>Jocasta fawns over her son, Oedipus>Jocasta rigorously has sex with her son, Oedipus, and sires children with him>Oedipus is self-absorbed and more concerned about plagues and his past than his own hag wife>Jocasta, clearly, realizes that Oedipus is her son before he does>despite this, she URGES him to stop searching and live in hot, steamy, and sex-filled ignorance with her so that their relationship can continue without interruption>Freud: "Clearly, all boys form an oedipal complex where they sexually desure their mother!"How do you fuck up this badly? How do you manage to come up with the most retarded reading of Sophocles in history? Is the sky not blue; the grass, green; the emperor, naked? Mothers form a sexual complex surrounding their sons. The father is chosen for the subconscious desire to incubate herself an even greater husband, sharing all the desireable qualities of the father and yourself.
>>25498972>that picTypical asinine modern art devoid of substance
>>25498972I'm pretty sure Freud was just saying that the myth/play had an 'Oedipal' significance to the audience, as an outlet for a complex, not that Oedipus was literally attracted to the idea of his own mother in the story. You really went off the deep end at this end of this post.
>>25499068Actually it spoke to me quite profoundly. Sorry you're a brainlet
>>25499094The same exact thing can be saod for OP's alternative hypothesis. However, he actually manages to let the play itself help his case, which Freud cannot do. And what is the play if not the thing that these people watched? Women did watch these plays, though they did not act in them. That would be their outlet then, but it could also be one for the men over the fact that their mother desires them sexually.
>>25499095Nta and I like modern sculpture but he kind of has a point insofar as it doesn't leave any room for an evaluation by critical standards. You see a Moore sculpture always has fundamental aesthetic qualities at the base of it, because art, whether abstract or not, requires more than just 'it spoke to me' to prove its value. I think it's fair to say that Sveinsson is not in the same league as a truly great sculptor like Moore.
>>25499094Better deep than a puddle, I say.>>25499068>>25499136It depicts a norseman wailing at Odin for taking away his son. It's taken from a saga.I'm serious.
>>25499129>The same exact thing can be saod for OP's alternative hypothesis.I know, I never said I agreed with Freud's hypothesis, but you cannot criticise him for what is a logical application of his theory.
>>25499095
>>25499143>It depicts a norseman wailing at Odin for taking away his son.I can see that better from a different angle, especially in the life size monument, but it seems to me that the sculptor's essential sensibility is a figurative one, perhaps even to the point of kitsch, that he is making unnecessarily and less successfully abstract.
>>25499173Perhaps. I don't really agree, though. He just has a wide range.
>>25499201IMO the tendency of abstract art towards surrealism has always been very dangerous and this is a good example of it. An abstract aesthetic is compromised by an imaginative reality just as figurative and consistent as ordinary reality. Its emphasis is less in the virtues of sculpture and more in the (I think) rather childish imagination of the sculptor. One begins to think of the 'character' before the sculpture. And at this point I think one would be better of just sculpting traditional figures.
>>25499215I don't agree. That would be too kitschy for my tatse, inoffensive. This one at least evokes feelings of danger in you without even intending it. Or maybe all art is kitschy, except the ones who dare to ask questions like "maybe the faceless Goya men are actually justified in their atrocities?"
>>25499215What is "the 'character' before the sculpture?"
