With a little surfing on the internet, I found this (unsigned) commentary on
the puzzling painting ("Mourning and Fecundity") that I mentioned yesterday:"he layers his concerns about postmodernism, the historical imperatives of contemporary painting and the tenuousness of meaning" Might one say that "tenuousness of meaning" is an "historical imperative of contemporary painting" which is now in the period called "postmodernism"? So if Vincent Desiderio had done a scene as unambiguous as "Funeral at Ornans", he would have been out-of-step with his time (and consequently move lower down in the market place) (BTW - I also did a little research on Amish funerals, and yes, they do apparently use coffins and cemeteries. They don't just haul corpses out into the woods.) But why, other than for the obvious economic reasons, not be out-of-step with "the historical imperatives of contemporary painting"? Why is it better to present an image that is more puzzling rather than less ? It just seems such a waste of narrative pictorial talent (which is a very rare thing) Can't he find a story which he feels is important, and try to make it clear ? (actually -- Desiderio did just that with "Nude I" -- which is among the best erotic paintings I can recall, right up there with Manet and Titian - and I feel nothing tenuous about its meaning) http://www.marlboroughgallery.com/artists/desiderio2008/artwork.html ____________________________________________________________ Domain Registration - Click Here http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUyT44XgHEJLLrUSXUEoTILb C1YW3VQgte57uydEh11MOuC6djAIY/
