Winged Beauties


Greybird

Recommended Posts

I've imported this commentary and mini-gallery from Rebirth of Reason, expanding on it here, as I hope to continue to do so. Some more general notes about whys and wherefores are in the first reply post.

A forty-year passion

I'm using two beautiful works to start a more general thread about winged humans — or, as in science fiction, humanoids — in art, my own strong passion for over 40 years.

At left is art for a comics cover, showing a character that has been deeply meaningful to me for 30 years on her own. At right is a favorite painting, created for a multiplayer role-playing card game, that was modeled by a mother and daughter.

I'm starting out with these because they came from popular culture, and to make a point: Art that is personally moving doesn't have to be sought only in the "high culture" and in formal galleries.

29mm3yo.jpg 2qlzxgn.jpg

Click on either work for a larger version

I've long tried to examine my interest in such winged art, going into and beyond my own sense-of-life response of pleasure. It probably has to do, most of all, with the experience and metaphor of feeling liberated — going beyond the bounds of Earth and those who want to hold down or limit one's spirit and achievements.

It's a this-worldly, or above-this-world, pleasure for me. That is why I've consistently responded most strongly to winged-human art which goes, in a phrase I've used at several art venues, "beyond fae and angels."

Wings that could be borne, with imaginative physiology (and much genetic engineering), by humans living within this world are what appeal to me. Not the well-hidden miniature denizens of a meadow or forest, and not the messengers of gods that aren't really in the firmament above us.

Yes, the physiology and "gengineering" are daunting, and probably impossible under any circumstances for animals of our size. Yet those who bear wings under recognizably this-worldly conditions awaken my own spirit, as if the brush of their feathers lead to a metaphorical freedom that I can touch ... and that is almost too far away, in most ways, in the world we must deal with each day.

The untitled painting at left above, with pencils by George Pérez and colors by Nei Ruffino, was used for the cover to Final Crisis: Legion of Three Worlds, issue 5, from 2009. It depicts Dawnstar of DC Comics' 31st-Century Legion of Super-Heroes.

The painting at right is Boris Vallejo's "Showing Her the Way." We should all aspire to feeling and being this free in guiding the coming generations.

§ § §

If anyone shares this artistic enthusiasm and is interested, here's some of what I've put on line or set up during the past dozen years or so. (These links may change, and I'll post any changes in the thread.)

First among them is my page at a vibrant, huge art community, deviantART. Every level of artistic skill is on display, from published professionals to talented students. My page, in itself, has several elements for those seeking or intrigued by winged art:

~ Three dA collections — sizable portions of a carefully chosen 600 "favorites" thus far — of beautiful and provocative Winged Realistic, Winged Fantasy, and Winged Allegory works from the site's artists and writers.

(Not all of these will be visible unless one has a free dA account oneself, and is logged into it, since that's the only way to get past the Mature Content site filter. It's easy to register. The vast, formidable resources for both art creators and art appreciators make it extremely worthwhile to sign up.)

~ Some of my prose, both using original characters (soon to be expanded) and Legion fan fiction.

~ Links under or near "Fave News" to showcases of more winged art at that huge site.

Other links:

~ A Yahoo! Group for pteraphiles (recently coined term for "wing-lovers"), with a mailing list and visual and prose collections.

~ A YouTube

of many of my favorite winged works out of my collection of thousands. (Some portraying Greybird, Dawnstar's brother and source of my nom de Net.)

~ A more static slideshow of visual winged favorites (click on any to enlarge), at my slide.com galleries.

~ More about Dawnstar as a character, frankly fannish and very slowly building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal disclaimers

This thread's beginnings are brought over from Rebirth of Reason, which version is moribund and hidden behind lagging Net technology.

I'll note at the outset what this thread is not, and is not intended to be.

~ It's not being begun as anything more, really, than a few postings of winged works that are notably meaningful to me, and some general animadversions as to why they are that way.

~ It's not any claim that these or future works that I post are necessarily high in technical skills, though some of them are and will be.

~ It's not any attempt to set myself up as some kind of arbiter or guide as to visual art that's beautiful, valid, skillful, pleasing, or vetted for any Objectivists' "proper" or "romantic" or "life-affirming" consumption.

~ It's not any assertion that this is the best art of all time, of any time, or even of any genre or method or topic.

~ It's not any claim that these selections even necessarily compare favorably, in skill and subject, to those from the many artists who have posted their own work in this section of the OL site.

~ It's not set up to trash anyone else's esthetic or personal choices, even by indirect implication.

It is simply this, as far as I'm concerned:

A few aspects of an intense appreciation of over 40 years on my part, ones that have moved me, and which I hope might move or interest some of you as well. No more and no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On photographs as a source of art

deba1i.jpg

Click for a larger version

This lovely photomanipulation by Rick Blackwell (one of a huge gallery of works at deviantART) is an occasion for my stating a hope, at the risk of sounding too defensive (or spoiling for a fight) in advance:

I hope that we won't have anyone calling for bowing toward Rand's insistence, in her Romantic Manifesto, that photography is not an art form.

If architecture got her special favor as crossing conceptual boundaries in a legitimate manner — with her own obvious (and worthy) reason for such pleading having begun and ended with the words "Howard Roark" — this kind of blending can also qualify, straddling painting and photography. Rand didn't anticipate every technology that would come along.

I don't see why a work such as this cannot be art. It's a selective re-creation, though at second remove, of an actual model (two photos), leaves, cloudbanks, and other elements.

It also combines and modifies them to create a work that embodies an implicit assessment of existence by the artist.

(Though as to exactly what that is, for him, I have no clue. He doesn't care to talk in public about his visions and motivations. I asked him, and he fears exposing too much of his private life. With rising net.savagery, I can hardly blame him.)

I'll note what I see in this: An allusion to one's winning out over decay and dissolution (the leaves), rising toward what is possible for oneself, while still holding on to the beauty that can be found in the world.

... It's fuel for my own spirit, anyway. It helped me get through a very bad year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An unexpected delight

When I was surprised one day in 2000 to find out, on line, that Dean Lee had created this illustration for a story of mine, of two characters I had created, captured perfectly by someone I'd never even spoken to in person ...

1z38k8x.jpg

Click for a larger version

... it was a singular experience. For a few minutes, I couldn't talk clearly. I could barely handle the mouse and keyboard, with my hand feeling numb. I was shaking with delight, even while fearing that I was having a mini-"stroke" with all the blood rushing from my brain to my pounding heart.

Does every author get to have such a world-shaking thrill? Out of knowing that he'd communicated this well, this exactly, so that a recent Net artist friend could zero in on what his characters were all about? I doubt very many do.

Total passion for the total height? (To borrow from a meme in The Fountainhead.) I felt it that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have two areas of common ground here, Steve.

1) I, too, have often been fascinated by winged figures.

2) I agree with you that photography can be art, and I'd go farther than you have: It has been art for a very long time.

You wrote in post #3 that "Rand didn't anticipate every technology that would come along."

Indeed. I think that Rand wasn't even aware of the technologies that had existed since the invention of photography, and which allowed photographers to manipulate their imagery to their heart's desire. Almost any effect that can be produced in Photoshop could be achieved with old-school, pre-digital techniques. It just took much longer and was more expensive before Photoshop. Rand didn't really know much of anything about the medium before commenting on it.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bones of humanoids are for too dense to permit flight with such gracile wings.

The images do not compute.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just my malevolent, hatred-eaten sense of life, but most of the art that shows up in Objectivist forums embarrasses me. A few years ago, perhaps here on OL, somebody coined the memorable expression "Objectikitsch." On the other hand, Nike of Samothrace is my all-time favorite work of visual art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

What is it titled - "Self-winged Man", perhaps?

Stunning. It's so...literal.

Ba'al, bet you like it, too. :)

It reminds me of a soaring plane (aka glider) I once flew. A Groebe Glassenfluge. As a humanoid figure it is quite grotesque. Way out of proportion.

Ba'al ChatzAF

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bones of humanoids are for too dense to permit flight with such gracile wings.

The images do not compute.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well then, how about this sculpture, which is my favorite of Antony Gormley's winged figures:

5364684306_931eff8021.jpg

J

To me it's horrible. I prefer the previous kitsch. I appreciate good kitsch, usually made for some kind of marketing. I love young Indian bucks all but copulating with winsome Indian maidens, wings and all. Sort of a Romeo and Juliet thing. Throw in some animation . . .

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On photographs as a source of art

I hope that we won't have anyone calling for bowing toward Rand's insistence, in her Romantic Manifesto, that photography is not an art form.

Greybird,

I note that you phrased that carefully - "photographs as a source of art". i.e., in that fine and 'artful' picture of combination photos you show.

How about photography, in itself, as art?

What would you say to my thought that essentially a photograph is an optical, mechanical, digital, (and chemical) recording of what the photographer places or arranges before the camera?

I took to photography shortly before I read The Romantic Manifesto, and spent many years trying to overturn Rand's statement on photography for my satisfaction, but eventually, not to add, reluctantly, came to agree with her.

A photograph is a reproduction of what already exists - what's THERE.

Further, the next stage of juxtaposing, or 'sandwiching' (as we called it in the old film-and-darkroom days), or PhotoShopping, two or more photos to make a single image, is often evocative and picturesque, but to me is photo-illustration, not art.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A photograph is a reproduction of what already exists - what's THERE.

Further, the next stage of juxtaposing, or 'sandwiching'...

We've had the photography-as-art discussion before on this thread over at OO. In the discussion I show that photography is not limited to reproducing "what already exists - what's THERE," and that there was significantly more to pre-digital techniques than just "sandwiching."

Photography is art by Rand's criteria.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A photograph is a reproduction of what already exists - what's THERE.

Further, the next stage of juxtaposing, or 'sandwiching'...

We've had the photography-as-art discussion before

Jon,

True, do you think I could forget? B)

I learned to respect your arguments, and haven't stopped considering this position.

However.

First, photography in its basis sense ('qua photography'), held up against "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgements", falls short in my estimation.

Not so much the "selective re-creation" part - but with the rest. A photograph always speaks more of the subject, a time, a place... a SPECIFIC, than it does of "metaphysical value-judgements", it seems to me. Much can be done to emphasise a particular mood or message, by lighting, composition, timing, choice of subject; but it remains constrained by actual physical elements.

Second, the manipulation of a photograph - by combining images, building up of light, and so on, becomes an >illustration< to my p.o.v., not an artwork. I do admit here, that this may be subjective taste.

Even then, can this be photography, still? Is it art? Or is it some type of effective and picturesque hybrid, suited more to book-covers and posters?

I kinda see the movement that brought photography and e.g.,basket-weaving into the art world as a reverse elitism, ('democratization' of art?) in recent decades. Old fashioned and purist, it may seem of me, but I cannot lower my standard of art to craft - not when I've been touched by the really great stuff. (Including great stuff I have instantly hated.)Anyway, that's more of a gripe, than an argument. :angry:

Lastly, with respect to you and Greybird, elevating photography - that wonderful stand-alone medium - to art, actually denigrates phography, ultimately, imho.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, do you think I could forget? B)

I learned to respect your arguments, and haven't stopped considering this position.

Good, I'm glad that you're open to arguments.

However.

First, photography in its basis sense ('qua photography'), held up against "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgements", falls short in my estimation.

What does "qua photography" mean? It sounds as if it means that you want to decide that certain types or techniques of photography don't count as photography, not because they're not photography, but because you don't want to accept photography as an art form, and therefore anything which allows photography to be classified as art must be rejected as being a part of photography "qua photography."

Anyway, the "qua photography" argument could equally apply to all other art forms: one could declare that literature "qua literature" consists of writing for the purpose of communicating ordinary information, and not for conveying "selective recreations of reality" and "metaphysical value-judgments"; that the essence of painting "qua painting" is simply to color, coat and protect everyday objects, not to express one's "sense of life"; that sculpting "qua sculpting" is the forming and shaping of useful, utilitarian items, and not the making of highfalutin artsy fartsy stuff; and therefore literature, painting and sculpture are not art. In fact, nothing qualifies as art. Everything "qua" its nature falls short.

Not so much the "selective re-creation" part - but with the rest. A photograph always speaks more of the subject, a time, a place... a SPECIFIC, than it does of "metaphysical value-judgements", it seems to me. Much can be done to emphasise a particular mood or message, by lighting, composition, timing, choice of subject; but it remains constrained by actual physical elements.

Well, from our previous discussion on OO, you also believe that movies aren't art for the same reasons. I'd imagine that plays are not art as well? When you see an actor on stage or screen playing a character, you don't understand or accept that it's a character doing fictional things, but you see it as a real, specific moment in the actor's life which "remains constrained by actual physical elements"?

Second, the manipulation of a photograph - by combining images, building up of light, and so on, becomes an >illustration< to my p.o.v., not an artwork. I do admit here, that this may be subjective taste.

I wouldn't say it's "subjective" so much as "arbitrary." Let me see if I've got it straight: If person creates an image using paint to color a surface, the result can be art, but if a person creates the exact same image using light to color a surface, it cannot be art? Are there any other media which you arbitrarily eliminate, in addition to light? Perhaps chalk or charcoal on a surface can result in art, but, say, lipstick or colored sand applied to a surface can't? There are certain means of applying pigment which have a special "qua" nature that instantly disqualifies them from the realm of art?

Even then, can this be photography, still? Is it art? Or is it some type of effective and picturesque hybrid, suited more to book-covers and posters?

Here you sound subjective. You seem to be confusing your judgments that certain works are bad art with the idea that they are non-art.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, do you think I could forget? B)

I learned to respect your arguments, and haven't stopped considering this position.

Good, I'm glad that you're open to arguments.

Jon,

Nearly always, I believe. Are you?

You misunderstand my 'qua photography'. It indicates a straight, untouched photo, prior to any manipulation, combination, or post-production work. (The excellent examples you created, for example.)

This is what photography is in essence. (also, what Rand was writing about, it would seem.)

A question - you as experienced artist and photographer decided to push the boundaries, so to speak, outside of conventional photography. (And more power to your exploration.)

Was there something you found artistically limiting within those boundaries? A similar frustration I felt. I guess so, otherwise you would have displayed 'straight' images as 'art'examples.

It is both; the straight and the manipulated photo - and for different reasons - that I don't see as art.

Next, you surely don't think that a photograph taken of a movie scene or a stage setting, constitutes art? I've done many of those, and they remain a photograph of an artwork. A photo does not have 'art' conferred upon it, merely because it reproduces a moment of art. Now, that's subjective, and intrincisist. <_<

Nice chatting to you again.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly always, I believe. Are you [open to arguments]?

Absolutely.

Was there something you found artistically limiting within those boundaries? A similar frustration I felt.

No, I never saw any boundaries. I didn't begin with a definition of what was the essence of photography qua photography or feel that it was outside the rules to do whatever came to mind. I just explored the medium.

I guess so, otherwise you would have displayed 'straight' images as 'art'examples.

No, my reason for displaying those two images is the same reason that I've done so many times in O-forums in the past: They are very obvious, easy-to-understand examples of photography qualifying as art according to Rand's criteria. I figure that if people can look at them and still stubbornly argue that photography can only capture images of things which exist in reality, that photography's subject matter cannot be fictional or symbolic, and that photography is necessarily "naturalistic" and cannot be "romantic" (as Rand defined the terms), then there's probably no hope of my reaching them with examples whose fictional or symbolic status isn't so obvious.

Next, you surely don't think that a photograph taken of a movie scene or a stage setting, constitutes art? 've done many of those, and they remain a photograph of an artwork. A photo does not have 'art' conferred upon it, merely because it reproduces a moment of art.

No, my purpose in comparing a staged still photograph to a movie scene was not to suggest that if a photojournalist showed up at a movie set during filming and took a photo of it for, say, Entertainment Weekly that the photo would be art. The point is that if a photographer were to stage his own fictional scene, the resulting photo would be art. Perhaps not according to your criteria, but to Rand's.

Nice chatting to you again.

You too.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just my malevolent, hatred-eaten sense of life, but most of the art that shows up in Objectivist forums embarrasses me. A few years ago, perhaps here on OL, somebody coined the memorable expression "Objectikitsch." On the other hand, Nike of Samothrace is my all-time favorite work of visual art.

Reidy: I agree completely. I rarely enjoy the art found on O forums. Give me a Vermeer copy to look at any day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may like these images about which I commented here:

"What Art Is" Two by Matthew Scherfenberg

matthew_scherfenberg03.jpg

MatthewScherfenbergMatthewScherfenb.jpg

Great tush on the top one.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now