5.0585 Black Humor & the BOMB; Maja (2/37)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Mon, 13 Jan 1992 22:33:34 EST
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0585. Monday, 13 Jan 1992.
(1) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 92 08:24:20 MST (24 lines)
From: "don l. f. nilsen" <ATDFN@ASUACAD>
Subject: Re: 5.0567 Sidney (Family) Books; Metaphors & Legends
(2) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 13:28:58 GMT (13 lines)
From: Virginia <VHK10@phoenix.cambridge.ac.uk>
Subject: maja
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 92 08:24:20 MST
From: "don l. f. nilsen" <ATDFN@ASUACAD>
Subject: Re: 5.0567 Sidney (Family) Books; Metaphors & Legends (2/79)
Jess:
I feel that the tradition you describe in your last posting
continues not only in the tradition of the Gothic novel, but also
in the tradition twentieth century American black humor. The authors
I'm thinking of include Pynchon, Heller, Vonnegut, Gaddis, Kesey,
Irving (John, not Washington), and even Hunter S. Thompson.
If this is true, then the black humor of contemporary American
literature has much more of a basis in history than is often suspected,
going back through Twain all the way to Juvenal, and the influence
of the "BOMB" on contemporary black humor may not have been as important
as was the influence of Juvenal. What do you think?
=-) ;-> 8*) {^_^}
Don L. F. Nilsen
<ATDFN@ASUACAD.BITNET>, (602) 965-7592
Executive Secretary
International Society for Humor Studies
English Department
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-0302
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------24----
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 13:28:58 GMT
From: Virginia <VHK10@phoenix.cambridge.ac.uk>
Subject: maja
It is interesting and a little ironic that it was this particular painting
which caused offence, since it caused a similar controversy when it was first
exhibited. Unlike most nudes of the period, the subject is not passively
looking into the distance or at something else in the painting, but is
challenging the viewer by looking them in the eye. This made people so
uncomfortable that they complained to the artist; he then did another painting
of the same model in the same posture, but clothed. The second painting had the
same disturbing effect, demonstrating that it was not the nudity of the subject
but her challenge to the viewer which was causing the effect.