3 ms·

Klimt does use gold very well. But I am surprised by your claim... > I think Klimt is the only artist to successfully incorporate gold into his paintings witho

Klimt does use gold very well. But I am surprised by your claim... > I think Klimt is the only artist to successfully incorporate gold into his paintings without making them look obnoxious or ostentatious. Byzantine iconography comes off as neither obnoxious nor ostentatious. The use of gold in Botticelli's works wonderfully. And so on. What exactly is an example of "obnoxious or ostentatious" use of gold in art? I can only think of ridiculous things like gold-plated toilets. Perhaps you were exposed to especially egregious works that are not familiar to the general public?

Retric 2y ago
I think both Byzantine iconography and Botticelli’s works were invented to be ostentatious. Gold toilets/plates/etc come off as obnoxious because the use of gold is actively detrimental rather than simply eye catching.
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  I don't see how. I do not find the works in question ostentatious in the least. They deploy gold tastefully and appropriately in relation to the subject matter. Purpose and the role something plays in a composition determines appropriateness. So, for example, while gold leaf on a church ceiling can be beautiful when it plays a sensible role in the composition, putting it slapdash on your drywall McMansion ceiling because #GoldIsRich is incredibly tacky. I suspect you are judging gold not from reasoned taste, but some kind of prejudice.
  - Retric 2y ago
    I am referring to the intent here. Gold in religious art is ment to signify importance just as the tacky rich guy’s gold is. Use of gold on a kings actual throne may seem more appropriate than a CEO’s chair but that’s a judgement about what should be venerated not the intent behind the use of gold.
    - mecsred 2y ago
      The thing most people find ostentatious about the "mobbaroque" examples is that gold is used to add gold to the work. As a physical demonstration of wealth, i.e. "I can afford so much gold it's all over my artwork". The reason people find the Byzantine halos less ostentatious is that gold is used symbolically in lesser quantities to represent something else which is perceived as valuable.
    - lo_zamoyski 2y ago
      This still doesn't establish why one should regard gold as "ostentatious". Are you working from some private definition of the term? I make use of the common pejorative meaning, given by Merriam Webster as: attracting or seeking to attract attention, admiration, or envy often by gaudiness or obviousness : overly elaborate or conspicuous : characterized by, fond of, or evincing ostentation The key to ostentation is vulgarity or crudeness, ugliness. You even use the word "tacky", so clearly you aren't blind to at least the general idea of bad taste, even if we may be in disagreement about what constitutes bad taste. Obviously, gold can be used to signify the importance of something, but that doesn't make it ostentatious. What I contest is the pejorative. > that’s a judgement about what should be venerated not the intent behind the use of gold. The use of gold is a matter of intention. A judgement is made that something is worthy of honor, another that gold is an aesthetically suitable material that, in some way, can be used to assist in honoring said thing, and the intention is made to honor said thing in such a manner.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > The key to ostentation is vulgarity or crudeness, ugliness. That’s not in the definition you quoted. The 2 different OR’s mean many different things qualify as ostentatious as lone as 1 or more of the following applies. seeking to attract attention seeking to attract admirarion seeking to attract envy attracting attention attracting admirarion attracting envy The “often by” means it isn’t required for the definition to apply. Gothic cathedrals therefore qualify as they where designed to attract attention and admirarion and in most instances also achieved that goal even without a garish color scheme or tons of gold inlays etc. > You even use the word "tacky", so clearly you aren't blind to at least the general idea of bad taste, even if we may be in disagreement about what constitutes bad taste. FALSE. Vulgarity or crudeness isn’t part of the definition. I used “tacky” as a specific qualifier to distinguish vulgar from non vulgar examples of ostentation. A peacock display generally described as ostentatious but nobody calls it tacky. https://www.audubon.org/news/a-literal-bird https://www.audubon.org/news/a-literal-bird “Peacocks have some of the most ostentatious (and famous) feathers in the animal kingdom.” People using those feathers can definitely get tacky. But essentially tacky is ostentatious displays done poorly.
- AlanYx 2y ago
  It wasn't until later in the Byzantine period that gold was used excessively in art. In the early period when it was largely confined to halos, as a contrasting accent around painted halos, or to convey specific religious symbolism, it was hardly ostentatious.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > largely confined to halos I’d say that’s close to the definition of ostentatious. So we may simply disagree with what the word means.
  - lo_zamoyski 2y ago
    I challenge you to define "excess". Without a norm, this is a judgement pulled out of thin air, because excess means exactly to exceed the limit set by a norm. The OP suffers from a similar problem. He judged the use of gold "ostentatious" (which is pejorative), and behind this judgement is a tacit backdrop of sensibilities and I claim prejudices that constitute a pseudo-norm, but no objective norm. Arbitrary norms are not interesting.

Retric 2y ago

I think both Byzantine iconography and Botticelli’s works were invented to be ostentatious. Gold toilets/plates/etc come off as obnoxious because the use of gold is actively detrimental rather than simply eye catching.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago
I don't see how. I do not find the works in question ostentatious in the least. They deploy gold tastefully and appropriately in relation to the subject matter. Purpose and the role something plays in a composition determines appropriateness. So, for example, while gold leaf on a church ceiling can be beautiful when it plays a sensible role in the composition, putting it slapdash on your drywall McMansion ceiling because #GoldIsRich is incredibly tacky. I suspect you are judging gold not from reasoned taste, but some kind of prejudice.
- Retric 2y ago
  I am referring to the intent here. Gold in religious art is ment to signify importance just as the tacky rich guy’s gold is. Use of gold on a kings actual throne may seem more appropriate than a CEO’s chair but that’s a judgement about what should be venerated not the intent behind the use of gold.
  - mecsred 2y ago
    The thing most people find ostentatious about the "mobbaroque" examples is that gold is used to add gold to the work. As a physical demonstration of wealth, i.e. "I can afford so much gold it's all over my artwork". The reason people find the Byzantine halos less ostentatious is that gold is used symbolically in lesser quantities to represent something else which is perceived as valuable.
  - lo_zamoyski 2y ago
    This still doesn't establish why one should regard gold as "ostentatious". Are you working from some private definition of the term? I make use of the common pejorative meaning, given by Merriam Webster as: attracting or seeking to attract attention, admiration, or envy often by gaudiness or obviousness : overly elaborate or conspicuous : characterized by, fond of, or evincing ostentation The key to ostentation is vulgarity or crudeness, ugliness. You even use the word "tacky", so clearly you aren't blind to at least the general idea of bad taste, even if we may be in disagreement about what constitutes bad taste. Obviously, gold can be used to signify the importance of something, but that doesn't make it ostentatious. What I contest is the pejorative. > that’s a judgement about what should be venerated not the intent behind the use of gold. The use of gold is a matter of intention. A judgement is made that something is worthy of honor, another that gold is an aesthetically suitable material that, in some way, can be used to assist in honoring said thing, and the intention is made to honor said thing in such a manner.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > The key to ostentation is vulgarity or crudeness, ugliness. That’s not in the definition you quoted. The 2 different OR’s mean many different things qualify as ostentatious as lone as 1 or more of the following applies. seeking to attract attention seeking to attract admirarion seeking to attract envy attracting attention attracting admirarion attracting envy The “often by” means it isn’t required for the definition to apply. Gothic cathedrals therefore qualify as they where designed to attract attention and admirarion and in most instances also achieved that goal even without a garish color scheme or tons of gold inlays etc. > You even use the word "tacky", so clearly you aren't blind to at least the general idea of bad taste, even if we may be in disagreement about what constitutes bad taste. FALSE. Vulgarity or crudeness isn’t part of the definition. I used “tacky” as a specific qualifier to distinguish vulgar from non vulgar examples of ostentation. A peacock display generally described as ostentatious but nobody calls it tacky. https://www.audubon.org/news/a-literal-bird https://www.audubon.org/news/a-literal-bird “Peacocks have some of the most ostentatious (and famous) feathers in the animal kingdom.” People using those feathers can definitely get tacky. But essentially tacky is ostentatious displays done poorly.
AlanYx 2y ago
It wasn't until later in the Byzantine period that gold was used excessively in art. In the early period when it was largely confined to halos, as a contrasting accent around painted halos, or to convey specific religious symbolism, it was hardly ostentatious.
- Retric 2y ago
  > largely confined to halos I’d say that’s close to the definition of ostentatious. So we may simply disagree with what the word means.
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  I challenge you to define "excess". Without a norm, this is a judgement pulled out of thin air, because excess means exactly to exceed the limit set by a norm. The OP suffers from a similar problem. He judged the use of gold "ostentatious" (which is pejorative), and behind this judgement is a tacit backdrop of sensibilities and I claim prejudices that constitute a pseudo-norm, but no objective norm. Arbitrary norms are not interesting.