Tu NOMBRE

Trato de escribir en la oscuridad tu nombre
trato de escribir que te amo
trato de decir a oscuras todo esto
no quiero que nadie se entere
que nadie me mire a las tres dela mañana
paseando de un lado a otro de la estancia
loco ,lleno de ti enamorado
iluminado, ciego lleno de ti derramandote}digo tu nonbre con todo el silencio de la noche
lo grita mi corazon amordazado
repito tu nombre vuelvo a decirlo
lo digo incansablemente
y estoy seguro que habra de amanecer

JAIME SABINES

Thanks great post! I see you've been traveling. Decades ago (1972? ), Robert Rosenblum wrote the Ingres mpogoranh for Abrams. His analysis of the great female portraits was among the first really compelling works of art history I ever read. He wrote about some curious conventions Ingres used painting volumetric forms as if they were flat (the edge of the abdomen of a bather), squeezing too much mass into too small a corner (Mme. Haussonville), adding two vertebrae to another bather's back all this for the logic of the picture space rather than verisimilitude, and for breaking down the elements of the composition into a pattern rather than setting up an illusion of forms receding in space, the better to create a sense of enclosure. Hence, the almost aural quality of the stillness one feels when looking at these images. And the slight feeling, on the viewer's part, of being disoriented that makes these portraits more confrontational and arresting more iconic than those by other mid-19th century painters. There must have been some better reason for these conventions than to give Picasso more to work with! But in the 1970 s, we lived in a Pablocentric world all roads led to him. Maybe it's only a question of how vividly an artist can inhabit art history, since he cannot really overturn it despite labors of repudiation that, seen from the right distance, are but a coming to terms.

Thanks great post! I see you've been traveling. Decades ago (1972? ), Robert Rosenblum wrote the Ingres mpogoranh for Abrams. His analysis of the great female portraits was among the first really compelling works of art history I ever read. He wrote about some curious conventions Ingres used painting volumetric forms as if they were flat (the edge of the abdomen of a bather), squeezing too much mass into too small a corner (Mme. Haussonville), adding two vertebrae to another bather's back all this for the logic of the picture space rather than verisimilitude, and for breaking down the elements of the composition into a pattern rather than setting up an illusion of forms receding in space, the better to create a sense of enclosure. Hence, the almost aural quality of the stillness one feels when looking at these images. And the slight feeling, on the viewer's part, of being disoriented that makes these portraits more confrontational and arresting more iconic than those by other mid-19th century painters. There must have been some better reason for these conventions than to give Picasso more to work with! But in the 1970 s, we lived in a Pablocentric world all roads led to him. Maybe it's only a question of how vividly an artist can inhabit art history, since he cannot really overturn it despite labors of repudiation that, seen from the right distance, are but a coming to terms.

Huy, yo de posesia no cacho (atrapo) una, sos lataneaa (idiota) no entiendo... Me gustareda poder apreciarlo a un niver que se mereciera (poeseda en general) Pero no entiendo, Es como que leo y WTF! que quiso decir?? Espero algfan deda poder entender..jajaja