panapp

Raffaello and Duchamp are my absolute favorite artists, and I'm glad you liked the work, but I find your analysis to be not very precise. For example, the painting is not at all "watercolor, ink, pencil, and pastel on photographic paper," but rather an oil on canvas, and if you saw it in person at the exhibition at the Scuderie del Quirinale, you couldn't have missed that. Secondly, perhaps you didn't fully understand the exhibit, or your guide wasn't very clear, because the ground floor was dedicated solely to Futurism from its birth until the First World War, while the first floor was entirely dedicated to the other avant-gardes (the title of the exhibition was in fact "Futurism. Avanguardia-Avanguardie"), so there's nothing strange about the presence of works that are antithetical to the Futurist ones. Thirdly, at the time Duchamp had no relationship with Dada yet because Dada was born four years after this painting, in 1916: you even write that “[Duchamp] will end up becoming a leading exponent of Dadaism,” but concepts like “for [Dada] the pure aesthetic fact must replace the work of art” (which is highly debatable) had not yet been conceived or generated, so we cannot judge this painting by Dadaist principles, as they were still untested. Fourth, saying “I don't understand why they associated [Duchamp] with Futurism given the nonexistent analogy between two completely different research paths” is not entirely correct: Europe during the belle époque and up to the Second World War was an astonishingly rich forge of ideas and expressions where everyone knew everyone and everyone was influenced by everyone, so creating these airtight compartments among artists is completely nonsensical; a great example is Carrà, an extraordinarily mutable painter who operated following the directives of many avant-gardes (he was a Futurist, Surrealist, Metaphysical artist, and more). Duchamp’s own research cannot be said to be static: the French artist was first an academic, then a realist, then an impressionist, then a post-impressionist, then fauvist, then cubist, then dada, then conceptual, and finally he was simply and unclassifiably himself. And "Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2" is similar, very similar, indeed it is very similar, to Futurist research on movement (if only because the Futurists were the only ones to place movement at the center of their poetics, and thus a painting with the theme of movement is necessarily "Futurist" by definition if not also by content). I suggest you take a closer look at this work.

Very good review, very good video. Not among Jonze's best, but these artists (him, Gondry, Cunningham, and a few others) always deserve at least 4 stars because even their lesser works are thoughtful and well-conceived. Note for the review author: the music video is nonetheless nothing more and nothing less than a short film, so never underestimate the fact that it could be a work of art (the videos of rappers with hot girls in bikinis and nothing more are just advertising tools, but they don't serve as a benchmark for the whole category); for example, watch one of my favorite music videos, "Sugar Water" by Cibo Matto, and tell me if it isn't art despite being a music video: VIDEO - Page Not Found The medium doesn't matter; what matters is HOW the medium is used.

Candidate for the saddest work of art of all time (along with his other painting of the horse running while dragging the bloody body of the jockey). A beautiful, heartbreaking, and agonizing painting, to say the least. I love Fattori, and the Macchiaioli are certainly the greatest Italian movement of the nineteenth century (as well as the only organized one). And excellent review.

Honestly, I don't really like Leonardo. I acknowledge his value as an engineer and inventor, but as an artist, I can only tolerate a few of his works (and certainly not that crust called "La Gioconda"); this is one of the few paintings that I truly like from this artist. I didn't understand why the review opens and closes with Rocco Siffredi, considering that the central part is also quite valid even if it favors gossip over the analysis of the work. Please explain the meaning of this operation to me because I didn't get it: did you want to indicate the phallic symbolism of the saint's arm (which, by the way, has already been pointed out by many critics historically)?

@Mario_cassini: "Even today the music of Aphex Twin...", but how "even today"??? "Come to Daddy" is just over ten years old, if it was already outdated it would mean it had no value from the start! And regarding the fact that he is a genius, I have SERIOUS doubts, especially if one wants to consider him a genius of even secular significance.

@iside: sure!

@iside: very funny, I'll remember this one!

@iside: "but what could it have meant???"

@giustiziere: no, look, I read it to the last syllable, but objectively that statement is devoid of sense. I personally didn’t see it as an ironic joke, but as a huge outburst and I let it pass.

@piendepei: I support you.