Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9341899" data-attributes="member: 177">But... that nobody questioned it isn't evidence of truth.&nbsp; It is evidence of a long-standing consensus!&nbsp; &quot;We all agree,&quot; is a consensus!We have the intent of the author.&nbsp; But authorial intent is hardly the only element to consider in a work.A writing professor of mine made a point to our class many years ago.&nbsp; &quot;There are at least three texts to any work of art.&nbsp; There's what the author intended, what actually ends up on the page, and what the audience gets from the work.&nbsp; All of these are valid in consideration of the work.&quot;&quot;Proof&quot; doesn't have a lot of place interpretation of art.No.&nbsp; Elmore has a style, a visual language he uses.&nbsp; But Elmore's style is not the final, end-all be-all statement on how the male and female form are to be depicted in art, or what they actually are.&nbsp; There are female forms, both in real life and in art, that do not match Elmore's style and are still valid female forms.&nbsp; Just like not all women look like Barbie, not all women look like Elmore women.The &quot;fact&quot; is that we do not see the figure's primary or secondary sexual characteristics.&nbsp; No so much as significant body hair.&nbsp; And the figure is crouched, leaning away from us, foreshortening the torso, such that we must interpolate body proportions.&nbsp;&nbsp; We must make assumptions about those proportions.And, if we are not steeped in Elmore's particular visual language, having a stocky, muscular woman then becomes a possibility.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9341899, member: 177"] But... that nobody questioned it isn't evidence of truth. It is evidence of a long-standing consensus! "We all agree," [I]is a consensus[/I]! We have the [I]intent[/I] of the author. But authorial intent is hardly the only element to consider in a work. A writing professor of mine made a point to our class many years ago. [I]"There are at least three texts to any work of art. There's what the author intended, what actually ends up on the page, and what the audience gets from the work. All of these are valid in consideration of the work."[/I] "Proof" doesn't have a lot of place interpretation of art. No. Elmore has a style, a visual language he uses. But Elmore's style is not the final, end-all be-all statement on how the male and female form are to be depicted in art, or what they [I]actually are[/I]. There are female forms, both in real life and in art, that do not match Elmore's style [I]and are still valid female forms[/I]. Just like not all women look like Barbie, not all women look like Elmore women. The "fact" is that we do not see the figure's primary or secondary sexual characteristics. No so much as significant body hair. And the figure is crouched, leaning away from us, foreshortening the torso, such that we must [I]interpolate[/I] body proportions. We must [I]make assumptions[/I] about those proportions. And, if we are not steeped in Elmore's particular visual language, having a stocky, muscular woman then becomes a possibility. [/QUOTE]

Verification