Going back to Plato's "Ion," discuss the idea of the artist's inspiration as divine madness in relation to "Belly of an Architect," "Artemisia," or "Camille Claudel."
In Plato’s “Ion”, the philosopher Socrates is having an intellectual discussion with the actor Ion about the source of artistic creativity. Ion states that “good poets by a divine inspiration interpret the things of God to us,” thus he believes that artistic creativity comes solely from God but actors, artists and poets interprets the way in which to use the creativity given to them by God.
Socrates, on the other hand, believes that artistic creativity is derived from divine unearthly and stimulating inspiration. He also goes on to link inspiration to the concept of a muse, where artists rely on a person or thing (usually a woman) to gain enlightenment.
In the movies Belly of an Architect, Camille Claudel, and Artemisia, all contain a modern day forms of a muse. Krakalite looks to the long dead architect Boulee for inspiration. Camille Claudel, looks to Rodin for inspiration. Artemisia looks to Tassi for inspiration. The modern day muse, is a role reversal since there are now affluent women artists. I think the dynamic between the ‘muse’ and the artists shown are somewhat a reaction against male authority and the influence of femininity.
The concept of a ‘muse’ in Belly of an Architect is somewhat different from the two female artist movies. Krakalite looks to the dead architect Boulee for inspiration, and he also seems to have conversations with the dead architect. This plays into the artist’s inspiration as divine madness. To modern day viewers, as seen in most of the movies, artist’s inspirations are almost always linked with mental disorders. The misunderstood is translated into mentally ill.
Camille Claudel’s relationship with Rodin, at first inspires her artwork. But the dynamic of their relationship changes when Rodin leaves Claudel. We also see her inspiration with her love of clay. She leaves her family without telling them, and goes to find clay. The clay is a big part of her inspiration as seen in her artwork. With Rodin as Claudel’s modern day muse, we can see how the muse affects her life, her artwork thrives when they are together. They teach each other, they learn together. They are each other’s muses. We also see how Claudel’s experiences shape her artwork. Claudel creates a bust of Rodin which is thought to be one of her greatest works.
Artemisia isn’t the best example of this discussion of artist inspiration as divine madness because it is so fictionalized. In the movie, Artemisia is obsessed with looking and touching; this contributes to Ion’s argument of artists gaining enlightenment from god and then interpreting creativity. She infuses herself and different events of her life into her mythical paintings. This is seen at the trial where the Judge brings out her painting Judith and Holoferness. Her relationship and rape from Tassi depicts Artemisia as Judith and Tassi as Holoferness in her painting.
Artists derive their creativity from multiple sources. There isn’t one complete definition of creativity. Different sources influence the artist and the artist interprets these instances into a creative outlet. In all three of these movies, creativity is linked with divine madness. It is easy for society to group artists into one individual category because it makes society feel at easy to group the ‘not normal’ people together.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
crazed artist
Going back to Plato's "Ion," discuss the idea of the artist's inspiration as divine madness in relation to "Belly of an Architect," "Artemisia," or "Camille Claudel."
Camille Claudel had what people called "mud lust," a yearning for the mud or clay that would later become somewhat of an extension of Camille herself. This lust for mud later turned into her divine madness that would be her inspiration for later works. Camille was continually determined to cultivate her mud so that she could touch it and feel what she could create; even if that meant defying her mother and worrying her brother. She would stop at nothing and would listen to no one who would come in between her craft and passion for mud and sculpture.
The movie portrayed Camille's second inspiration to be Rodin, and how her interactions with him and her sexual relationship with him inspired different pieces and emotions in her artwork. Although she wanted people to think that she was just an alcohol driven artist, her sculptures were ultimately created from her aggression and bitterness towards Rodin and how he would not leave his long time partner and mother of his child. Feelings of regret, sorrow, abandonment and loneliness are all present in the sculptures she created immediately after she left Rodin for good. The only way she knew to express her disappointment and anger towards Rodin and her failed love relationship was through sculpture.
One scene in the movie that portrays her love for mud to its fullest extent is when Camille attacks a large piece of clay. If a viewer closes his/her eyes, it sounds like a passionate love scene. In reality, Camille is just taking all of her aggression on this large piece of mud, because her art is the only thing that can calm her woes over life's troubles. This scene clearly shows the sexual nature of Camille's mud lust, feeding the stereotype of sexual and emotionally driven artists.
Camille's divine madness came from her love for mud, and from her bitter feelings towards Rodin, clearly showed in the movie. Not only would Camille go to extreme lengths to attain her mud, she would go out of her way to embarrass Rodin, and to show others how important she thought her work was to the artistic world. Her divine inspiration would later lead to her downfall as a strong, passionate woman, to a lonely, quiet, and rundown old woman in an asylum.
Camille Claudel had what people called "mud lust," a yearning for the mud or clay that would later become somewhat of an extension of Camille herself. This lust for mud later turned into her divine madness that would be her inspiration for later works. Camille was continually determined to cultivate her mud so that she could touch it and feel what she could create; even if that meant defying her mother and worrying her brother. She would stop at nothing and would listen to no one who would come in between her craft and passion for mud and sculpture.
The movie portrayed Camille's second inspiration to be Rodin, and how her interactions with him and her sexual relationship with him inspired different pieces and emotions in her artwork. Although she wanted people to think that she was just an alcohol driven artist, her sculptures were ultimately created from her aggression and bitterness towards Rodin and how he would not leave his long time partner and mother of his child. Feelings of regret, sorrow, abandonment and loneliness are all present in the sculptures she created immediately after she left Rodin for good. The only way she knew to express her disappointment and anger towards Rodin and her failed love relationship was through sculpture.
One scene in the movie that portrays her love for mud to its fullest extent is when Camille attacks a large piece of clay. If a viewer closes his/her eyes, it sounds like a passionate love scene. In reality, Camille is just taking all of her aggression on this large piece of mud, because her art is the only thing that can calm her woes over life's troubles. This scene clearly shows the sexual nature of Camille's mud lust, feeding the stereotype of sexual and emotionally driven artists.
Camille's divine madness came from her love for mud, and from her bitter feelings towards Rodin, clearly showed in the movie. Not only would Camille go to extreme lengths to attain her mud, she would go out of her way to embarrass Rodin, and to show others how important she thought her work was to the artistic world. Her divine inspiration would later lead to her downfall as a strong, passionate woman, to a lonely, quiet, and rundown old woman in an asylum.
10/20 Post
10/20 Post: First, referring back to our first few reading assignments (Plato, Vasari, Nietzsche, "Schematic Structure"), what are some ways in which "Belly of an Architect" constructs a narrative about artists and artistic creation?
The biopic focuses on the main years of the architect in which he was at the heightened point of his creative years. “Belly of an Architect” diverges from the schematic structure because it does not show us the artist’s life from birth to death. Instead, we see the film from the perspective that illustrates the “golden age” of the artist as well as his demise. The film shows the architect (Stourly Kracklite) who goes to Rome to be a part of an exhibition, and thus, his art serves as part of his creative “productive-ness” as well as his demise through mental and health issues and degradation of his personal relationship with his wife. Kracklite’s obsession with his work is spurred by his mental instability that is shown through his hypochondriac nature. Throughout the film we see his obsession with portraying stomachs coinciding with his mental degradation and believing that he had a health issue. Therefore, by constantly believing it, he manifests his issues out of thin air and the health problems plaguing him almost seem real. The downfall of his marriage also serves as a catalyst that amplifies his mental erosion. Throughout the film, Kracklite’s alcohol consumption is also directly correlated with his creative inspiration, serving as crutch for his influences and highlighting his vices which ultimately kill him. Thus his art becomes part of his life as his obsession with anatomy and portraying stomachs acts an abstract visualization of Kracklite’s personal degradation. The film is then just a timeline of the artist’s demise, mainly focusing on his downward spiral from an artist at the height of his creative ability (showcasing an exhibition), to someone who is so consumed by personal grief and mental instability that he commits suicide at the opening of the exhibition that was taken away from him.
Next, elaborate on how the film connects gender with creativity. You had some really great insights on that subject in class.
The film blends the lines between gender and creativity, specifically in reference to the male gender of the artist. In the beginning of the film his wife states that, “maybe he wants to have a baby.” This can be interpreted as saying that maybe Kracklite wants to give birth to his work, any work because his self-worth is completely wrapped up in his ability to produce art. Judging from the title of the film “Belly of an Artist,” the creativity of the artist comes from within, as the belly being a metaphor for creation. The film references the stomach as a specific place for artistic creation and production. This is seen by the constant repetition of domes which the roundness of the domes can be read as pregnancy which equates to fertility, growth and success (of the artist). Also in the film, there is a mis-en-scene of stomach images. Through the various images the stomach goes from being completely fit to degraded and physically “let go;” much like how the film portrays the life of the artist. The stomach is then seen as a point of physical fitness, health, digestion and deconstruction and life. The focus on the stomach also shows the fertility and creation of life—a struggle in the relationship between Kracklite and his wife as she is pregnant with the artist’s child but seeing someone else throughout the film. Thus, the stomach becomes a symbolic reference for both male and female gender. Kracklite’s creativity is spurred from his artistic genius (from within, his belly), but his obsession with his health becomes the catalyst which spurs his downfall.
10/6 Post
10/6 Post: Is it ever appropriate for a director or author to distort the facts of someone's life in a biographical work?
Everyone sees things differently; therefore, interpretations can vary based on personal experiences. However, when it comes to a biographical work, it is never appropriate to distort the facts of a biography based on personal interpretation. Though, when it comes to film, Hollywood manages to blur reality and imaginary, producing works of art they may have been based on a true story; but after all the blockbuster formulas are added in, the end product is far from truthful. I don’t think its appropriate to stretch the truth for personal gain, as it detracts from the original story. Nowadays, people take what is visualized (either written or in film) as the truth. Therefore, if the story represented is a fictionalized account of the truth, the viewer may take what is represented before them as the an honest account and repeat those falsified facts to more people. The fictionalized account grows larger over time and soon enough we are left with an inability to tell fact from fiction because what was fiction is now fact. This right the author feels entitled to creative license is dangerous and further distorts our view and we are all left in the hazy world of Hollywood’s glamorized world of biopics. Personally, I believe the movie on Harvey Pekar did a good job at mixing Hollywood and historical because the movie interweaves the identity of the real Harvey Pekar with the one portrayed by the actor. Doing so validated this biopic as an account that was given consent by the person (in this case Harvey Pekar) and therefore more honest to Pekar’s actual biography. I understand the innate attraction to re-interpret someone’s biographical account based on our own personal experiences, but I don’t agree with diverging from the facts if it skews/detracts from the character of the person. It’s tough because an author/director wants to make something like a biography interesting, but they have to balance the fine line between Hollywood additives and reality. I think its appropriate and natural to slightly blend together these two ideas, but not if it changes the original story of someone’s life.
Plato on Camille
Blog post for Nov. 10
Going back to Plato's "Ion," discuss the idea of the artist's inspiration as divine madness in relation to "Belly of an Architect," "Artemisia," or "Camille Claudel."
In Plato’s “Ion”, Socrates and Ion are having a conversation about the source of artistic creativity. Socrates attributes the source of artistic creativity to divine unearthly inspiration, which during his time period were linked to the presence of muses.
Ion is an actor whose artistic creativity takes the form of interpretation through acting out dramatic works. He explains that he is especially fond of the works of Homer and finds himself unable to be inspired by much else.
Ion tells Socrates, “I am conscious in my own self and the world agrees with me in thinking that I do speak better and have more to say about Homer than any other man.” (PLATO 54)
Socrates responds, “The gift which you possess of speaking excellently about Homer is not an art, but, an inspiration; there is a divinity moving you like that contained in the stone in which Euripides calls a magnet… the stone not only attracts iron rings but also imparts them to a similar power of attracting other rings.” (PLATO 54)
Taking the reading from Ion into consideration I began to think back to certain scenes in Camille Claudel. The plot of Claudel’s life is tumultuous one, which ends with her being committed to a sanitarium where she eventually dies thirty years later. Camille’s family believed that she was in fact insane and her actions throughout the movie though at times warranted don’t help her to appear as a mentally stable individual.
In the above excerpt from Ion, Socrates tells ion that ALL artistic inspiration is derived from an original divine source physically manifested in a stone in which Euripides calls a magnet.
This reminded me of the metaphor of god as a rock: “the Lord Yahweh is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler and the horn of my salvation and my high tower”. (Psalms 18:2, 30)
August Rodin was a master of sculpture and is perhaps the most famous sculptor of the modern age. Speaking in terms Socrates, he is an inspired artist who serves as a vessel for gods message. Being a vessel, Rodin’s deviant behavior doesn’t diminish his status; his discretions’ are regarded as minor indiscretions’ during his artistic possessions and the finished visual narrative (gods message) is so powerful and moving that it speaks for itself. (Don’t shoot the messenger?)
Camille is extremely talented but knows she needs a powerful mentor in order to be noticed especially because she was a woman. She needs a link to the original stone magnet of divine inspiration. “In like manner the muse first of all inspires men herself; and from these inspired persons a chain of other persons is suspended who take the inspiration. For all good artists compose their beautiful poems not by art but because they are inspired and possessed… (PLATO 54)
Rodin visits Camille in her home and studio and after barely looking over her work she asks him for some some marble; he obliges and she visits his workshop to select a piece to work with. She inspects Rodin’s work and is led into the room to choose her piece, she examines the one she offered which is very extensive and large, however she is drawn to the oddly right triangle shaped piece of very delicate marble. The man thinks she will fail, but Rodin has faith. Why would she choose such a piece…?
There is method to her madness. Socrates might say as he did to Ion:
“There is no invention in her until she has been inspired and is out of her senses, and the mind is no longer in her: when she has not attained to this state, she is powerless and is unable to utter her oracles (PLATO 55 **edited to be feminine she for the her/his )
Not soon after she places a human foot rendered from the marble that rivaled David’s. Which he signs and she regards as a testament to her skill.
Her ability throughout the film is up the par of male sculptors who are slightly disturbed by her work. “She’s a witch”, “She sculpts like a man”; all of these comments insinuate that there must be something wrong with this woman.
In Camille Claudel her madness is Mud Lust. The film openly portrays her collecting mud in the opening scene as deviant, and the eroticized images of her scraping a mound of clay (which is shaped like is meant to be a colossal bust) implies that when she is creating she is in a state of frenzy, overcome by feelings and incarnate desires.
“They are not in their right minds when they are composing heir beautiful strains: but when falling under the power of music and meter they are inspired and possessed… like the Bacchic maidens who draw milk and honey from the rivers when they are under the influence of Dionysus but not when they are in their right mind” (PLATO 55)
Rodin and Camille share this insane "mud-lust" and share a love of filth. He however has a network of people around him so he can literally conceptualize and work while being half inspired and leave his assistance to finish off his work. He even says to Camille that without her it doesn’t make sense… however he functioned before he met her and functions after her.
After she leaves Rodin her life takes a sudden turn downward she is devastated; she feels utterly alone, like a hollow shell: “God takes away the minds of poets and uses them as his ministers, as he also uses diviners and holy prophets, in order that we who hear them may know them to be speaking not of themselves...God himself is the speaker and that he is conversing with us. (PLATO 55)
Without her god, she has nothing to say, or believes what she has to say (what she sculpts) is not worth “saying” (showing). Because of her relationship with Rodin, even when the pair finally completely cut ties, she allows (or at least the film leads the viewer) for Rodin to rule her life. She is constantly paranoid, subsequently her behavior is erratic and she “drinks to make people believe her problem is booze not Rodin”. She destroys her work and isolates herself, and when she is not creating her fits of madness are unwarranted and leads her brother to believe she is mentally ill.
In taking the following passage from “Ion” and applying it to Camille Claudel, we understand her need for Rodin and her dissipation without him.
When Ion asks Socrates why he is so inspired by the work of Homer he asks him, “Are you in your right mind? Are you not carried out of yourself? ….For (it is) not by art or knowledge about Homer (Rodin) do you say what you say, but by divine inspiration and by possession; just as the Corybanthian revelers too have a quick perception of that strain only which is appropriated by God by whom they are posses, and have plenty of dances and words for that… and you Ion (Camille) when the name of Homer (Rodin) is mentioned have plenty to say, and have nothing to say of others. You ask why is this? The answer is that you praise Homer (Rodin) not by art but by divine inspiration (PLATO 57)
Camille praises Rodin. In the scene where she reveals the true reasons why she left him and they are arguing over her work and how it’s all from him… after the huge fight is over Camille cries out “why WHY WHY WHY” . This scene alludes to countless other instance sin art, and in films where the main character looks up at the sky and cries out the rhetorical question “why” to a god that is omnipresent but always absent. Camille is abandoned by her god, he no longer wishes to use her as a vessel and she no longer feels she has a stable foundation artistically or mentally.
Going back to Plato's "Ion," discuss the idea of the artist's inspiration as divine madness in relation to "Belly of an Architect," "Artemisia," or "Camille Claudel."
In Plato’s “Ion”, Socrates and Ion are having a conversation about the source of artistic creativity. Socrates attributes the source of artistic creativity to divine unearthly inspiration, which during his time period were linked to the presence of muses.
Ion is an actor whose artistic creativity takes the form of interpretation through acting out dramatic works. He explains that he is especially fond of the works of Homer and finds himself unable to be inspired by much else.
Ion tells Socrates, “I am conscious in my own self and the world agrees with me in thinking that I do speak better and have more to say about Homer than any other man.” (PLATO 54)
Socrates responds, “The gift which you possess of speaking excellently about Homer is not an art, but, an inspiration; there is a divinity moving you like that contained in the stone in which Euripides calls a magnet… the stone not only attracts iron rings but also imparts them to a similar power of attracting other rings.” (PLATO 54)
Taking the reading from Ion into consideration I began to think back to certain scenes in Camille Claudel. The plot of Claudel’s life is tumultuous one, which ends with her being committed to a sanitarium where she eventually dies thirty years later. Camille’s family believed that she was in fact insane and her actions throughout the movie though at times warranted don’t help her to appear as a mentally stable individual.
In the above excerpt from Ion, Socrates tells ion that ALL artistic inspiration is derived from an original divine source physically manifested in a stone in which Euripides calls a magnet.
This reminded me of the metaphor of god as a rock: “the Lord Yahweh is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler and the horn of my salvation and my high tower”. (Psalms 18:2, 30)
August Rodin was a master of sculpture and is perhaps the most famous sculptor of the modern age. Speaking in terms Socrates, he is an inspired artist who serves as a vessel for gods message. Being a vessel, Rodin’s deviant behavior doesn’t diminish his status; his discretions’ are regarded as minor indiscretions’ during his artistic possessions and the finished visual narrative (gods message) is so powerful and moving that it speaks for itself. (Don’t shoot the messenger?)
Camille is extremely talented but knows she needs a powerful mentor in order to be noticed especially because she was a woman. She needs a link to the original stone magnet of divine inspiration. “In like manner the muse first of all inspires men herself; and from these inspired persons a chain of other persons is suspended who take the inspiration. For all good artists compose their beautiful poems not by art but because they are inspired and possessed… (PLATO 54)
Rodin visits Camille in her home and studio and after barely looking over her work she asks him for some some marble; he obliges and she visits his workshop to select a piece to work with. She inspects Rodin’s work and is led into the room to choose her piece, she examines the one she offered which is very extensive and large, however she is drawn to the oddly right triangle shaped piece of very delicate marble. The man thinks she will fail, but Rodin has faith. Why would she choose such a piece…?
There is method to her madness. Socrates might say as he did to Ion:
“There is no invention in her until she has been inspired and is out of her senses, and the mind is no longer in her: when she has not attained to this state, she is powerless and is unable to utter her oracles (PLATO 55 **edited to be feminine she for the her/his )
Not soon after she places a human foot rendered from the marble that rivaled David’s. Which he signs and she regards as a testament to her skill.
Her ability throughout the film is up the par of male sculptors who are slightly disturbed by her work. “She’s a witch”, “She sculpts like a man”; all of these comments insinuate that there must be something wrong with this woman.
In Camille Claudel her madness is Mud Lust. The film openly portrays her collecting mud in the opening scene as deviant, and the eroticized images of her scraping a mound of clay (which is shaped like is meant to be a colossal bust) implies that when she is creating she is in a state of frenzy, overcome by feelings and incarnate desires.
“They are not in their right minds when they are composing heir beautiful strains: but when falling under the power of music and meter they are inspired and possessed… like the Bacchic maidens who draw milk and honey from the rivers when they are under the influence of Dionysus but not when they are in their right mind” (PLATO 55)
Rodin and Camille share this insane "mud-lust" and share a love of filth. He however has a network of people around him so he can literally conceptualize and work while being half inspired and leave his assistance to finish off his work. He even says to Camille that without her it doesn’t make sense… however he functioned before he met her and functions after her.
After she leaves Rodin her life takes a sudden turn downward she is devastated; she feels utterly alone, like a hollow shell: “God takes away the minds of poets and uses them as his ministers, as he also uses diviners and holy prophets, in order that we who hear them may know them to be speaking not of themselves...God himself is the speaker and that he is conversing with us. (PLATO 55)
Without her god, she has nothing to say, or believes what she has to say (what she sculpts) is not worth “saying” (showing). Because of her relationship with Rodin, even when the pair finally completely cut ties, she allows (or at least the film leads the viewer) for Rodin to rule her life. She is constantly paranoid, subsequently her behavior is erratic and she “drinks to make people believe her problem is booze not Rodin”. She destroys her work and isolates herself, and when she is not creating her fits of madness are unwarranted and leads her brother to believe she is mentally ill.
In taking the following passage from “Ion” and applying it to Camille Claudel, we understand her need for Rodin and her dissipation without him.
When Ion asks Socrates why he is so inspired by the work of Homer he asks him, “Are you in your right mind? Are you not carried out of yourself? ….For (it is) not by art or knowledge about Homer (Rodin) do you say what you say, but by divine inspiration and by possession; just as the Corybanthian revelers too have a quick perception of that strain only which is appropriated by God by whom they are posses, and have plenty of dances and words for that… and you Ion (Camille) when the name of Homer (Rodin) is mentioned have plenty to say, and have nothing to say of others. You ask why is this? The answer is that you praise Homer (Rodin) not by art but by divine inspiration (PLATO 57)
Camille praises Rodin. In the scene where she reveals the true reasons why she left him and they are arguing over her work and how it’s all from him… after the huge fight is over Camille cries out “why WHY WHY WHY” . This scene alludes to countless other instance sin art, and in films where the main character looks up at the sky and cries out the rhetorical question “why” to a god that is omnipresent but always absent. Camille is abandoned by her god, he no longer wishes to use her as a vessel and she no longer feels she has a stable foundation artistically or mentally.
Julia Lanfersieck- Artistic inspiration
Going back to Plato's "Ion," discuss the idea of the artist's inspiration as divine madness in relation to "Belly of an Architect," "Artemisia," or "Camille Claudel."
The essay about Plato’s “Ion” discusses where artistic inspiration comes from, and what Ion and Socrates believed about artistic creation. According to Ion, artistic creation come from God, stating “I am persuaded that good poets by a divine inspiration interpret the things of God to us” (55). The essay also reveals that art lets people be crazy.
All the films that we have watched have led to countless discussion of where each artist’s inspiration came from. For example drugs and alcohol fueled Basquiat’s creativity and may have even been the inspiration of his art. Pollock’s artistic inspiration, as we have noted, came from an internal creative “engine” that worked inside his brain. Both artists used drugs and alcohol as a crutch for their artwork but it can be concluded that their inspiration was also contributed by their “divine madness.”
In “Belly of an Architect” the film clearly displays that Kracklite does have a “madness” quality about him and although we did not see him creating art, his crazy obsessions led him to focus on elements of art (like stomach’s, etc.) Ion’s belief of where artistic inspiration comes from cannot fully relate to Kracklite because there was no inclusion of religion in the film, but it was known that Kracklite’s “God” was really Boullee, so in way Ion’s philosophy could apply by Kracklite’s artistic inspiration is derived directly from his god- Boullee.
The film “Artemisia” reveals that her artistic inspiration comes from her rape and following trail. These traumatic events in her life served as the catalyst for her powerful pro-feminine works that gave her much notoriety. The madness that was stemmed from her trials and tribulations served as the source of her artistic inspiration. Socrates states that “ there is a divinity moving you,” I don’t think that the divinity in her was God, but that it was her drive that led to be strong, and a powerful woman artist.
The film “Camille Claudel” portrays her as a “mad” artist and as a “mad” woman, which is a characteristic that she was given in her real life. However, the source of both her artistic and mental madness have different backgrounds. From what I gathered from the film, her artistic madness came from within- she was an artist for herself because she loved to sculpt, and loved what she did. It was not until she met Rodin that her artistic inspiration shifted from within her to inspiration from him. The film portrays their relationship similarly to Artemisia and Tassi’s relationship. Both these artists were young girls, urging for the help of great artists so they could learn about the craft and become better for themselves. In turn, these men effected them in terrible ways that not only helped but also diminished these woman artist’s inspiration and sanity. Camille’s relationship served to give her inspiration for a period of her life based on love, and her pieces were very similar to those of Rodin’s. Camille Claudel’s passion for sculpture and her relationship with Rodin, and its demise caused her ultimate descent into madness.
The essay about Plato’s “Ion” discusses where artistic inspiration comes from, and what Ion and Socrates believed about artistic creation. According to Ion, artistic creation come from God, stating “I am persuaded that good poets by a divine inspiration interpret the things of God to us” (55). The essay also reveals that art lets people be crazy.
All the films that we have watched have led to countless discussion of where each artist’s inspiration came from. For example drugs and alcohol fueled Basquiat’s creativity and may have even been the inspiration of his art. Pollock’s artistic inspiration, as we have noted, came from an internal creative “engine” that worked inside his brain. Both artists used drugs and alcohol as a crutch for their artwork but it can be concluded that their inspiration was also contributed by their “divine madness.”
In “Belly of an Architect” the film clearly displays that Kracklite does have a “madness” quality about him and although we did not see him creating art, his crazy obsessions led him to focus on elements of art (like stomach’s, etc.) Ion’s belief of where artistic inspiration comes from cannot fully relate to Kracklite because there was no inclusion of religion in the film, but it was known that Kracklite’s “God” was really Boullee, so in way Ion’s philosophy could apply by Kracklite’s artistic inspiration is derived directly from his god- Boullee.
The film “Artemisia” reveals that her artistic inspiration comes from her rape and following trail. These traumatic events in her life served as the catalyst for her powerful pro-feminine works that gave her much notoriety. The madness that was stemmed from her trials and tribulations served as the source of her artistic inspiration. Socrates states that “ there is a divinity moving you,” I don’t think that the divinity in her was God, but that it was her drive that led to be strong, and a powerful woman artist.
The film “Camille Claudel” portrays her as a “mad” artist and as a “mad” woman, which is a characteristic that she was given in her real life. However, the source of both her artistic and mental madness have different backgrounds. From what I gathered from the film, her artistic madness came from within- she was an artist for herself because she loved to sculpt, and loved what she did. It was not until she met Rodin that her artistic inspiration shifted from within her to inspiration from him. The film portrays their relationship similarly to Artemisia and Tassi’s relationship. Both these artists were young girls, urging for the help of great artists so they could learn about the craft and become better for themselves. In turn, these men effected them in terrible ways that not only helped but also diminished these woman artist’s inspiration and sanity. Camille’s relationship served to give her inspiration for a period of her life based on love, and her pieces were very similar to those of Rodin’s. Camille Claudel’s passion for sculpture and her relationship with Rodin, and its demise caused her ultimate descent into madness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)