This is a short response journal entry from my history class. Charles Baudelaire writing about Eugene Delacroix's love of "passion."
The description of Delacroix being in love with passion on p. 46 seemed notable to me. Being in love with love, or with the idea of something rather than the thing itself is a trademark (and stumbling block I believe) of artists, but rarely mentioned by their critics. I recently wrote a short essay about this tendency in Orsino of Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night. The man was crazy about love, and doing all the things that let others know that one is “in love.” But in reading all his declarations to Olivia, it becomes pretty clear that it’s not woman that he loves, but the passion itself. I say stumbling block because who are you most likely to marry? Someone who loves and knows you or someone that loves marriage? The latter seems to me to be the proper expression of the former, not something to obsess about on its own.
Not being familiar with Delacroix’s work beyond what is contained in this book, I can’t really say if this is something that he truly fell into, but Baudelaire seemed to think he did, and didn’t see it as a bad thing.
"Since I consider the impression transmitted to the artist by nature as the most important thing of all for him to translate, is it not essential that he should be armed in advance with all the most rapid means of translation?" - Eugene Delacroix
I liked the quote at the bottom of the page, about the importance of an artist being properly equipped with knowledge to accurately “translate” nature. This seems to be a lost notion among many artists today, in all genres. As soon as some pop musician tells you that he doesn’t have any use for those boring oldies, or worse yet, that coma-inducing classical nonsense, you can rest assured that 1. He’s lying, 2. His music will be horrendous and probably unbearably (and ironically) cliché. Any time you want to contribute your thoughts or work to an idea or medium of expression, the worst thing you can do is isolate yourself from the context of what you’re dealing with.
1 comment:
I've never even heard of this critique, although I've studied Delacroix a bit and Baudelaire more, and it seems funny that Baudelaire should either condone or object, as Delacroix, although melodramatic, was a good artist and produced some of the most celebrated paintings of his era. Baudelaire, on the other hand, was a morbid fellow, although also decent. His take on beauty, as I recall: "si tu viens du ciel ou de l'enfer, q'importe, si tu rends... les moments moins lourds." Beauty, he suspected, was hellish, spilled at hazard, and not much different than death.
I like the quote by Delacroix. Supposedly, that's the entire point of education, experience, etc. Being ready to make what needs to be made. Passion ought to be the catalyst, or the mylin (I think that's spelled wrong) coating of the neurons.
Post a Comment