Comments on: Andrei Tarkovsky and the Visionary Experience

By: Eileen Sheryl Hammer via Facebook

Eileen Sheryl Hammer via Facebook — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:18:00 +0000

ooh – now i can claim to be ‘legitimate beCAUZE off the map’
like it. the way someone recently noted that once something reaches the NYT Style Sect., it be OV-AH! : -)

By: Stewart Kahn Lundy

Stewart Kahn Lundy — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:40:00 +0000

Have you seen Stalker? It has scenes where AK-47′s are juxtaposed with icons under a clear stream of water. The imagery is remarkable. I think your point about Rublev refusing to paint the Last Judgment was because of the torment of this life — it seemed foolish to remind people of what suffering is… they already know.

The plain white cathedral in which Rublev did not want to paint was a sign of purity… simple (and clean) white would have been rare in those times, not to mention pure and brilliant colors. Rublev did not want to desecrate the pure white walls with refracted light, with imperfect art, with human impurity. When he splatters paint against the wall it feels very modern, like Pollock, but far less controlled. This corresponds with the desecration when the Holy Idiot urinates in the sanctuary. Our best attempts at “goodness” are defecating in the Holy of Holies.

An relevant factoid is that Plato considered pure and bright color to be essential to beauty. We may not think that now, but it’s interesting.

Thoughts?

By: Daniel Silliman

Daniel Silliman — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:02:00 +0000

What I loved about Andrei Rublev was just the idea of an icon painter who only wanted — who longed, who yearned — to paint a scene of redemption, but could only get funding for scenes of apocalypse and devils dragging peasents off into flames.

It’s an odd movie, as I recall. Wandering. With a whole section set in a medeval forest that seemed to be a sort of hobo camp.

But fascinating too.

I had forgotten about the use of color though. Maybe I’ll go back and look at it again. Thanks for this.