Which of these paintings depicting the same subject is better?
>>802898
weren't they supposedly eaten without being chewed/alive?
"Better" is subjective
Goya's always freaked me out more.
People generally like Goya's rendition more because of the context of it being one of the black paintings. It also has a very raw and chaotic nature to it where Rubens' approach is more methodical, being Baroque and all.
It's pretty much up to the individual to decide which painting they think hits the mark better depicting the subject matter. There is no objective answer to the question.
>>802898
The objective answer is Rothko's.
>>802898
Daily reminder that Goya painted Saturn as having a boner when he was eating his kid, which censors covered up when the things went on public display.
Both masterpieces showing us that there are always new ways to interpret the same subject.
>>803470
The paintings are truer to European psychosexual politics.
Babbies are so nummy I just want to eat you up.
>>803470
the devouring father is a powerful archetype. from ivan the terrible to cannabalistic lizards, it carries connotations of ruthlessness, paranoia, "power perpetuating itself," the darker side of masculinity and parentage, the tyrant, the giant, etc.
basically if you were cultured or intuitive or not autistic in any respect you'd understand it
>>803483
that's great carl but it doesn't necessitate gore, especially when it fundamentally contradicts the narrative
>>802898
That's subjective. While depicting the same subject matter they both have different apparent objectives. Saturn in Goyas appears utterly inhuman. No mind behind the eyes, just a beast. The child similarly has been stripped of humanity by way of becoming meat. It's limp lifeless flesh barely recognizable as resembling a man. Meanwhile the right gives humanity to the subjects. Saturn isn't some mad beast who seems lost in Frenzy but a malicious bastard taking pleasure in his deed. Meanwhile the child isn't just some corpse but a wailing baby. I can't say which is better because it's apples and oranges.
>>803573
what the fuck are you talking about
the myth is about kronos eating his fucking children to prevent the prophecy of his eventual downfall
>>803589
I'd actually say the opposite about Goya for similar reasons. Yes Kronos looks completely inhuman and both subjects have been abstracted to mere flesh but it seems to better highlight the inhumanity of the action. This is coupled with the expression on his face which is one of helpless pain which one would expect to find on the face of the child which is conspicuously absent. It seems the convey that even in the most inhumane acts the perpetrator is only a scared and hurt person. This seems to be a truer visual representation of humanity than Ruebens pure malice.
left
the primal forces vs sanity staring into and beyond the observer is always the stronger
in the right is just the anguish of the victim while the eyes are fixed on the child itself showing that Saturn is doing it knowingly
but the left with Saturn hand digging into his progeny is a bit more towards the survival/instinct
the subjects of the painting are somewhat different, although the right is the same saturn the child steals the light somewhat and makes saturn the wolf to the lamb
>>803573
That's both ignoring the fluidity/inconsistency of myth and the term literally created for moments such as this aka Artistic License.
>>802898
the difference is subtle, but I think right is better. right shows that kronos isn't an animal like others have said already, but a monarch, a titan, in all of his power, calculatingly ripping into his progeny. you can see in his eyes that he is resolute in his cruelty and purpose, rather than as another anon said eloquently "lost in Frenzy." since it portrays the act in a more human light, it accentuates the unnaturalness of it all.
>>802898
left
right looks too humanising- without coontext you might think it was depicting some random serial killer sexual predator freak
with left there is no mistake that it is a divine ordeal of some sort.
>>802898
>ywn own Ruben's painting to hang over top of Goya's wall
also, both are fantastic in their own ways, and are best view in conjunction I think.
Both are facets of the act
I think Rubens is a bit more shocking, actually depicting the horrifying face of the person being eaten and all.
Some might consider that a cheap trick though, and it can be argued that Goya largely achieves almost the same effect without being vulgar, which in my opinion makes him "better", if some a term applies here.
>>803982
I am of the belief, that like writing, people put too much analysis upon and themselves into the analysis of works of art. You just have to sit back and see it for what it is, or to steal a maxim, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
