Montmartre

Montmartre_MPHIX

I particularly loved the filigree intricacy of Paris’ details as Bill and I walked around, contrasted against the very sturdy and austere looking buildings. I know I mentioned this previously in a Paris post. Although, I’m not sure I have ever witnessed that anywhere else. Of course Barcelona springs to mind all of a sudden to put paid to that romantic notion, another city like Paris that I have visited multiple times since I was in my teens. But then both cities were heavily redesigned during the height of the Art Nouveau craze, and by all accounts it really was a craze, that once settled down caused such unprecedented and astounding artistry to die a very sudden and sorry death, being replaced by the anal lines, angles, measured curves, and stark contrasts of Art Deco, quite in opposition to its more fluid predecessor. I’m a big fan of Art Deco too, but I’m thankful that much of the architecture and ode to the beauty of nature and love that was the embodiment of Western European Art Nouveau still survives in both cities, much to my very grateful artistic eye, and my deeply romantic heart (Shhh! Don’t tell anyone!).

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Montmartre

  1. I think of Art Nouveau as being feminine, while Art Deco is … not masculine, but cartoonish. The Chrysler Building in NYC is an example that comes to mind. It looks as though it belongs in 1930s Superman comics. I like the style, but I wonder about major cities that become so attached to trends and fads. Then again, they’re all better than the glass-box skyscrapers that followed, I suppose.

    Maybe if they thought more historically things would be laid out better, but I like the cacophony of different, inharmonious architectures jammed together, like Paris’s fat aristocratic ladies wearing delicate fashions too young and too delicate for them. In some ways, I suppose, a city becomes the people who live within it, and vice versa.

    Here in D.C., none of the architectural styles get along with one another. That, is a perfect analogy for the city too.

    Like

    1. Here in NZ I’ve lampooned the City Fathers (Invercargill Council) for attempting to shut down the spontaneous developing of a small stretch of street as a ‘cheap 2nd hand car lot’. To give the kids credit they’re just ignoring the Colonel Blimps and getting on with it … I’ve known other places where a few sellers on a Saturday morning have expanded into huge marketplaces—to everyone’s benefit.

      London is really nothing more than oodles of wee villages that expanded until they met, overlapped, and absorbed each other. As you suggest, spontaneous growth sure beats ‘planned’ sterile showpieces any day.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I agree. London is fascinating precisely for the reasons you state. It’s such a hodge-podge of different architectural styles and hamlets that it has acquired a very unique look and ambience. London especially loves the camera.

        Like

    2. Cartoonish is what sprung to mind when I was writing this post and referring to Art Deco. I think the strong contrasts and juxtapositions in large cities is what makes street shooting in such places so interesting. Paris was an odd but interesting place in that regard.

      Like

  2. Hoo boy~! That piccie sure blows up into something HUGE (with great detail) when you click it. And I love it (might just experiment with this theme myself)(imitation is the only sincere form of flattery, don’t forget).

    Another great shot, Ma’am~!

    Like

Speak now, or forever hold your piece. (Ew)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s