You should have a good explain, when visitors look this artwork in your living room.
-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Art reviews by Zephyros
- Thread starter Zephyros
- Start date
You could have a row of them, then you'd only have to tap one to knock her neighbourInteresting artwork!
But I don't think I am going to put a replica of one of these on my desk at work!
On this one, there is still a place for a second victim!
and they'd all start swinging,
that really would stand out from the usual boring executive stress toys!
Zephyros, one of M. Patoue's bronzes seems to have inspired a contemporary British sculptor named Heppell. I first encountered his work in the introduction to a 2007 scholarly paper.
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/...1/anderson_project.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
I’ve wished I could read the whole paper for over a decade now.
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/...1/anderson_project.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
I’ve wished I could read the whole paper for over a decade now.
Attachments
Feyre Archeron
Executioner
^Talk about flexible! Geez!
I had exactly the same thought. The "gender equality" people would go bananas.But I don't think I am going to put a replica of one of these on my desk at work!
This is not helping, Eul.
We do appreciate your input on the creative end of getting people dismissed. 
Zephyros
Magistrate
Autofellatio @ Cologne Town Hall
On the facade of the Cologne Town Hall there is a statue of Bishop Konrad von Hochstaden. The severity of his ecclesiastical figure is barely surprising; it’s what’s under the pedestal that leaves you stunned.
t's a so-called Kallendresser or a Kölner Spiegel, a figure that relieves itself into the drainpipe/displaying their bare backside while peeking through between the legs - like the one in the OP. These were common in Cologne since medieval times and their true meaning has since been forgotten but the most common interpretation is that they're somewhat of a political statement or a mocking of prominent figures by the respective house-owners. Think of it as writing "Fuck you mayor! I shit on your politics!" on your wall.
The figure engaged in an obscene autofellatio is to be reconnected to the classic medieval marginalia, which often included grotesque and bizarre situations placed “in the margin” of the main work — which could be a book, a fresco, a painting or, as in this case, a sculptural complex.
Given that such figures appear on a good number of churches, mainly in France, Spain and Germany, there has been much speculation as to what their purpose and meaning might have been: these were not just echoes of pagan fertility symbols, but complex allegories of salvation, as this book explains (and if you read French, there’s another good one exclusively dedicated to Brittany). Beyond all conjectures, it is clear that the distinction between the sacred and the profane in the Middle Ages was not as clear and unambiguous as we would be led to believe.
The Archbishop of Cologne was a Prince Elector, one of the seven most powerful figures in the Holy Roman Empire, but they had trouble holding the city and (centuries later) they were expelled and had to set up residence outside the city, and were not allowed to enter the city at all. But still called themselves Archbishops of Cologne. The city answered only to the Emperor.
Supposedly many noblemen were considered to fill Raspe’s shoes, but the anti-king crown fell to the young Count William of Holland. In April of 1248, Holland sieged Aachen, the place where German kings were traditionally crowned. It took six months for Aachen to fall, but when it did, it was the Archbishop of Cologne, not the Pope, who placed the crown on William’s head.
Konrad von Hochstaden’s faithful service to Pope Innocent was reward with the position of Apostolic legate in Germany, but Hochstaden reached higher. He secretly encouraged the people of Mainz to ask the pope to make him their new archbishop. This would make Konrad a double-prince elector since the Archbishop of Mainz also gets to vote on who becomes king. The pope gently denied Konrad the position, which caused Konrad to turn against the pope. The apostolic legation was taken from Konrad. Konrad turned from King William of Holland, as well and used every means necessary to dethrone him. He probably would have succeeded if William hadn’t died first.
After the death of King William, it was time for Konrad to find another king. His vote fell to Richard of Cornwall, brother to King Henry III of England. In trade for his support, Konrad was gifted full imperial authority over his principalities and the right to name bishops in Richard’s stead. Konrad von Hochstaden died four years later. Ironically, his remains lie in the Cathedral of the city where he was most hated: Cologne.
More info?
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/s...-Konrad-von-Hochstaden-13th-Century-Kingmaker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_von_Hochstaden
On the facade of the Cologne Town Hall there is a statue of Bishop Konrad von Hochstaden. The severity of his ecclesiastical figure is barely surprising; it’s what’s under the pedestal that leaves you stunned.
t's a so-called Kallendresser or a Kölner Spiegel, a figure that relieves itself into the drainpipe/displaying their bare backside while peeking through between the legs - like the one in the OP. These were common in Cologne since medieval times and their true meaning has since been forgotten but the most common interpretation is that they're somewhat of a political statement or a mocking of prominent figures by the respective house-owners. Think of it as writing "Fuck you mayor! I shit on your politics!" on your wall.
The figure engaged in an obscene autofellatio is to be reconnected to the classic medieval marginalia, which often included grotesque and bizarre situations placed “in the margin” of the main work — which could be a book, a fresco, a painting or, as in this case, a sculptural complex.
Given that such figures appear on a good number of churches, mainly in France, Spain and Germany, there has been much speculation as to what their purpose and meaning might have been: these were not just echoes of pagan fertility symbols, but complex allegories of salvation, as this book explains (and if you read French, there’s another good one exclusively dedicated to Brittany). Beyond all conjectures, it is clear that the distinction between the sacred and the profane in the Middle Ages was not as clear and unambiguous as we would be led to believe.
The Archbishop of Cologne was a Prince Elector, one of the seven most powerful figures in the Holy Roman Empire, but they had trouble holding the city and (centuries later) they were expelled and had to set up residence outside the city, and were not allowed to enter the city at all. But still called themselves Archbishops of Cologne. The city answered only to the Emperor.
Supposedly many noblemen were considered to fill Raspe’s shoes, but the anti-king crown fell to the young Count William of Holland. In April of 1248, Holland sieged Aachen, the place where German kings were traditionally crowned. It took six months for Aachen to fall, but when it did, it was the Archbishop of Cologne, not the Pope, who placed the crown on William’s head.
Konrad von Hochstaden’s faithful service to Pope Innocent was reward with the position of Apostolic legate in Germany, but Hochstaden reached higher. He secretly encouraged the people of Mainz to ask the pope to make him their new archbishop. This would make Konrad a double-prince elector since the Archbishop of Mainz also gets to vote on who becomes king. The pope gently denied Konrad the position, which caused Konrad to turn against the pope. The apostolic legation was taken from Konrad. Konrad turned from King William of Holland, as well and used every means necessary to dethrone him. He probably would have succeeded if William hadn’t died first.
After the death of King William, it was time for Konrad to find another king. His vote fell to Richard of Cornwall, brother to King Henry III of England. In trade for his support, Konrad was gifted full imperial authority over his principalities and the right to name bishops in Richard’s stead. Konrad von Hochstaden died four years later. Ironically, his remains lie in the Cathedral of the city where he was most hated: Cologne.
More info?
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/s...-Konrad-von-Hochstaden-13th-Century-Kingmaker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_von_Hochstaden
Last edited by a moderator:
Zephyros
Magistrate
The Virgin Spanking ...
The full title of the painting is The Virgin Spanking the Christ Child before Three Witnesses: André Breton, Paul Éluard, and the Painter.
Here, portrayed as an earthy, frustrated woman, the Virgin Mary sharply paddles her young son - the unruly baby Jesus - on his bottom which displays red marks already left by her punishing hand. Watching through the background window and serving as witnesses are Andre Breton, Paul Eluard, and the painter himself; all three seem untroubled by the scene. Ernst successfully upends both his own Catholic faith with its devotion to Christ's mother Mary, while simultaneously debasing much of Western art history with its proliferation of loving scenes between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Christ child, and also, undercutting the secular, bourgeois sanctity of motherhood. Ernst's painting is simultaneously blasphemous and sharply humorous. As expected, not everyone saw humor in the theme and the work created considerable controversy as an attack on Christianity and contemporary values.
Some interesting details:
This painting shakes the foundations of this religion by depicting its most important symbol as an imperfect child who must be scolded for his misbehavior. This act of reprisal is also justified due to the usage of symbolism by depicting Mary’s halo still over her head, however, the child is not only chastised for his deeds, but he has even lost his halo – fallen to the ground – and is thus shown as any other infant. He has thus fallen from grace and is instead a normal human and no longer a deity.
One other interesting feature that Max Ernst adds to this painting is the depiction of reddening on the child’s bottom and upper legs. This is to suggest that the Virgin is not administering a light punishment, but she is instead giving a vicious reprimand. This is more than likely a depiction of the types of punishment that Ernst himself experienced as a child. Ernst sought to convey the punishment as intentional and severe by highlighting the affected areas.
Date: 1926; Paris, France
Style: Surrealism
Period: First French period
Genre: symbolic painting
Media: oil, canvas
Tag: allegories-and-symbols, famous-people, Virgin-and-Child, mother-and-child, Paul Éluard, Max-Ernst
Location: Museum Ludwig, Cologne, Germany
Dimensions: 196 x 130 cm
More information? ...
https://www.theartstory.org/artist-ernst-max-artworks.htm
https://utopiadystopiawwi.wordpress...the-infant-jesus-in-front-of-three-witnesses/
https://artschaft.wordpress.com/2018/04/18/max-ernst-the-virgin-spanking-the-christ-child-1926/
https://www.wikiart.org/en/max-erns...tnesses-andre-breton-paul-eluard-and-the-1926
http://www.kahl-marburg.privat.t-online.de/Kahl_MaxErnst_engl.pdf
http://michaelcullenart.blogspot.com/2008/10/blessed-virgin-chastising-infant-jesus.html
The full title of the painting is The Virgin Spanking the Christ Child before Three Witnesses: André Breton, Paul Éluard, and the Painter.
Here, portrayed as an earthy, frustrated woman, the Virgin Mary sharply paddles her young son - the unruly baby Jesus - on his bottom which displays red marks already left by her punishing hand. Watching through the background window and serving as witnesses are Andre Breton, Paul Eluard, and the painter himself; all three seem untroubled by the scene. Ernst successfully upends both his own Catholic faith with its devotion to Christ's mother Mary, while simultaneously debasing much of Western art history with its proliferation of loving scenes between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Christ child, and also, undercutting the secular, bourgeois sanctity of motherhood. Ernst's painting is simultaneously blasphemous and sharply humorous. As expected, not everyone saw humor in the theme and the work created considerable controversy as an attack on Christianity and contemporary values.
Some interesting details:
This painting shakes the foundations of this religion by depicting its most important symbol as an imperfect child who must be scolded for his misbehavior. This act of reprisal is also justified due to the usage of symbolism by depicting Mary’s halo still over her head, however, the child is not only chastised for his deeds, but he has even lost his halo – fallen to the ground – and is thus shown as any other infant. He has thus fallen from grace and is instead a normal human and no longer a deity.
One other interesting feature that Max Ernst adds to this painting is the depiction of reddening on the child’s bottom and upper legs. This is to suggest that the Virgin is not administering a light punishment, but she is instead giving a vicious reprimand. This is more than likely a depiction of the types of punishment that Ernst himself experienced as a child. Ernst sought to convey the punishment as intentional and severe by highlighting the affected areas.
Date: 1926; Paris, France
Style: Surrealism
Period: First French period
Genre: symbolic painting
Media: oil, canvas
Tag: allegories-and-symbols, famous-people, Virgin-and-Child, mother-and-child, Paul Éluard, Max-Ernst
Location: Museum Ludwig, Cologne, Germany
Dimensions: 196 x 130 cm
More information? ...
https://www.theartstory.org/artist-ernst-max-artworks.htm
https://utopiadystopiawwi.wordpress...the-infant-jesus-in-front-of-three-witnesses/
https://artschaft.wordpress.com/2018/04/18/max-ernst-the-virgin-spanking-the-christ-child-1926/
https://www.wikiart.org/en/max-erns...tnesses-andre-breton-paul-eluard-and-the-1926
http://www.kahl-marburg.privat.t-online.de/Kahl_MaxErnst_engl.pdf
http://michaelcullenart.blogspot.com/2008/10/blessed-virgin-chastising-infant-jesus.html
Last edited by a moderator:
