I love this drawing by Milton Glaser. It's an illustration for a record by classical guitarist Linda Cohen.
Glaser was internationally renowned as a graphic designer, an intellectual and an all-around fount of creativity. I interviewed him in his office before he died, and discovered he was still overflowing with ideas. He's also responsible for a quote I've used several times on this blog:
There is no instrument more direct than a pencil and paper for the expression of ideas. Everything else that interferes with that direct relationship with the eyes, the mind, the arm and the hand causes a loss of fidelity.... I like the idea that this ultimate reductive simplicity is the way to elicit the most extraordinary functions of the brain.
Glaser was not, however, first and foremost a draftsman. An observer might comment that the wings are awkward and the body is not in a natural posture. And where the heck is that light source?
Glaser borrowed the figure from one of the slaves in Giulio Aristide Sartorio's allegorical painting, Diana of Ephesus and the slaves:
.jpg)
It's not clear why Glaser chose that particular figure, since the anatomy or the skin tones or the perspective seemed of little interest to him. His only cryptic remark at the time: "angels probably don't have behinds."
But he transformed the figure in a magical and lyrical landscape.
What's the meaning of the falling star and the beam of light shining down on the rock cliff?
 |
| Why does that ear glow red? The whole palette is quite eerie, combining dark subtleties and vivid contrasts. |
 |
| While most of the drawing has been greatly simplified, the lateral spines on the feathers in the wings have been individually drawn. |
What does it all mean? This drawing opens a lot of questions for us but answers none. I can't imagine how it is related to its subject record album, or how it could help sell the client's product. What kind of instruction could the art director possibly have given to produce this result?
I suppose the answer is the same as it has always been: when you're that good, and that strong headed, and your designs are that powerful, you can pretty much do what you want.
This is very unusual for the art you usually show here.
ReplyDeleteSartorio was a very strong talent, and one of the great draftsmen of the circa-1900 Apollonian-Arcadian type, this particular allegorical piece notwithstanding. He had infinite sensitivity in drawing and edge work, excellent rendering skills and a lot of compositional and technical knowledge. But none of his works seem to break through his influences, which clamped and dampened his poetic potential.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Glaser converted Sartorio’s classical figure into a symbolic figure of the William Blake manner. An imputed intellectualizing process, as per his standard operations. As a constructed graphic thing among a picture built of the same, this allows Glaser to play his interesting games with balances without bothering about naturalism. Its certainly better than the William Rimmer angel that was bowdlerized a thousand times on behalf of Led Zeppelin.
Glaser’s line about seraphim sitzfleisch is a funny one. I don’t think the line is cryptic. Its an earthy point about the unearthly.
Kev Ferrara-- I don't know why Glaser picked that Sartorio painting, or that particular figure in the painting. He doesn't seem to have derived anything special from it that he couldn't have borrowed from a thousand other paintings or photographs. I do know that he loved Italy where he spent many years (among other things, studying with the painter Giorgio Morandi, who he idolized). Glaser lived in Rome where the Sartorio painting hangs, so the figure may have had some significance from his younger days.
ReplyDeleteThere have been endless polemics amongst clergy and art guilds about how angels look and how they should be depicted and how many could dance on the head of a pin. But I don't recall a single word about how an angel's bare bottom should look. A worthy question.
"angels probably don't have behinds."
ReplyDeleteGlaser's humorous point, as I take his implication, is that the various uses one may list for the rear end all relate to grubby and grubbing life on earth. So why would one be needed in "the heavenly realm?" (My apologies to the comedy gods for explaining a joke.)
My few experiences with Glaser (attending lectures and brief exchanges in person, watching recordings of interviews) reveal a mischievous wit which he didn't telegraph.
graphics plus mythology (not unusual)
ReplyDeleteKev Ferrara--The logical extension of what you are saying is that angels could never sit down, which would come as a blow to Abbott Thayer. What are angels supposed to do during long liturgical rituals?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, while this blog may be the wrong place for debating the implications of theological dogma, your theory suggests that angels are limited to only certain types of sexual practices. Surely there must be another explanation.
Religion is not my expertise. However, I don't think there are any cloud recliners mentioned the Bible upon which to park theoretical seraphim fannies. Nor are there any mention of angelic trysts of any kind, or lower anatomy. Rather we have this passage: "Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire."
DeleteThat's hardly a New Yorker cartoon.
An illustrator wouldn’t really need more than the album title, «Angel Alley», to synthesize forth the idea of a fallen slave.
ReplyDelete- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
>>>>>>>>>>>this allows Glaser to play his interesting games with balances
ReplyDeleteWhat are balance games?
~ FV
Postmodern Anonymouse-- I'm not sure how the classical guitar melody title "Angel Alley" gets you to either "fallen" or "slave." After all, nobody knew about the connection to Sartorio's 19th century painting of "slaves." As far as I can tell, those choices-- just like the dark palette on an alien landscape or the shooting star-- were Glaser's mind floating free. The result is beautiful, but I'm not sure I'd trust him to illustrate an ad for laundry detergent.
ReplyDeleteThere’s an oxymoronic quality to the phrase «angel alley», no! Alleys are dark and liminal places, not frequently associated with angels, beings of the light. But there’s that one angel, right, the outcast one - the fallen star, the one who refused to serve in heaven. And wasn’t there a 19th century painting featuring sleeping? fallen? slaves…? OK, add some wings, one partially beneath the body, make it dark but weirdly lit, and voilá!
DeleteThe leap from thephrase to an image of an angel flat on its face in a dark and desolate landscape isn’t that big. What most people think of as «inspiration», «creativity» etc could be more accurately described as the ability to synthesize - smashing ideas together to bring forth something «new».
And I’m obviously not claiming to know how this particular illustration came to be. Merely suggesting how it very well might have happened.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
"What are balance games?"
ReplyDeleteLook at the white arc of the comet in the sky. Now look and compare that white arc to the black arcs between the legs and buttocks.
Now look at the shapes of the flight feathers on ends of the wings pointing rightward. And compare them to the shapes of the mountains pointing upward.
Look at the hair shape (Totally altered from the original painting) and compare it to the shape of the pink body of the angel.