As my paper progressed, I decided to compare the way that artists depict the sky, and to find a way to determine which depictions could be considered sublime, if not all of them. Along with works by Turner and Friedrich, which I find to be very sublime, I looked closely at the work of Maxfield Parrish.
I don't see Parrish's work as sublime, but I wanted to determine why exactly that is, namely what the difference is between his work and that of the others. During my investigation, I found that those paintings of the sky that I felt were more sublime were those that did not necessarily depict it as it is, but as humans experience it. The Parrish, while incredibly detailed, does not provoke the same awe in the face of the forces of nature as does the Turner.
What do you think? For you, what criteria can be used to label something as sublime or otherwise?
Willa I think that you stated it well in that the word "sublime" brings to mind an experience beyond human understanding, so any depiction that only makes "sense" logically and does not transcend sense a little for the sake of beauty and truth (meaning experiential, not literal, like you said) is probably not sublime.
ReplyDelete