Give this propaganda a proper gander.

October 11, 2005 11:21 PM

"Romantic"...or "Neo-National-Socialist" Realism? If the following representations can whatsoever be called 'realist', then wherefore the campy ideological vulgarity of their subject matter, which make Leroy Neiman's works - yes, you may remember him accurately from the notorious Burger King collection of the late 1970's - seem as profound as Salvador Dali (156 MB - and "obscene" - MPEG file)? To wit: "Romantic Realism, the movement which renews the high esthetic standards and techniques of pre-20th century ateliers, brings a rebirth of comprehensibility, beauty, romanticism and stylization to contemporary subject matter." Linked from Instapundit. (Do political posts rendered as purely aesthetic questions merit "newsfilter" warnings? Consult the zeitgeist! And apologies for the question sounding like the title of a Paul Zindel play.) Qu'est-ce que c'est, le 'degenerate art', vraiment?
posted by objet (32 comments total)

Arrrrr. THAT'S NOT WHAT ROMANTICISM MEANS, FUCKTARDS!

(They're actually more in line with Heroic Realism, which, as the post alludes, was the Nazi artistic expression of choice. The Romantics were about unbridled passion as a rejection of the inhumanities of the Enlightenment. "The Sleep of Reason Breeds Monsters" etc. IT'S NOT ROMANTIC JUST BECAUSE IT'S SOFT-FOCUS! PLEASE GO BACK TO ART SCHOOL!)

I'm done with my yelling parenthetical now. Neat post.
posted by klangklangston at 11:27 PM on October 11, 2005

These all look like Randian bookjackets. Especially this one.
And your degenerate art link is broked.
posted by klangklangston at 11:31 PM on October 11, 2005

Degenerate Art link - here.

Apologies for brokeness.
posted by objet at 11:40 PM on October 11, 2005

[This is gross.]
posted by undule at 12:57 AM on October 12, 2005

Where's the link to the Instapundit post from which you got this, and why bother mentioning his name if you had no intention of linking to him?
posted by Goedel at 1:46 AM on October 12, 2005

this post makes my head hurt the same way Derida does. Please try to make your posts better suited to stupid people.

so, because I had difficulty deciphering some of the links, am I correct in understanding that what separates Romantic Realism from say, realism, is a slightly stylized rendering of an incredibly stylized and ideological subject? If I'm wrong I could do with an explanation.

Also, is this actually an art movement, or the marketing gimmick of one art seller? It's hard to tell because half the links aren't working for me. (probably a problem with my isp, frankly.)

Otherwise, this seems interesting, but sounds awfully jingoistic as I currently (and perhaps mistakenly) understand it.
posted by shmegegge at 1:56 AM on October 12, 2005

I thought this post was wonderful. That's all.
posted by ford and the prefects at 2:22 AM on October 12, 2005

Looks like Randian book jackets? ...from the first link.

Good point, though.
posted by mek at 2:36 AM on October 12, 2005

> what separates Romantic Realism from say, realism, is a slightly stylized
> rendering of an incredibly stylized and ideological subject?

Going by these examples, what separates Romantic Realism from realism is the heavy admixture of kitsch. Though as someone with a taste for fantasy art I have no standing to say there's anything wrong with that.
posted by jfuller at 3:11 AM on October 12, 2005

How is "Romanticism" used inappropriately?
posted by techgnollogic at 3:24 AM on October 12, 2005

romantic art was a reaction to classical art - lots of sexy, but well draped girls dipping their toes in woodland pools in opposition to perfectly formed female athletes bathing in marble pools. Hitler's stuff falls more into the Saturday Evening Post cover category which to my mind doesn't count as a real category, not even kitsch, any more than this so-called contemporary romantism or the other "throw-back" forms of realism that are turning up all over the place. It seems that in these days would-be artists think an MFA is a path to riches. I'm afraid that in my day artists never expected to get rich, they just wanted to make art and hoped to eke out a living while they were at it. And, BTW, so far as I have ever been able to see, all art is political, at least in so far as it gets publicly displayed - for those who have eyes to see it.
posted by donfactor at 4:41 AM on October 12, 2005

"Romantic Realism, the movement which renews the high esthetic standards and techniques of pre-20th century ateliers, brings a rebirth of comprehensibility, beauty, romanticism and stylization to contemporary subject matter."

translation: We wanted to combine DaVinci (sp?) with propaganda and Clearchannel broadcasting!
posted by shmegegge at 4:47 AM on October 12, 2005

Pah.

Who cares about this Jack Vettriano wannabee?

Bring back Tretchikoff
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:52 AM on October 12, 2005

Arrrrr. THAT'S NOT WHAT ROMANTICISM MEANS, FUCKTARDS!

Thank you for elevating the level of discourse. Fucktard.
posted by fake at 6:20 AM on October 12, 2005

For some reason, this reminds me of the fact that the Museum Of Modern Art in NYC used to display Andrew Wyeth's Christina's World at the end of a deserted, tiny little hallway, away from all the massive Abstract Expressionist work. It was a form of aesthetic quarantine worthy of Bush's plans for the bird flu.
posted by R. Mutt at 6:22 AM on October 12, 2005

"How is "Romanticism" used inappropriately?"

This:

And this are works from the Romantic Period, which was epitomized by an emphasis on emotion and passion over rationality.
The works of William Blake are Romantic.

Oddly enough, the reaction against Romanticism was Realism, which led to Impressionism.
Realism was marked by a focus on peasentry and the mundane, epitomized in drama by Gerhardt Hauptmann's The Weavers. While the wikipedia says that both Heroic and Social (Soviet) Realism were preceeded by Romantic Realism, but I think that's a specious claim as (aside from a few transition artists) there never really was a Romantic Realism movement. You were either Romantic or Realistic.
posted by klangklangston at 9:00 AM on October 12, 2005

Assuming the guy is a wingnut (he's been advertising on Instapundit for some time now), I think he better rethinking his titiling.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:04 AM on October 12, 2005

What is this post about? Are you pointing out that someone is apparently marketing cover art from/for "Objectivi$t Monthly"?
Or saying that they are crypto-nazis? That you can misuse the words campy and vulgar in the same sentence? Or that you don't like Neiman? or Burger King? That you can needlessly quote the needless use of words like atelier? That you don't want to use a 'via' because you found this through an advertisement somewhere, but you think that namedropping the somewhere will lend you credibility? That you can throw a couple of extra, random links into your post? That you can put a question, a command, and a second parenthetical phrase inside the same parentheses? To troll by forcing together a poor mixture of art, politics, pop culture, elitism, and young adult novels? To see if you can hurt our brains? Why! What! AGH!

Rather than saying that this post sucks, I would like to express my gratitude for the instructive negative example; I'm hoping it will improve the quality of all future posts.
posted by penciltopper at 10:31 AM on October 12, 2005

Ignore him.
posted by klangklangston at 10:54 AM on October 12, 2005

Oh, yes, please do. It was just the structure of the post that got me chewing on my own arm.
But I actually enjoyed some of the artwork, and I wouldn't have seen it otherwise, so I still thank you, objet.
posted by penciltopper at 11:35 AM on October 12, 2005

Ironmouth, you made me genuinely LOL.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:54 AM on October 12, 2005

Ironmouth: This one is supposed to depict a "husband and wife", but the sex of the figure on the right is quite ambiguous.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:39 PM on October 12, 2005

Esthetic movements are defined as much by their exceptions as they are by expectations. To wit, Klangston, you are once again full of shit.

Yes, Romanticism was broadly a reaction against Classicism, and Realism reacted against Romanticism, but this is less than half the story.

"Romantic" doesn't just fail to describe Blake, it demeans his legacy.

This is a great FPP, warts and all, BTW.
posted by bardic at 1:33 PM on October 12, 2005

> You were either Romantic or Realistic.

I have trouble putting the pre-raphaelites down on one side or the other of this fence.
posted by jfuller at 2:53 PM on October 12, 2005

happy gay couple in future Queens?

I don't like em--feh. Some are way too Randian, and i wouldn't describe them as either Romantic or Realist.
posted by amberglow at 4:03 PM on October 12, 2005

"I have trouble putting the pre-raphaelites down on one side or the other of this fence."
That's because the Pre-Raphealites were WELL before the time period that both Realism and Romanticism existed in.

And Bardic, Blake is often held as the preeminent Romantic poet and artist. Perhaps you should toss up some support for your position, instead of being both wrong and insulting.
posted by klangklangston at 4:33 PM on October 12, 2005

David or Delacroix now thats romantiscism.

Gericault was the realist no?

The Pre- Raphealite Brotherhood was way after, and were'nt they called neo romantics?

Time long school without.
posted by Max Power at 4:55 PM on October 12, 2005

> That's because the Pre-Raphealites were WELL before the time period that
> both Realism and Romanticism existed in.

Hmmmm. Well, we have klang, above, citing Goya and Blake as Romantics:

William Blake 1757-1827
Francisco Goya 1746-1828

Now, the Pre-Raphaelites:

Dante Gabriel Rosetti 1828-1882
John Everett Millais 1829-1896
Edward Burne-Jones 1833-1898

(Everything else klang believes is bogus, too. But there's no use belabouring the obvious.)
posted by jfuller at 5:29 PM on October 12, 2005

Except that David's Neoclassical, and what the Romantics were reacting against. I mean, take a look at the Oath of the Horatii.
posted by klangklangston at 5:29 PM on October 12, 2005

Jfuller: Fair enough. I assumed that because they were called Pre-Raphelites, they came before Raphael.

As for Blake, a search on Blake and Romantic turns up thousands of citations similar to this one, in which Blake is repeatedly referenced as a paragon of Romantic writing and painting.
On Hauptmann, here's a book about his relationship with Realism and Naturalism.

And are you arguing that the Pre-Raphealites were Romanitic Realism? Maybe you're having trouble classifying them because something noted over and over in the descriptions of them is that there wasn't a dogmatic aesthetic thread through their work.

So, what else is bogus, Fuller? Or are you just typing to see your fat little fingers sweat?
posted by klangklangston at 5:43 PM on October 12, 2005

I always thought that Pre-Raphaelites were called that because they looked back to the time before Raphael and the Renaissance, to Gothic and earlier styles for inspiration/philosophy (which why you see more pagan and occult and hokey King Arthur-ish themes in their works than plain Biblical and Classical)
posted by amberglow at 6:41 PM on October 12, 2005

don't know a lot about painting, but i know a fair amount about literature.

Blake, as little as he fits into any category, best fits into romanticism. BUT, he was virtually unheard of during his lifetime and was only classified as romantic post-mortem becase of certain of his values.

romantic poetry is best epitomized by Wordsworth and Coleridge, the gents that invented it. Their poetry resembles blake's only a little. for those that care, I can (when I get home from work sometime in the early morning EST) go to my big book of romanticism and reproduce here their manifesto describing the romantic poetry movment's aims.
posted by shmegegge at 9:23 PM on October 12, 2005