Jump to content

Watch Classic Paintings Come To Life


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2637 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Simply stunning, I thought some of you would enjoy this Video.

From its description:

"Old paintings are often admired, but sometimes the viewer wants more. Sure, you can tell a story through stills and photos that don’t move, but what if you had the ability to make them move even after they’ve been completed hundreds of years ago?

Rino Stefano Tagliafierro, a skilled Italian animator and artist, took it upon himself to recreate some of our most favorite works of art in a recent short film called “Beauty.”

The visual captures the essence of an old painting with the shine and swiftness of a quality HD film made today"

So what this Artist has done has taken old Classical Paintings and animated them.

Note:  The video contains many nude art images so may not be "safe for work."

 

Watch Classic Paintings Come To Life

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


A3123 wrote:

Wow, child pornography much?

You're kidding me?  Seriously. 

Classic Art = Child Porn?

Or do you think we should be painting over some of Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel like they did at one time or go back to the days when they dismembered nude male statues or chopped the nipples off of female statues?  (That's the real reason many famous statues are damaged)

Or maybe you object to the statue "The Spirit of Justice"  with its bare breast?  I imagine you'd like John Ashcroft under whom,

"In 2002, under John Ashcroft, curtains were installed blocking the statue from view during speeches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Justice

Or perhaps you agreed with the Taliban destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

Child porn?   Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

Simply stunning, I thought some of you would enjoy this Video.

From its description:

"Old paintings are often admired, but sometimes the viewer wants more. Sure, you can tell a story through stills and photos that don’t move, but what if you had the ability to make them move even after they’ve been completed hundreds of years ago?

Rino Stefano Tagliafierro, a skilled Italian animator and artist, took it upon himself to recreate some of our most favorite works of art in a recent short film called “Beauty.”

The visual captures the essence of an old painting with the shine and swiftness of a quality HD film made today"

So what this Artist has done has taken old Classical Paintings and animated them.

Note:  The video contains many nude art images so may not be "safe for work."

 

 

 

Thanks Perrie, that was incredible!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perrie,

That was delightful. Seeing so many "Masters"  evolved and with the hint of life [re:movement] made them all the more compelling.  I've been so fortunate to see many of these paintings in person at the Getty - Smithsonian - N.Y. Gallery of Fine Art - Norton Simon Museum - and many others....

As a lover of music I would have mixed the music very much differently but that is a personal choice...

Thank you for providing the link....

Link to post
Share on other sites


Canoro Philipp wrote:

<snip>

about child pornography, it could bring that kind of controversy if an artist would try to make that kind of art today, in some countries.

</snip>

I am aware of that, and I will continue to speak up about such prurient and perverted attitudes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm gonna be in the minority here, Perrie. I've seen a few classic paintings up close. They don't need any help coming to life. That's why they're classics. The hubris of the Elite Daily headline got me a li'l riled.

As I watched the video, which I'll characterize as a Ken Burns / Terry Gilliam / Cosmo-photoshop mashup, I wondered if the animator had any familiarity with the originals, or was simply looking at the images and wondering how he could animate them. One of the beauties of still art is that it freezes a moment and allows (forces?) you to examine it. It may also allow considerable room for interpretation. Animation removes a degree of interpretive freedom by bringing an interpretation of its own.

Watch Andrea Vaccaro's portrait of Saint Agatha of Sicily at 5:13. You see her baring her left breast. I was not familar with the painting, but the animation seemed incongruous. There's blood on the dress above the right breast. That's not the only incongruity in the video, just one that jumped out at me. So, I did a little research.

The original painting has the breast covered and clutched, as Agatha looks to the heavens (do pay attention to her facial expression. I can't quite describe the look, but it is to me highly evocative). Saint Agathe was martyred circa 251, after being tortured by... the removal of her breasts. Would you have guessed this horror from Tagliafierro's animated transformation? I suppose one could argue that the animator intended to show Agatha's intractible fortitude, in a sort of "okay, come and take the other one, you won't break me" way, but I think that's a stretch, she's not looking at her torturers.

At 5:28, you'll see a man helping a blindfolded woman up in Paul Delaroche's Execution of Lady Jane Grey. In truth, the painting depicts the man helping the woman down to the chopping block, in preperation for her beheading. The executioner, cropped from the image in the animation, stands by, seemingly impatient to get it over with. There's a hell of a lot more going on in the original than in the animation. I did get a sense of the helping man's compassion, but the complexity of the situation was completely lost at the clumbsy hands of TagliafierroDelaroche apparently took considerable artistic license in depicting Lady Jane's demise, so maybe someone could extend that license to Tagliafierro as well. That someone won't be me.

Even after taking courses in art history, I think I'm fairly ignorant of the classics. Sadly, I think Tagliafierro is too. But I have the excuse of being an engineer. What's his?

The opening line from that Elite Daily article...

"Old paintings are often admired, but sometimes the viewer wants more. Sure, you can tell a story through stills and photos that don’t move, but what if you had the ability to make them move even after they’ve been completed hundreds of years ago?"

The suggestion that the paintings are lacking because they don't move reflects more on the author than the art.

Overall, I think this is a classic example of the old adage...

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

If my exploration of two of the animated paintings extrapolates to the whole of the video, I'd say Tagliafierro brought banality to the classics.

Hell, I can do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I think I'm gonna be in the minority here, Perrie. I've seen a few classic paintings up close. They don't need any help coming to life. That's why they're classics.

...

The suggestion that the paintings are lacking because they don't move reflects more on the author than the art.
...

I totally agree.  The only picture that I appreciated being animated was one of the first that depicted the water rippling in the light, but then I like landscapes better than portraits.

 

Edited for spelling

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Canoro Philipp wrote:

<snip>

about child pornography, it could bring that kind of controversy if an artist would try to make that kind of art today, in some countries.

</snip>

I am aware of that, and I will continue to speak up about such prurient and perverted attitudes.

Take for example the work of Robert Mapplethorpe or Sally Mann.

I think whether a painting or a photograph is art or pornography depends on 2 things - the artist and the viewer.  What was the intent of the artist, what were they trying to convey and how does the viewer perceive it.  One person's art is another person's pornography and to some it can be both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty years ago, I saw Rembrand's mammoth "The Night Watch" in Amsterdam. I think I stood and looked at it for ten minutes. In the same room, to the right, was a small portrait of a man illuminated by candlelight. It may have been Godfried Schalcken's "Man with a Candle...

Man with a Candle.jpg

Around this time, artists were really mastering the use of light, and I was astonished by that little painting. I felt as if I could reach into the frame and touch him. My reaction to this quiet scene was visceral.

To animate either of those paintings would destroy them for me. The magic was in the artist's ability to pull me into the work, to make me see and feel things that were only intimated, to make me think.

I am a huge fan of animation, particularly shorts. It's a wonderful storytelling medium and requires no less care than any other artistic endeavor. I think the creator of that video simply had no story to tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites


A3123 wrote:

A naked child is a naked child. Calling it art does not change the fact that you are viewing, approving, and defending the display of a naked child.

It is hard to believe that there are actually people in this world who are so twisted as to think the sight of a naked child is something dirty and ugly, when I can think of nothing more utterly beautiful and charming -- which, of course, is why they were so often the subject of the world's greatest artists' paintings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:


A3123 wrote:

A naked child is a naked child. Calling it art does not change the fact that you are viewing, approving, and defending the display of a naked child.

It is hard to believe that there are actually people in this world who are so twisted as to think the sight of a naked child is something dirty and ugly, when I can think of nothing more utterly beautiful and charming -- which, of course, is why they were so often the subject of the world's greatest artists' paintings. 

It's hard to believe that people as smart and knowledgeable as you, Pam, my dear friend, would actually fall for this sort of troll bait.  Need I call upon our good celestial friend in order to point out the obvious?

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

It is hard to believe that there are actually people in this world who are so twisted as to think the sight of a naked child is something dirty and ugly, when
I can think of nothing more utterly beautiful and charming
-- which, of course, is why they were so often the subject of the world's greatest artists' paintings. 


Wow, you must spend a lot of your time in Second Life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sheep.jpg

 


A3123 wrote:

A naked child is a naked child. Calling it art does not change the fact that you are viewing, approving, and defending the display of a naked child.

Absolutely.

But the real question is what is wrong, sinful, evil, lewd, immoral, corrupt, vile, fowl.......the list of synonyms I could post here is huge......about a picture of a naked child?

Absolutely nothing.

If someone gets sexually aroused looking at a naked child the problem is in their mind.  There are people who get sexually aroused by sheep.  By your logic we should ban all images of sheep.

The image of a naked child is no more porn than the image of a sheep.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

 

The image of a naked child is no more porn than the image of a sheep.

In fact I find that picture of the sheep very offending. I bet the poor thing will end up on mr beard's dinner plate. Or is it lust in his eyes and can we expect a truely stomach wrenching outcome?

btw I do NOT want either visualised in an animation.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

sheep.jpg

 

A3123 wrote:

A naked child is a naked child. Calling it art does not change the fact that you are viewing, approving, and defending the display of a naked child.

Absolutely.

But the real question is what is wrong, sinful, evil, lewd, immoral, corrupt, vile, fowl.......the list of synonyms I could post here is huge......about a picture of a naked child?

Absolutely nothing.

If someone gets sexually aroused looking at a naked child the problem is in their mind.  There are people who get sexually aroused by sheep.  By your logic we should ban all images of sheep.

 

The image of a naked child is no more porn than the image of a sheep.

Whether or not a viewer is aroused sexually or not by the image of a naked child does not in any way determine whether or not images of naked children should be acceptable. There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


A3123 wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

sheep.jpg

 

A3123 wrote:

A naked child is a naked child. Calling it art does not change the fact that you are viewing, approving, and defending the display of a naked child.

Absolutely.

But the real question is what is wrong, sinful, evil, lewd, immoral, corrupt, vile, fowl.......the list of synonyms I could post here is huge......about a picture of a naked child?

Absolutely nothing.

If someone gets sexually aroused looking at a naked child the problem is in their mind.  There are people who get sexually aroused by sheep.  By your logic we should ban all images of sheep.

 

The image of a naked child is no more porn than the image of a sheep.

Whether or not a viewer is aroused sexually or not by the image of a naked child does not in any way determine whether or not images of naked children should be acceptable. There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child. 

"There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child. "

/me shakes my head in disbelief.

Seriously, by what semblance of any logic do you conclude this?

And then by what logic is it ok to portray an adult body?

Unless you are applying a strict Levitical (mis) interpretation of not having ANY graven image, in which case your Avatar would be a graven image and a sin.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


A3123 wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

sheep.jpg

 

A3123 wrote:

A naked child is a naked child. Calling it art does not change the fact that you are viewing, approving, and defending the display of a naked child.

Absolutely.

But the real question is what is wrong, sinful, evil, lewd, immoral, corrupt, vile, fowl.......the list of synonyms I could post here is huge......about a picture of a naked child?

Absolutely nothing.

If someone gets sexually aroused looking at a naked child the problem is in their mind.  There are people who get sexually aroused by sheep.  By your logic we should ban all images of sheep.

 

The image of a naked child is no more porn than the image of a sheep.

Whether or not a viewer is aroused sexually or not by the image of a naked child does not in any way determine whether or not images of naked children should be acceptable. There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child. 

"There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child. "

/me shakes my head in disbelief.

Seriously, by what semblance of any logic do you conclude this?

And then by what logic is it ok to portray an adult body?

Unless you are applying a strict Levitical (mis) interpretation of not having ANY graven image, in which case your Avatar would be a graven image and a sin.

 

A naked child is not the same as a naked adult. I have no concern whatsoever with any Levitical scripture. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2637 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...