Write an analysis on the art "The sun or the fall of Icarus" made by the painter Merry-Joseph Blondel. Also compare it to the myth of Ovidius.

Result #1

I dont care to know all this to be thoroughly informed, but I do have a few words to offer you. Do you agree?If you do agree, please do tell me about it, because the reply is likely to be, What? I am interested in what is not on the table, and I want to know what it is, not just to know what I want to hear about it. That is not a matter of ignorance. If we are to have a reality, you may know, but that doesnt mean that what you see is real. If this is the only reason you go on looking, good. If it is the only reason, you better ask yourself if it is still a good reason.Then there are works that you may want to read, which have to do with things like shadowboxing. The shadow is a huge part of the painting. This is the way that Noland interprets the shadow. A shadow is just a shadow, a line of sight. The shadow, the way in which the canvas is blocked off is the way the shadow is kept alive. The shadow is like a distance, a figure in space that is constantly being broken through, like the arrow of the eyes. So you have to make the right kind of shadow. The right kind of shadow is one that has a truer sense of distance. That distance is the line of sight, the line that goes from the shadow to the painter. It has to do with the reality of painting and the sense that there is something there but you can never be sure. There is always uncertainty, and that uncertainty is not a question of knowledge, but of perception. I want to be sure. I want to see the light. I want to be sure.

Result #2

Write an analysis on the art "The sun or the fall of Icarus" made by the painter Merry-Joseph Blondel. Also compare it to the myth of Ovidius. The motifs are everywhere—bejeweled, white, black, white, black—and they are all totally at odds with one another. They are evenly enough matched with a black-on-black background, yet something unites them. Then the piece becomes an archaeological survey of a world inhabited by colorful people in accord with one another. We learn from the caption that the moon and the crocodiles are in Pompeii, the fountainhead of art. Yet it is a world in flux, being forever changing, going through a period of adjustment of life-and-art worlds. The same motifs, also in the form of drawings, appear in the works on paper, both as paintings and on canvases, but not in the general context of the traditional, painted-on world.The portraiture and mythological themes that animate the work are more like post-Modernist notions of the representation of the self than they are like attempts to silence them. Blondel leaves us the text as to why the motifs, while disappearing from the art world, are important in the present, but does not follow through with the implications of that statement. It is as if the artist were saying, Look, all those years of tiredness, loneliness, and heartbreak, all of which makes me feel strangely alive, and yet no one is listening to me. I am doing it, I say. For that reason, to me, this art is important. At the same time, I still dont know exactly why. Can I be one of those artists who is on the verge of becoming a recluse? Are we going to have a return of the repressed? What is the nature of this feeling of isolation? Even at the center of the field of modern art, there is still something that comes from our own time and place. The modern moment is the time of the individual self.

Result #3

A question remains: How will the contemporary art world respond to the growing use of mythological themes and images in the work of many contemporary artists?—Gilda Williams

Result #4

Write an analysis on the art "The sun or the fall of Icarus" made by the painter Merry-Joseph Blondel. Also compare it to the myth of Ovidius. . . . In Ovidiuses painting, the swan falls in water. At the end of the Odyssey, Ovidius tells us, there is a swan who looks like a falcon. Ovidius painted a falcon in four panels. One group of them consists of paintings of a falcon on a red field. A second group consists of paintings of a falcon on a black field. The third group consists of works of woodcuts. The fourth group consists of paintings of watercolors. The last group consists of paintings on books. Ovidius paints the falcon from three-dimensional scenery. Ovidius then drops water down from a nearby bridge to the falcon. This pictures the watercolors falcon falling. The watercolors are a little blurry and the falcon falls a little low, like the bird that falls from a great height. The watercolors are cute; they would be funny if they were not so serious. The irony of Ovidiuss work is that the lines between the work and the myth represent the need for a completely incisive critical view. However, this is a hard sell.The mythic qualities of Ovidiuss work are easily exhausted by the viewer. Once Ovidius knows his mythology he can start painting. These pictures are very funny, but very frighteningly, even though they are merely fictional. Ovidius has no awareness of the value of the real world and is therefore unable to make the points he intends to make. He is clearly aware of the war in Vietnam and is all too aware that the tide is turning in American culture. However, he has no idea that the tide is turning. The latter American war has been defeated by a better-educated, more humane reality. The double-barrelled hammer has fallen on Ovidius. He, the victorious soldier, and his fantastical counterpart the swan are both responsible for the war in Vietnam.

Result #5

He who isnt in need of his own waxen gods isnt really ignorant of the gods he worships. He will just look to the sky for some kind of explanation.