Acting-Out Politics

Weblog opens discussion about the psychology of Bushmerican style of behavior.

In his film Rossellini examines the similarities between Christ’s times and modern life in the West and comes to the conclusion that there is a surprising similarity in the structure of political powers in both historical periods. Following Rossellini’s film we can easily discern in the Ancient Judea and today in US the political coexistence of the right wing ideologists (in Christ’s times the Judaist clergy demanding his punishment by death because of their fear of popular revolt and losing their leadership position in the country, and today – the neo-conservatives trying to repress the popular indignation for the irresponsible rich through propaganda, money an police force) and, on the other side, the secular pragmatic power personified by Pontius Pilate who resembles the American liberal democrats in the 21st century with their tendency to yield to American neocons like Pontius Pilate to Judaist clergy

RosMessiahReview
According to Rossellini’s interpretation, Pilate has intended to make a genuine effort to save Christ’s life. In the shot above we see the private meeting between Pilate and Christ and observe how the Roman prefect of Judea tried to find a “compromise between Christ’s life and his death” – between what Pilate understood as Christ’s “extreme political rhetoric” and the “objective” possibility to avoid his crucifixion. Pay attention to the position of Christ’s figure – he is modest and straight, and the twisted posture of Pilate who cannot turn towards Christ (he has turned towards “oral consumption” – wine and food). So, to turn towards Christ could be to express too much respect for the pauper-prophet, which, according to Pilate, he doesn’t deserve. The solution for him is to turn his neck instead of body, and we see how Pilate’s abruptly turned neck is stressed. We appreciate his “touching humanistic effort” – he could be feasting on grapes and wine more comfortably – without Christ’s presence.

Pilate is trying to persuade Christ to soften his rhetorical pathos, and then Judaist conservative clergies would not be so alarmed and fearful that Christ speeches will create a mutiny. Why to provoke these people, Christ can preach the same things he is already preaching, only to tone it down, a bit softer, milder and gentler. It is necessary to be Christ to refuse Pilate’s seemingly reasonable offer, his touching care about the prophet’s life. It’s very important to keep making humanistic efforts, even when they are not going too far (we can do only what we can, what is important it’s to try). Pilate’s “humanism” is of a liberal brand, it’s a Barack Obama humanism. But right wing clergy “humanism” – to crucify Christ in order to save your own social position (and “prevent deaths and suffering of people whose rebellion will be bloodily subdued” is conservative “humanism”). It is a Donald Trump “humanism” – to save your power and wealth together with people who support you, you have to sacrifice those who are alien to you and whose interests are opposite to yours (simple as pimple and habitual as obituary).

Posted Nov 6 2011 –   Roberto Rossellini’s “The Messiah” (1975) – Right Wing Religious Ideologists, Secular Liberal Government and Christ of the People  by Acting-Out Politics

Posted Dec/11/’14 –   “The Messiah” (1975) by Roberto Rossellini  by Acting-Out Politics

Sanjuro21
When Sanjuro, the wandering samurai, by choice of chance appeared in the area where the events of the film were taking place, he was able to be motivated by compassion towards the young samurais in danger by the right wing plotters. Sanjuro is a very experienced person, but even for him it was not easy to help these young people because of the some’s of them pathetic simplemindedness and prejudicial belief in the power of goodness (in those with democratic sensibility) and the others’ stubborn suspiciousness and hierarchical pride (in those with conservative sensibility).

In the still above we see a group of nice hearted young people, whom the main character (Sanjuro) will try to help in spite of their unlucky combination of mental nearsightedness and farsightedness. They are discussing their plans of actions against the plotters. The first impression created by this shot is that the young people with good intentions are sitting inside a box of their drastic limitations in understanding of the situation they are planning to reverse. Of course, Kurosawa here describes not only the young personages of this particular film, but young people in general and how they’re prone to think. According to Sanjuro, they’re politically disoriented either by their pernicious idealism (the first group) or by their even more pernicious dogmatism (the second group). Their understanding of politics is limited not only by the metaphor of shack/box but by the bars covering the windows. Even following Sanjuro’s recommendations and instructions they found ways to make fatal mistakes and ruin the whole situation because of their mental awkwardness. Thank god, their benefactor is patient, not irritable teacher and supernaturally good at swordplay.

Rapport Between Thinking and Understanding
In this and the following picture Kurosawa is analyzing the difference between a democratic and conservative mind. Sanjuro (Tosiro Mifune) is trying to trick the plotters, and the leader of the young samurais is asking him the right questions – look at the intelligence of his face and the desire to understand what Sanjuro is planning in a concrete moment in the middle of permanently changing circumstances.

Liberal vs. Conservative Perception of Thinking
In comparison with the young person from the previous shot – with a democratic: rational, opened and concentrated mind (here he is the third to the right of Sanjuro), face of the guy with a conservative sensibility is distorted by the intensity of his emotion of being overwhelmed by Sanjuro’s “mysterious” intentions. He is either extremely surprised by what he thinks Sanjuro wants to do, and this makes him suspicious, as if, Sanjuro wants to fool all of them, or he imagines that Sanjuro possesses a kind of supernatural power which cannot be controlled. In other words, where the democratic mind is sharp yet balanced, the conservative one jumps from one extreme to another.

In the film Kurosawa depicts nine young samurais (as many as justices in American Supreme Court). At the end of the film they supposed to decide – what to do with the plotters? Will it be five against four for a winning opinion?

Posted on – April/26/’10 –   Akira Kurosawa’s “Sanjuro” (1962) – A Homeless Pauper by Moral Reasons as a Role Model* by Acting-Out Politics

Posted on July/5/’14 –   “Sanjuro” (1962), by Akira Kurosawa by Acting-Out Politics

Martyrdom (?!) And Sainthood (!?) Of A Uniquely Incredible Human Being

Nana as a salesgirl


Nana is working as a salesgirl. But she understands (and here is her difference from other salesgirls) that if she will continue – robot-likeness will become her essence.

Joan of Arc’s tears from Nana’s eyes


Nana is watching “The Passion of Joan of Arc” by Carl Theodor Dreyer (1928) with the incredible Falconetti. Joan’s tears on Nana’s face became Nana’s own, and their destinies as if became one, which then quickly bifurcated into a new two – that of the human destiny and the history of cinema from Dreyer to Godard.

Nana and her future martyrdom


As a viewer of Joan in the film – Nana becomes a saint (in the previous shot Nana is in the process of psychologically identifying with this unique personality of human history), but in this still Godard shows her, as if she is becoming ready for her own martyrdom. Now she, as if, unconsciously feels her future destiny, without any (conscious) posturing, of course – Nana is not a star – she is just a lost gaze at a movie theater.

Nana’s noble appeal


Nana is simultaneously full of tender but resilient vitality and a stubborn desire to live graciously, and she has the ability to do so. Nana’s appeal to the people in this still makes her beautiful in a new sense, without any attempt to be attractive. She is irresistible in a holistic sense – as a human being.

Eclipse of Nana’s face


Nana survived for a while on trivial jobs. She posed for nude photos. She didn’t want to be a limb of a couple. She abandoned her baby because she couldn’t accept being recruited by the social institution of marriage subduing women’s internal independence and psycho-existential potentials. Pursuing what was more important – her internal freedom, she, trapped by poverty had to risk the obvious – external one: she tried to find a kind-and-gentle pimp (during the times reflected in the film, prostitution as a commercial enterprise was legal in France).


Nana, who nurtured her internal world and has a bent for tough self-reflection and who as a woman wasn’t a feminist – socially and financially imitating men, preferred to be a prostitute because it gave her chance to be emotionally freer in comparison with people of “normal professions”, who have to be permanently fighting for positions and careers. The naïve and “innocent” tricks inseparable from being prostitute, were much more “honest” than being manipulated and controlled by the conventional system of financial survival.


Nana’s face has disappeared by the intrusion of her pimp’s profit-calculating head

Nana as a prostitute


Yes, Nana was agreeing with her job’s demands, because her work was more… honest. She worked for her money without pretending to be incarnated in more than a woman’s body (where this “more” is a financial system based on masked calculation and on conformism).

Nana has a discussion with a philosopher


Nana is talking to a professional philosopher and learns about the pluses and minuses of the use of human language and the ability to communicate.

Nana-the “witch” or Nana-the martyr?

GodMyLifereview
Years of working as a prostitute made Nana develop an intuitive mastery of the human soul. She built her inner world based on the knowledge of human banalities, eccentricities and paradoxes. She felt that the truth about human crude innocence, petty “horrors” and agonizing sentiments made her freer, than any typical profession could. In this shot we see a drastic difference between Nana and a regular woman, Nana’s colleague.

Nana’s incredible “somatic” dance


But Nana’s psychological maturity started to create surprises in her life, including strange lacunas of naiveté in her tastes and desires. Her internal world was developing without conventional psychological and mental slag, but also without the knowledge of what existential waste is. Her extraordinary character flowered without her understanding the context and the value of this flowering. She has elevated the human nature as an object of love by the very giftedness of her soul, but outside her amorous creativity human nature was as a poisoned wildness.

Nana fell in love as on a dusty soil


With all the colorful irresistibility of her character Nana fell in love as into dusty sludgy soil.

Nana is eliminated from the system


Falling in love amidst financialization of human relationships is, as if, being caught in the middle of dangerously extreme over-investment triggering bankruptcy. Nana’s pimp used her as a payment to settle his debt by the price of Nana’s life. Her intuitive prophesy about her martyrdom came to life in her death.

Posted on Sep/28/2012 –   Jean-Luc Godard’s “Vivre sa vie/My Life to Live” (1962) – One Extraordinary Woman’s Path Through Marriage, Motherhood, Search for Job, Prostitution, Romantic Love and Verbal Communication with Others by Acting-Out Politics

Posed on June/23/2014 –   “Vivre sa vie/My Life to Live” (1962) by Jean-Luc Godard  by Acting-Out Politics


Why a handsome and extraordinarily intelligent young man like Charles (Antoine Monnier) can say something like this? He detests drugs, helps his peers out of mathematical dead ends, keeps ascetic purity (of course, without grotesque exaggerations) as a lifestyle and is one of the leading figures in youth-movement. He is respected and admired by his friends and loved by incredible girls. But in spite of this he became more and more desperate.


Charles tormented by the dedication of modern societies to (strategic, not obvious) domination over human beings (who are from childhood are made to study for future professions promising good salaries and careers) and morbid exploitation of nature, has come to a psychoanalyst – seemingly more humanistic and existential among psychiatrists. But instead of socio-psychological interest toward Charles’ non-conformist stance creating for him more and more problems – his suffering about the conditions of human life, the shrink started to blabber-flipper about “likeliness” of psychological traumas in Charles’ childhood as the “ultimate and deep” reason of his unhappiness. The specialist was completely ignoring the socio-political climate, whitewashing the role of concrete decisions made by decision-makers of the country and locking the causes of human existential despair inside idiosyncratic personal reasons. Charles understood – how childish were his hopes – as if it’s possible to be a shrink and not to be hired either by “government” or by “the private corporation” and through this – by the very spirit of the system.


Charles tried to focus the conversation with the psychoanalyst on the destruction of the environment by fossil fuel (that doesn’t need the help of childhood traumas in destroying peace of the soul and harmonious vitality of the feelings), on human predatory behavior, but his main points to the psychoanalyst, which bothered him by making him suffer were the destruction of human soul by unemployment, cut-throat competition, cult of money-profit, mass culture of gluttonous consumerism and soul-destructing entertainment, and the impossibility to really do anything about it. But the shrink was as stump – his real task, it looks, was to avoid socio-political criticism of the system (which was making Charles sick). Conformism is comfortable, Charles was thinking while feeling that his world was becoming much less than the shrink’s neat office.


Charles and Valentin, one of his friends whom he asked to help him to die, are on their way to the cemetery not to frighten the innocent philistines who dream about survival in any, even impossible conditions of life and under any political regime.


They get off the train at the last stop


Valentin who desperately needed money to buy drugs has agreed to help. The meaning of Charles’ desire to depart from life was alien to Valentin. His pernicious drug addiction has eaten up his sensitivity.


Charles gave Valentin the gun and explained at which moment and how to act


The final steps


Pay attention to how bizarrely Valentin keeps the gun. In US nobody holds the weapon as if it has nothing to do with shooting, killing and feeling strong. For Valentin the gun, as if, was a delicate, not lethal instrument. What will follow will not be murder, but in Charles’ perception – a friend’s care about friend.


The next morning the newspaper…

Posted Sep/27/2010 –   Robert Bresson’s “Au Hazard Balthazar” (1966) and “Devil probably” (1977) – Balthazar, Marie, Charles, Alberte, Edvige, Valentine…  by Acting-Out Politics

Posted Dec/10/2014 –   “Au Hazard Balthazar” (1966) And “Devil Probably” (1977) By Robert Bresson  by Acting-Out Politics

Can the acceptance of the proposal to make a million dollars for just several minutes, if the person will agree to take publicly a million dollar bill into the mouth (with his/her teeth) be considered a humiliating insult, which can be qualified as fascist mistreatment of human being? Or can it be felt as nothing more than a joke or even opportunity to make a million? How many Americans today could enjoy the taste of a million dollar bill under their tongue?

Bergman, it seems, is suggesting that to do something like this marks an important psychological change in Rosenberg’s soul – him becoming a person with fascist sensibility. Is this Bergman’s idea (that a joke like this is fascist) universal in its application? Can it be applied to our country – US in 21st century?


Abel Rosenberg was buying at the bar counter a bottle of whiskey for one billion marks, and just for the pleasure to publicly humiliate the barman he offered him to take the banknote with his mouth, what the poor guy obediently did while noticeably trying to overcome his shame.

Who today in US will refuse to take a million dollar bill with his/her mouth? How many percent of the population will agree and how many people will refuse? Let’s look again at the still from the film – the couple to the right of Abel Rosenberg is obviously entertained and watching the scene with interest (may be even betting between themselves – will he take it or not?), but the elder guy to the left seems displeased, although his grimace can be exaggerated because of dance hall’s over-excited atmosphere. Majority of the people present here are occupied with their own pleasures. How many people today, like this couple (to the right from David Carradine), will feel amused and entertained by observing humiliation through money? May be, some today’s young people will passionately volunteer to participate in a media gala-game based on Abel Rosenberg-like offer, ready to grab the banknotes with their teeth, and envelop them with their saliva in order to make money-money-money?

Posted on Jan 25 2011 – Ingmar Bergman’s “The Serpent’s Egg” (1977) – From (the Alive) Human Soul into a Compulsive Socio-Political Action – Bergman’s Analysis of the Fascization of Human being by Acting-Out Politics

Posted on Dec 4 2014 – “The Serpent’s Egg” (SE) – 1976, by Ingmar Bergman by Acting-Out Politics

Glauce (Margareth Clementi) – the girl of the girls, virgin of virgins, innocence among innocents, hope broken into hopelessness, destiny shattered, has to die because of Jason’s careerism and yearning for success

Medea3
Here we see what Medea’s witchcraft has done to Glauce’s face (more exactly, with reflection of her face in the mirror). Pretty girls (and many women) don’t differentiate between the mirror reflection of the face and the factual appearance of their faces) – they, as if carry the mirror on their face. In other words they allow others to decide the worth of their face. The mirror is their eyes. They’re prone to imitate the cliché of common gaze. In this sense they’re like men absentmindedly gazing at women’s faces.

PasMedea3
Glauce, as though feels the irradiation of Medea’s hate – the power of jealousy. She feels herself under attack. She is afraid.

PasMedea14
Glauce’s despair is intensifying – it’s mixed with her tears. She, as if, is losing her right to be as she is. She cannot understand, that if her “deformed” face will disappear forever it means that her life, her body will also disappear. But in this moment, when we see her – her life, her body, her future children are her face. Mirror becomes the judgment.

PasMedea2
Glauce’s despair, not she – that is making, that has made the fatal decision. And Glauce is ready to disappear, to end it all, so as to forget about her “failure” as a beautiful, youthful, attractive, lovely and with promising future young woman, with her strong gracious body. It is, as if, Medea was flaying her alive, starting with her face.

PasMedea13
Glauce is jumping to her death, and her father King Creon will follow her very soon. The both are, as if, transformed into insects by the despotic will of Medea which is grown on the same despair as Glauce’s self-sacrificial paroxysm.

Posted on Jan 26, 2014 – Pier Paolo Pasolini’s “Medea” (1969) – Medea As An Apocalyptic Muse by Acting-Out Politics

Posted on Mar 2 2015 – “Medea” (1969) by Pier Paolo Pasolini by Acting-Out Politics

“Good People” With “Bad Deeds” Conservative/ Neoconservative Agents’ of “Goodness” Sincere Indignation, Pathos Of Righteousness and the “Noble and Justified Hate”

Contemporary corporation has been stuck in adolescent immaturity. Market has become the goal and purpose of life. Here is where evil enters.
Philip Hefner, “The Christian Century”, p. 41, July 19, 2017

Conservative psyche needs to dominate other people, world and situations, but with a particular mannerism – domination is not supposed to be build step by step (with frustrating postponement of the result inevitable if the person looking to dominate is oriented to achieve it in a rational, effective and solid way). But the conservatives need to become dominant quickly and absolutely – by a kind of an “immediate” knockout, by impressing the observers and world by instantly shuffling triumph with blood, shock and praise. This “over-impressive” style of becoming/being dominant tells us not just about the emotional (as opposite of mental) nature of the conservative psyche’s yearnings, but about its unconscious – impulsively anarchic, chaotic and adversary.

Of course, this proclivity of conservative psyche to try to win over the situations quickly, with the intention to shake the opponent and witnesses, doesn’t mean that conservatives can’t be patient and enduring, but their tirelessness is not of the rational – gradually building effect kind, but that of trying to win obviously and big again and again and again. Blitzkrieg approach in the game of dominance fits in the 21st century money-profit occupation not less than military operations.

Cons’ obsession to dominate is, it seems, the result of their unconscious belief in their personal extraordinary worthy nature in comparison with other people and, secondly, of their another belief in the absolute necessity for them to prove this value by some kind of exceptional achievement, which should be socio-morphic and confirm, in front of their society and the world, their exclusive and deserved right to dominate as a dynamite (in military situations) or as dynamo (in financial ones). In comparison with cons, who seek domination always and everywhere, those who’re psychologically distant from domination itch/scratch – who’re interested in other things – for example, in reading scholarly and sometimes philosophical books, and in sharing what they have learned, or in search of intellectual and/or aesthetic self-realization, etc., should, according to conservatives, be ashamed of themselves as inferior and superfluous creatures like a goon without gun or as puny pony. Disinterested people for them are like Herbert Wells’ Eloi in perception of Morlocks.

The domination that conservative psyche tries to achieve publicly and loudly should, according to the cons/neocons, be based on a kind of an internal value which they feels inside themselves like a diamond the size of a human heart, and their task is to demonstrate it to people through proving its existence by super-duper achievement. The conservative desire to dominate, therefore, is based not on one, but on two determinants, internal (inner value of these people’s nature) and external – the need to prove their internal value – their exceptional nature. As we see, conservatives are by no means simplistically crafted, let’s not be too reductive in our assessment. But what can be the value of this giant diamond inside, which, through exceptional action can impress others to such a degree that they then will unconditionally love our super-worthy heroes and register them in a sacred book?

First of all, it is the unconscious remnants of a belief in religious or political ideology, which in the past made the internal diamond of conservative heart look like an awesome code of wisdom, like the very power of god to bless and punish. It’s the very con/neo-con tendency to perceive the world not through thinking about it, but through believing (immediately knowing), what it is. In 21st century neo-cons are still believers, but only in the world they want to have for their own benefit, the world corresponding to their wish to dominate it including other people and nations. Neo-cons believe in the world being secondary to their own “exceptional” existence. They’re believers who believe in their own picture of the world supporting their exploitative and despotic position. They’re believers in their own projections into the world as in objective reality and they’re fully and proudly intend to prove on practice that they are right. Their belief is not “theoretical” at all, it is “applied”, “engineerial”.

But even a more curious point here is that the proof of their exclusivity, according to today’s conservative psyche, should be completely “secular” – it’s the “heroic” action that proves cons/neocons’ internal value. And as we see today, this heroic action is the ability to ultimately belong to the immortal cast of bill-mills (billionaires-millionaires). Many people still think that today’s neo-cons are holistic souls. But for them their internal value must be proved by expansive secular means. Neocons are expansionistic on a global scale – financially – in terms of profit, and militaristically – geographically spreading their domination by military power.

Today, in US it’s the bill-mill prowess – being billionaire/millionaire is a proof that you’re a rarely gifted personality. Simply said, you have to be financially super-sniper-successful if you want to be considered an exceptional person, a possessor of the diamond of heart and soul. All of this could just be a socio-psychological curiosity, if the proof of your aggrandized peculiarity was not a narcissistic proclivity to dominate over others, your own destiny and the world. In the 21st century we are privileged to know that megalomaniacal plutocrats are motivated by trying to prove how incredible they are by using exceptionally strong and effective tools at their disposal – military extra-power and unlimited money – to intimidate, to blackmail, bankrupt, pauperize, destroy, blind and bribe by their shining and sparkling golden glory.

Today neo-cons live in secular, more – in a technologically developed societies, in which the very concept of power over people and social and cultural structures is not what it was in traditional societies. Today, ideology is not enough to have people in rulers’ hands. What is necessary is money as a weapon of domination over your countrymen and other nations. That’s how conservatives became neo-conservatives in a first place. These people’s way of life cannot be separated from their tireless manipulative concentration – they really feel alive when they are calculating effective ways of manipulating others. But manipulative behavior also needs collaborators and helpers – on their way to global success manipulators can help others to become rich – for this reason they’re not short of supporters who by protecting them protect themselves and their dreams of domination over others and super-competence in strategies of financial success. While majority of the people will be victimized by the megalomaniacal despots-charmers, those chosen by money and power are ready to pay terrifying price of losing genuine freedom – moneys have a huge debilitating psychological weight. Money is much heavier than human body.

We return here to the basis of democracy as a humanistic idea – to the freedom of humanity from despotic rulers and their over-powerful phobias and mad obsessions. Today, this freedom is defeated by the despotism of the most despotic of rulers – its majesty money-profit with the crown of the Golden Calf. And too many Americans lie on their knees and forehead in front of this crown.

How To Resist The Anomic And Entropic Living Conditions Through Love And Art


Chaim Soutine, “Mother and child”, 1942

The poorly discernable interior where we see mother and her child is a world of a blue-green colors dirtied to an unrecognizability. But the mother and daughter’s clothing still resist the dirt of living conditions not only of material deprivation, but of psychological pauperization. Tiredness and exhaustion is the air of mother’s face, whose expression and gaze transcend the intra-canvass world with a passive appeal to the people beyond of her life’s world. But the little girl on her mother’s lap is vital – her hands are redder and more agile than her arms, and her face is, as if, lit, with eyes full of attention and curiosity towards the world inside the canvass, where she lives.
The daughter’s legs are thin and still weak, but on mother’s lap she is like in the pouch of mother’s love and warmth. One of the miraculous metaphors of the painting is representation of mother’s legs, as if they are legs of the chair, where mother and daughter are sitting together (daughter through mother).

Mother is alive, warm and generous interior for her daughter. Position of the girl’s arms as though embracing her belly repeats the position of mother’s hand keeping/holding her. The similarity of the mother and daughter postures suggests the eternity of the chain of reproduction – it will be the time when the daughter will be holding her own baby like her mother is keeping her. Of course, many paintings exist of mothers keeping their babies and children, but in this particular Soutine’s work the identity of mother’s and daughter’s postures suggest the sacredness of procreative chain of generations.

Mother’s left eye is scandalously “covered” or “shut” by a blob of black paint. To prevent the possibility that some of viewers could conclude that the poor woman is one-eyed, we’re rushing to insist that the painter is giving us the chance to intuitively interpret the “ambiguity” around her left eye as resolved by the idea that this eye is that of the mother’s heart and as such is exhausted by over-concentration on her daughter and becoming outworn by this permanent vigil, while her right – social eye continues to watch the surrounding where her child grows up. The daughter’s arms and hands are, as if, a continuation of mother’s.

The daring, almost “shameless” use of paint is characteristic of Soutine who is not ashamed to seem crude as a painter. He is prone to characterize what he is painting not only “realistically” – by the use of visual common sense, but by marking the emotional accents through direct using the paint. Let’s return to the impossible dark spot of the paint on/instead the mother’s left eye, as if mother is one-eyed. Black spot on her eye looks so casual, so not elaborated, so absurd, that it is natural to look for another explanation – it is the moment when the form becomes the content (when form depicts the essence of the content – when the formal “tool” becomes what this tool is applied to).

Soutine’s paintings very often look “outrages” because of the despotism of the paint’s anarchy, when paint is not subduing itself in front of the content, but acts as if it is content itself, as if it is a master, not a respectful sober servant of a content as master. Soutine’s expressionism is anarchic like an earthquake and ignores a balanced universe, in which the role of the form is to mediate between visual perception and credibility of the vision.

In “Mother and Child” – for the sake of daughter’s wellbeing mother is ready to exhaust herself to the degree of losing her centrality, her queen-ness, her fertility-goddess-ness, her primacy and priority over the child. The girl’s face is lit by the energy received from the mother who is her daughter‘s psychological-environmental womb. The girl’s gaze (of her right eye) radiates a powerful, even greedy curiosity, which Soutine underlines with a not realistic but extra-expressionistic brush line of white paint (under her eye) and super-realistic power of her pressed lower lip. In Soutine’s painting mother and daughter triumph over a messy background of the semi- and non-being.

« Previous Entries  Next Page »

Calendar

August 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Topics

Categories

Recent Comments