Worse for me, even in the days when I'd pretty much bought into modernist ideology, I never thought that Chagall was more than a second- or even third-rate artist. Modernism is the only true path the 19th century was a crazed attempt to preserve classical forms while technological change was sweeping away their underpinnings the uncomprehending masses need re-education in order for them to comprehend these truths that really ought to be obvious. What could Malraux have been thinking? I suspect it was the groupthink of the late 1950s that included my architectural history indoctrination. I found Chagall's ceiling totally out of character with the rest of the auditorium it covers.
However, there was one jarring note: that replacement ceiling painting by Chagall. Sure, it probably was a bit over-done, but that was part of its charm. That dolt Garnier should have been inspired by the iron-and-glass train sheds at those gares popping up on the right bank not so far from the opera site: those structures were honest, true to their materials and function.īy the time I actually visited the Opéra Garnier the architectural history teacher's work had long since rung hollow. an abomination of utterly superfluous ornamentation, a confusing mix of different marbles, all of it intended for the pleasure of Louis-Napoléon's aristocracy. It was "dishonest" in that its metal framing was covered by ornate stone surfaces. The teacher of my undergraduate History of Architecture class hated the place. The "Garnier" in the name comes from the name of its architect Charles Garnier it's also known as the Palais Garnier, the title used in the building's Wikipedia entry, here. Fifty years ago, French Culture Minister André Malraux pulled the trigger, commissioning Marc Chagall to create a new ceiling painting for the Paris opera house that's today best known by the name Opéra Garnier.
0 kommentar(er)
