One final note on this topic - Werckmeister included a picture of the Louvre's "Winged Victory" in his lecture:
http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/art-history/werckmeister/May_11_1999/1 132.jpg We don't know what he said -- but he might have been comparing it to all the other statues of martial celebration that he was showing in his lecture -- possibly even mentioning that this piece was singled out in an early Futurist manifesto as inadequate to express modern day, mechanized power. And -- I also feel there is an aesthetic distance between the art made for the 20th C. totalitarian regimes -- and that which was made for the many martial, autocratic regimes that preceded them in world history -- and "despair" is the best word to describe it. Briefly put, the art subsidized by Louis XIV ( or Xerxes, or Akbar the Great) was up-beat and beautiful -- effectively masking the brutality of their aggressive regimes. While the official art of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was as ugly and depressing as they were -- because -- perhaps that's what worked best for them -- and it's not like other options were not available. reker and Kolbe could have made more classical, beautiful sculpture for the Germans, as Matveev could have for the Russians -- but that kind of work was not wanted. Though still - I find a lot of their work to be enjoyable -- as a kind of enjoyable, melancholy sadness - which is part of everyone's life, wherever they live. ____________________________________________________________ Bills adding up? Click here for free information on payday loans. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmOWd8VBCJtcbepIS6Dr8u06 QeET52n5ncqzInbNeT74ZFmE/
