Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

erst77 t1_j27wzos wrote

Reply to comment by After_Hovercraft7822 in Question about The Glass Onion (spoilers) by polywha

>The painting sits exposed most of the time by default. When a threat is detected, the glass slams shut. This includes heat and anything that makes a loud noise, as a loud noise could hit a gunshot or explosion or something.

The glass is continually shown covering and uncovering the eyes on the painting. It's a metaphor -- there's something covering our vision -- or is there? Or is it actually clear as glass even though we feel like there's something between us and the mystery?

44

comradejiang t1_j27zstm wrote

The mona lisa and the glass onion itself are the same thing - an anti-metaphor. Something people make deeper than it really is. The eyes in particular are something people focus on a lot, but in reality it’s simply a very well done portrait, archetypal of the sort of commissioned portraits by nobles in the Renaissance.

The fact that it’s even there is supposed to represent that Bron is tacky and doesn’t know anything about art, same reason the Rothko piece behind the dining table is upside down.

81

badstoic t1_j283gsk wrote

Oh that’s friggin brilliant about the Rothko good eye.

21

Bingleybingler t1_j285m82 wrote

He has the picture of him shirtless, which is basically Brad Pitts body from fight club with Nortons face. I do like how all the clues are in plain sight tho lol

13

MansfromDaVinci t1_j288z40 wrote

Rothko's get hung upside down at exhibitions rather often. A mondrian has been hanging upside down for 77 years. In a deeper sense modern art was adopted by Rockefeller and his cronies wholesale after Diego Riveria painted a mural that offended him on his building, the philistine had it smashed. Modern art was seen as vacous and inoffense 'free enterprise painting' which could be a commodity and status symbol without any inconvenient symbolism or meaning. It has since been heavily backed by the establishment, though deeply unpopular with the wider public. The CIA at the least destroyed the careers of critics and art lecturers to promote it.

9

Sonicfan42069666 t1_j28fjhx wrote

> though deeply unpopular with the wider public

Not sure what point you're making with this. Plenty of great art is unpopular in the time of its production. Widespread appreciation for the work of Van Gogh didn't happen until after his passing.

2

MansfromDaVinci t1_j28hzca wrote

Van Gogh never had a coven of spies and billionaires promoting his art. My point is there was little demand for it outside of as propaganda and a commodity but it was displayed everywhere and got loads of favourable criticism from complicit critics aswell as some dupes.

2

Blahkbustuh t1_j29gqrc wrote

This is my favorite fun fact and I don't talk about it much because it makes me feel like a tin foil nutter. What also motivated them was the Cold War and the abstract stuff seemed new and dynamic and befuddling to the communist world which was turning out heavy and somber "socialist realism" type art.

1