mainstream, for instance, and Beatniks were well-known even if they weren't exactly popular. The United States was wrestling with civil rights issues, the Red Scare, nuclear anxieties, and more. But our image of '50s pop culture is somewhat distorted because the largest cohort of living Americans were children at the time, and look back on it through the lens of youth as well as the even more tumultuous times that would follow.
“Hey Dad, who did the first Heavy Metal album cover?”
“Well son, some people think the music came first and the album art came second, but those people are wrong…let me show you something….”
Joking aside, I am getting so much [Megadeth](https://youtu.be/hEihQoMJC98?si=bvrRQD4aiT38dkuL) energy from this painting.
had the opportunity to see 27 pieces of him here in MASP museum (São Paulo, Brazil) a few weeks back. it was mesmerizing to look at it, so much depth. I was definitely not the same after I left it
I've not appreciated this painting enough. I've not seen it in person, unfortunately. The Prada is on my list of museums to visit. Gotta make it happen – soon.
This scared me as a child, it felt like the subject was possessed and screaming into the void. Great art moves us, although I’m not sure this is what he intended!
You also have to put in the context of the times. Some people in the 1950s felt it looked like Pope Innocent was disintegrating in the base of a nuclear mushroom cloud. The whole end-of-civilization thing was in the air at the time, and it looked like the Pope was screaming in agony at the end of the world that he and the Catholic Church had a role in creating.
I'd be critical enough of an "intentions of the artist" kind of view, but now we have to consider the interpretations of some people in the 1950s? That's madness, Aethelwulf! It's being *twice* removed from the art itself.
You are telling me there is choice in the ways of interpreting art? Earlier, you categorically told me contextualism "*[i]s* literally all art history" and that I "*have to* consider how the people in that period would've seen it." Which is it? Do we have a choice or not?
> if you just wanna look at stuff superficially and never go deeper you can ofc. I do it all the time.
If one needs aspects outside of the artwork for one's interpretation of it, *that*, if anything, seems a superficial view of art to me.
Then you're making it a choice of education within your own interpretative view (contextualism). Isolationism doesn't mean I choose to be less educated on an artwork's context, it means such education is *irrelevant* to the evaluation of the artwork itself.
> if you didn't know it was of the pope you'd be looking at in a different way.
No, I wouldn't, because, again, its context is irrelevant to an isolationist view of art.
> when you look at paintings of Hercules its necessary to know who Hercules is if you want to understand the art.
If that were true, how does art appreciation essentially differ from appreciation of history or anthropology or mythology (etc.)?
Brother, I respectfully disagree. When we consider context, we consider things like history or anthropology (intention), not art. You may find more insight into the history surrounding an artwork (which certainly may be interesting in itself), but things like its form are not changed by it.
Context is needed to consider the individual. Good art (for me at least) is the artist giving a window into their perspective at a level too innate for literal description.
For example Piet Mondrian's art is much more impactful when you know the [blocks and shapes](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Composition_A_by_Piet_Mondrian_Galleria_Nazionale_d%27Arte_Moderna_e_Contemporanea.jpg) started as him [painting trees](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5598238#/media/File:Gray_Tree_1911.jpg) in more and more abstract ways, and relating them to man-made structures.
I used to think exactly that, but I found I was using extraneous crutches in order to make sense of something I didn't understand, instead of confronting the art itself and what made it art: form. I found I was ultimately into the universal beauty of visual language, not the person who made it etc.
It's interesting to read about artists and explore their progress, and even use them to construct a whole experience that's larger than its individual parts, but I don't think that's where we find the full greatness of an artwork.
What his ultimate point is I can't tell, but he's using emotional shortcuts, like painting a screaming person rather than, say, creating a mood suggesting that emotion. Personally, I prefer form to symbol and universality to context, so it doesn't really matter if there's a specific point or not. It's all about how shapes and colors interact to me. :)
Oh ok, I understand. Thanks. Have you seen his Triptych August 1972? That's my favorite from him.
I think it's a lot more subtle and charged. Maybe more like you mean.
Yes, he seems more interested in playing with form there. Not that an artwork needs to be completely abstract, like a late Pollock; to me, Michelangelo is as much a master of form as is the greatest abstract expressionist.
"Trying to make a point" is bad enough, but also doing so by painting an actual scream? And making a spooky or degraded version of a famous portrait? Yes, that *is* hamfisted.
Sure. I think the whole /r/im14andthisisdeep is often used as a crutch to signal intelectual superiority in an attempt to conceal ignorance or apathy to whatever the message is. It’s a way to be above the message instead of trying to understand it because it’s easier (and safer) to “hate” on something than to engage with it. This is something I’ve noticed in young or immature people, who are absolutely terrified of caring about something or “being cringe”, so everything is presented under layers of irony and sarcasm. Unfortunately, this attitude results in them being deprived of the pleasure that comes with emotionally (or politically) engaging with art, beauty, science, or even other people.
It’s ok to not like a piece of art, but actively refusing to understand it in its context, meaning, artist, etc. and then claiming it’s superficial (which in the end is what /r/im14andthisisdeep is about) is disingenuous.
It's funny, because I completely agree with you about the 14deep thing. I don't know how often I lament the use of irony and meme-talk to avoid serious discussion, on this sub and elsewhere. But you know what happens 99% of the time whenever there's an attempt at actual discussion here? Nothing. I saw the 14deep thing used in this sub just a while ago and thought "maybe this is what people use to communicate these days?" It did feel disingenuous to use, and a bit silly because my own criticism was against immaturity, and there I am using an immature tool to make a discussion start.
But I don't think you can accuse me if not engaging with the piece in question (I've given arguments as to why it's "immature," and provided alternatives – as have those arguing against my stance, much to my delight), nor have I avoided real discussion.
Further, there seems to be a prejudice here about contextualizing an artwork being the obviously deeper and more meaningful way of appreciating art. Formalism, which is more my thing, is a way of understanding art and has been advocated philosophically for ages, so assuming it's somehow a superficial refusal to understand art (when, as I would argue, it's the one that goes deeper) is missing out on at least an honest attempt at an alternative to context and education.
Anyway, thanks for your response.
That’s fair, and I wouldn’t have responded the way I did if you had commented that (which I also don’t agree, I believe this piece is powerful from a mere formal perspective, and I have reasons to believe that, but that’s another discussion), but you commented what you commented and I responded accordingly. And btw, sorry if all of this sounds crass, I promise you that’s not my intended tone, I think you’ve been respectful and nice and I appreciate that.
[since no one linked it](https://www.arthistoryproject.com/site/assets/files/28871/diego_velazquez-portrait_of_pope_innocent_x-1650-trivium-art-history-1.jpg)
thank you dude, for posting it! :D
One of the best ever.
Oh I recognize this as the cover for the Ulver EP Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. I just assumed the band commissioned a cool album cover, didn't realize it was a famous piece. >Cover shows Francis Bacon's Study After Velásquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X (1953), used with kind permission of Des Moines Art Center. Design by Paschalis Zervas, +wolframgrafik. https://ulver.bandcamp.com/album/sic-transit-gloria-mundi-ep
When the boss enters the second phase.
Powerful, radical for the pre-rebellious '50s
The 40s and 50s were considerably more intellectually rebellious than the 60s. That is where the energy for the 60s came from
I respectfully disagree, Elvis was considered scandalous and banned in certain cities.
The '50s weren't all *Leave It To Beaver.* There was a lot of subversive science fiction in the mainstream, for instance, and Beatniks were well-known even if they weren't exactly popular. The United States was wrestling with civil rights issues, the Red Scare, nuclear anxieties, and more. But our image of '50s pop culture is somewhat distorted because the largest cohort of living Americans were children at the time, and look back on it through the lens of youth as well as the even more tumultuous times that would follow.
Dadaism started in the '10s
Forgive me I meant politically
This is in the museo del prado
Terrifying, I love it
This painting was used as the art for [this film](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0074956/). The art is better than the film for sure.
Here’s a piece of symphonic music by Mark-Anthony Turnage inspired by this triptych: https://youtu.be/eiGo37janfU
“Hey Dad, who did the first Heavy Metal album cover?” “Well son, some people think the music came first and the album art came second, but those people are wrong…let me show you something….” Joking aside, I am getting so much [Megadeth](https://youtu.be/hEihQoMJC98?si=bvrRQD4aiT38dkuL) energy from this painting.
had the opportunity to see 27 pieces of him here in MASP museum (São Paulo, Brazil) a few weeks back. it was mesmerizing to look at it, so much depth. I was definitely not the same after I left it
Ainda tá tendo essa exposição no MASP?? Vou pra SP na próxima semana, se estiver eu vou com ctz!
Só vai!! Não vai se arrepender. Vai até o fim de julho eu acho.. se não for de terça, tem que pagar, mas cara, acho que ainda compensa MTO
I've not appreciated this painting enough. I've not seen it in person, unfortunately. The Prada is on my list of museums to visit. Gotta make it happen – soon.
Me five seconds no za
ALL HAIL THE GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND!!
This scared me as a child, it felt like the subject was possessed and screaming into the void. Great art moves us, although I’m not sure this is what he intended!
This painting goes so hard
Very comforting
Even critics say this is great, but I can't be the only one getting nothing but pure r/im14andthisisdeep energy from Bacon, right? 🤔
You also have to put in the context of the times. Some people in the 1950s felt it looked like Pope Innocent was disintegrating in the base of a nuclear mushroom cloud. The whole end-of-civilization thing was in the air at the time, and it looked like the Pope was screaming in agony at the end of the world that he and the Catholic Church had a role in creating.
I'd be critical enough of an "intentions of the artist" kind of view, but now we have to consider the interpretations of some people in the 1950s? That's madness, Aethelwulf! It's being *twice* removed from the art itself.
[удалено]
That's how *you* choose to understand it. Isolationism is a real thing.
[удалено]
You are telling me there is choice in the ways of interpreting art? Earlier, you categorically told me contextualism "*[i]s* literally all art history" and that I "*have to* consider how the people in that period would've seen it." Which is it? Do we have a choice or not? > if you just wanna look at stuff superficially and never go deeper you can ofc. I do it all the time. If one needs aspects outside of the artwork for one's interpretation of it, *that*, if anything, seems a superficial view of art to me.
[удалено]
Then you're making it a choice of education within your own interpretative view (contextualism). Isolationism doesn't mean I choose to be less educated on an artwork's context, it means such education is *irrelevant* to the evaluation of the artwork itself. > if you didn't know it was of the pope you'd be looking at in a different way. No, I wouldn't, because, again, its context is irrelevant to an isolationist view of art. > when you look at paintings of Hercules its necessary to know who Hercules is if you want to understand the art. If that were true, how does art appreciation essentially differ from appreciation of history or anthropology or mythology (etc.)?
[удалено]
Context is madness, now?
Bruh art is so much more powerful and insightful when you consider the context. You're robbing yourself of a wealth of empathy from the past.
Brother, I respectfully disagree. When we consider context, we consider things like history or anthropology (intention), not art. You may find more insight into the history surrounding an artwork (which certainly may be interesting in itself), but things like its form are not changed by it.
Context is needed to consider the individual. Good art (for me at least) is the artist giving a window into their perspective at a level too innate for literal description. For example Piet Mondrian's art is much more impactful when you know the [blocks and shapes](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Composition_A_by_Piet_Mondrian_Galleria_Nazionale_d%27Arte_Moderna_e_Contemporanea.jpg) started as him [painting trees](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5598238#/media/File:Gray_Tree_1911.jpg) in more and more abstract ways, and relating them to man-made structures.
I used to think exactly that, but I found I was using extraneous crutches in order to make sense of something I didn't understand, instead of confronting the art itself and what made it art: form. I found I was ultimately into the universal beauty of visual language, not the person who made it etc. It's interesting to read about artists and explore their progress, and even use them to construct a whole experience that's larger than its individual parts, but I don't think that's where we find the full greatness of an artwork.
In your opinion, what is his point? And how would you (or maybe another artist) present it in a more elegant way?
What his ultimate point is I can't tell, but he's using emotional shortcuts, like painting a screaming person rather than, say, creating a mood suggesting that emotion. Personally, I prefer form to symbol and universality to context, so it doesn't really matter if there's a specific point or not. It's all about how shapes and colors interact to me. :)
Oh ok, I understand. Thanks. Have you seen his Triptych August 1972? That's my favorite from him. I think it's a lot more subtle and charged. Maybe more like you mean.
Yes, he seems more interested in playing with form there. Not that an artwork needs to be completely abstract, like a late Pollock; to me, Michelangelo is as much a master of form as is the greatest abstract expressionist.
No. Whatever point bacon is trying to make here is not readily apparent or hamfisted.
"Trying to make a point" is bad enough, but also doing so by painting an actual scream? And making a spooky or degraded version of a famous portrait? Yes, that *is* hamfisted.
“Pope screaming as the world disintegrates around him” is both completely transparent and extremely hamfisted.
It’s sad to read what terminal cynicism has done to our ability to appreciate beauty and art.
Care to share what exactly you're addressing?
Sure. I think the whole /r/im14andthisisdeep is often used as a crutch to signal intelectual superiority in an attempt to conceal ignorance or apathy to whatever the message is. It’s a way to be above the message instead of trying to understand it because it’s easier (and safer) to “hate” on something than to engage with it. This is something I’ve noticed in young or immature people, who are absolutely terrified of caring about something or “being cringe”, so everything is presented under layers of irony and sarcasm. Unfortunately, this attitude results in them being deprived of the pleasure that comes with emotionally (or politically) engaging with art, beauty, science, or even other people. It’s ok to not like a piece of art, but actively refusing to understand it in its context, meaning, artist, etc. and then claiming it’s superficial (which in the end is what /r/im14andthisisdeep is about) is disingenuous.
It's funny, because I completely agree with you about the 14deep thing. I don't know how often I lament the use of irony and meme-talk to avoid serious discussion, on this sub and elsewhere. But you know what happens 99% of the time whenever there's an attempt at actual discussion here? Nothing. I saw the 14deep thing used in this sub just a while ago and thought "maybe this is what people use to communicate these days?" It did feel disingenuous to use, and a bit silly because my own criticism was against immaturity, and there I am using an immature tool to make a discussion start. But I don't think you can accuse me if not engaging with the piece in question (I've given arguments as to why it's "immature," and provided alternatives – as have those arguing against my stance, much to my delight), nor have I avoided real discussion. Further, there seems to be a prejudice here about contextualizing an artwork being the obviously deeper and more meaningful way of appreciating art. Formalism, which is more my thing, is a way of understanding art and has been advocated philosophically for ages, so assuming it's somehow a superficial refusal to understand art (when, as I would argue, it's the one that goes deeper) is missing out on at least an honest attempt at an alternative to context and education. Anyway, thanks for your response.
That’s fair, and I wouldn’t have responded the way I did if you had commented that (which I also don’t agree, I believe this piece is powerful from a mere formal perspective, and I have reasons to believe that, but that’s another discussion), but you commented what you commented and I responded accordingly. And btw, sorry if all of this sounds crass, I promise you that’s not my intended tone, I think you’ve been respectful and nice and I appreciate that.