Day 183 - Perfume burner
August 30, 2019
Gallery 524 contains furniture, decorative objects, and paintings from the reigns of Louis XV and Louis XVI. The display makes clear the transition over the course of the century from the more exuberant, curvilinear rococo style to the more sober, geometrical Neoclassical style. Again, I find more to be admired than liked in the gallery. There is just too much gilding for my taste.
i chose today's object because it raises difficult questions for me. It's a perfume burner, about 24 inches high from the base to the top and one of a pair made around 1785 of gilt and patinated bronze. The receptacle in which the perfume was placed rests on the heads of two seated female satyrs. I never knew that satyrs came in both sexes, but these have female heads and wear, on top, tunics that are draped below their bared breasts. Below their waists, they have the fleece and hooves of goars.
God knows I don't want to be a prude, and I have seen plenty of images of nude females before without taking offense, but there is something about the work that strikes me as prurient. Perhaps it's the deliberateness of exposing the satyrs' breasts. Perhaps it's the tactile quality of the figures. Perhaps it's the idea of using the unclothed female body as decor. Or perhaps it's the fact that we live in the age of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein (why, oh why, did these guys have to be Jewish?), and that has made us super-sensitive to the exploitation of women. But these aren't women, for heaven's sake - they're artfully cast objects, and the figures they depict are mythological at that. But art can be pornographic. To me, these perfume burners don't seem to qualify as pornographic, although they edge toward that. And yet, pornography isn't necessarily bad - it can, in fact, be a source of real pleasure. Oh well, I promised to raise questions, not answer them. Still, I find something very disquieting about this object.
i chose today's object because it raises difficult questions for me. It's a perfume burner, about 24 inches high from the base to the top and one of a pair made around 1785 of gilt and patinated bronze. The receptacle in which the perfume was placed rests on the heads of two seated female satyrs. I never knew that satyrs came in both sexes, but these have female heads and wear, on top, tunics that are draped below their bared breasts. Below their waists, they have the fleece and hooves of goars.
God knows I don't want to be a prude, and I have seen plenty of images of nude females before without taking offense, but there is something about the work that strikes me as prurient. Perhaps it's the deliberateness of exposing the satyrs' breasts. Perhaps it's the tactile quality of the figures. Perhaps it's the idea of using the unclothed female body as decor. Or perhaps it's the fact that we live in the age of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein (why, oh why, did these guys have to be Jewish?), and that has made us super-sensitive to the exploitation of women. But these aren't women, for heaven's sake - they're artfully cast objects, and the figures they depict are mythological at that. But art can be pornographic. To me, these perfume burners don't seem to qualify as pornographic, although they edge toward that. And yet, pornography isn't necessarily bad - it can, in fact, be a source of real pleasure. Oh well, I promised to raise questions, not answer them. Still, I find something very disquieting about this object.
Comments
Post a Comment