Art historian Juan Carlos Martinez writes: "Originally, Cherubs and Putti had distinctly different roles, with the former being sacred, and the latter, profane. That is, Cherubs and Seraphs (Cherubim, Seraphim) are Angels, occupying the highest angelic orders in Heaven and are thus the closest to God. On the other hand, Putti, arise from Greco-Roman classical mythos (i.e., non-Christian). They are associated with Eros/Cupid as well as with the Muse, Erato; the muse of lyric and love poetry... "Putti – which comes from the Latin, putus, meaning 'little man' – are...not so much babies as they are 'not human'. They are spiritual beings and thus depicted in their typically odd fashion; as winged little people of indeterminate gender. Using babies as models for Putti (or for Cherubs, either) doesn't quite get across the true concept of 'Putti-ness' as they (babies) are too guileless, for one thing, whereas Putti are clever and purposeful. They are there to help Cupid/Eros facilitate the onset of profane love – or secular, non-religious love, as between two people, rather than the love as between a human and God. Probably, it was artists' attempts to avoid simply painting babies that has led to so many rather odd and, often, ugly, Putti. Sometimes they nailed it, sometimes not. "By the time the Baroque Era came about, which might arguably have been the high point for Cherubim and Putti, both of these little beings were usually being depicted in the same way. Which one they were, simply depended upon the theme of the painting or sculpture: If religious (sacred) – they were Cherubs. If secular or mythic (profane) – they were Putti. "In either case, they'd be hard to pull off successfully today because most people are unaware of their roles in semiotics, or in philosophy/mythology/history, or in religion." (Martinez, Juan Carlos. "What's With the Cherubs?" ARChives - Essays and Information on Art by Today's Experts and Professionals. Art Renewal Center, 10/5/2004[1] 2007-09-28 ที่ เวย์แบ็กแมชชีน)
ตโต, ระว, งส, บสนก, เคร, บทความน, างอ, งคร, สต, กราช, คร, สต, ทศวรรษ, คร, สต, ศตวรรษ, งเป, นสาระสำค, ญของเน, อหา, เปมเทพ, หร, หร, ตต, งกฤษ, putto, หร, putti, พห, พจน, เป, นประต, มากรรมร, ปเด, กอ, วนย, ยและส, วนใหญ, แล, วจะเป, นเด, กผ, ชาย, เปล, อย, ใช, ในการตก. rawngsbsnkb ekhrub bthkhwamnixangxingkhristskrach khristthswrrs khriststwrrs sungepnsarasakhykhxngenuxha epmethph hrux phutot hrux phutti xngkvs Putto hrux putti phhuphcn epnpratimakrrmrupedkxwnyuyaelaswnihyaelwcaepnedkphuchay epluxy ichinkartkaetngaelaphbbxyinsmyfunfusilpwithyaxitali aelasilpabaorkineyxrmni phutotmacaksilpaobranaetmaphbihmemuxtnsmysilpakhwxtotrechnot Quattrocento aelamkcaeriyksbsnkbekhrub Cherub hrux cherubim 1 phutot thuxhxysahrbcwngnathiichinphithibphtismabnchakpradbaethnbuchankbuyyxhnaebptistthixaramxxthothbxyerinineyxrmni phutotkbwins raw kh s 1750 odyfrxngsw buech Francois Boucher enuxha 1 thima 2 prawti 2 1 karfunfukarichinsilpasmyfunfusilpwithya 2 2 karichinsilpabaork 3 raebiyngphaph 4 xangxing 5 duephim 6 aehlngkhxmulxunthima aekikhkhawa putto epnphasaxitalithiepnexkphcn ephschay phhuphcnich putti thaepnephshyingich putta aetmiidichknephraaepnkhayxkhxngkhawa puttana hyingsasxn inphasaxitaeliynsmyihm phutot hmaythung edk aelaichinbangkrniethanninkarbrryaythangsilpa phutot klawthungepnkhrngaerkodycxroc wasari in chiwitsilpin kh s 1550 kh s 1568 prawti aekikhphutot khiwpid aelathutswrrkh phbthnginngansilpathangolkaelathangsasnatngaetrawkhristthswrrs 1420 inxitali aelaemuxtnkhriststwrrsthi 16 inenethxraelnd aelaeyxrmni karfunfukarichinsilpasmyfunfusilpwithya aekikh karichyuwethphinsilpakhlassikichpradbolnghinkhxngedkinkhriststwrrsthi 2 thiepnrupthaelaakn etnra ekharwmphithikrrm elnkilaaelaxun karnayuwethphklbmaichechuxknwaerimodyodnaethlolinflxernsinkhristthswrrs 1420 aemwacaminganxunkxnhnannechnthiehninthifngsphinlukka karichinsilpabaork aekikh phutotniymichknmakinngantkaetngineyxrmni echn kartkaetngaethnbucha hruxaethnethsn hruxincitrkrrmhruxcitrkrrmfaphnng sungxaccaichphutotinkarthuxekhruxngimekhruxngmuxhruxekhruxngtkaetngraebiyngphaph aekikh chychnakhxngkaelechiy rafaexl kh s 1511 ethskalwins pietxr phxl ruebns kh s 1635 karklbmakhxngvduibimphli wileliym xdxlf obecor kh s 1886 winssxngkrack ediyok eblseks cupaerk wileliym xdxlf obecor thuxethiynprakxbaethnbuchaexkthixaramxxthothbxyerin citrkrrmphsmpratimakrrmehnuxchakpradbaethnbuchankbuymartinthixaramxxthothbxyerin aebklukolkpradbkangekhnaelalxmrxbphraecaehnuxchakpradbaethnbuchaexkthixaramhxlesinineyxrmni pinpaybnesakraodngaethnethsnthixaramexiyresineyxrmni yunkhangtraxarmthixaramiretnhaslakhineyxrmnixangxing aekikh Art historian Juan Carlos Martinez writes Originally Cherubs and Putti had distinctly different roles with the former being sacred and the latter profane That is Cherubs and Seraphs Cherubim Seraphim are Angels occupying the highest angelic orders in Heaven and are thus the closest to God On the other hand Putti arise from Greco Roman classical mythos i e non Christian They are associated with Eros Cupid as well as with the Muse Erato the muse of lyric and love poetry Putti which comes from the Latin putus meaning little man are not so much babies as they are not human They are spiritual beings and thus depicted in their typically odd fashion as winged little people of indeterminate gender Using babies as models for Putti or for Cherubs either doesn t quite get across the true concept of Putti ness as they babies are too guileless for one thing whereas Putti are clever and purposeful They are there to help Cupid Eros facilitate the onset of profane love or secular non religious love as between two people rather than the love as between a human and God Probably it was artists attempts to avoid simply painting babies that has led to so many rather odd and often ugly Putti Sometimes they nailed it sometimes not By the time the Baroque Era came about which might arguably have been the high point for Cherubim and Putti both of these little beings were usually being depicted in the same way Which one they were simply depended upon the theme of the painting or sculpture If religious sacred they were Cherubs If secular or mythic profane they were Putti In either case they d be hard to pull off successfully today because most people are unaware of their roles in semiotics or in philosophy mythology history or in religion Martinez Juan Carlos What s With the Cherubs ARChives Essays and Information on Art by Today s Experts and Professionals Art Renewal Center 10 5 2004 1 Archived 2007 09 28 thi ewyaebkaemchchin duephim aekikhsmyfunfusilpwithyaxitali silpabaork ekhrubaehlngkhxmulxun aekikh wikimiediykhxmmxnsmisuxekiywkb phutot ekhathungcak https th wikipedia org w index php title phutot amp oldid 9576523, wikipedia, วิกิ หนังสือ, หนังสือ, ห้องสมุด,
_-_Return_of_Spring_(1886).jpg.html){kind=link}
.jpg.html){kind=link}
.JPG.html){kind=link}