Art Lovers discussion

Ok, lets move on to a more familiar subject and in my opinion, more beautiful (but each to his own!)

Impressionism was a 19th-century art movement that originated with a group of Paris-based artists whose independent exhibitions brought them to prominence during the 1870s and 1880s in spite of harsh opposition from the art community in France. The name of the style is derived from the title of a Claude Monet work, Impression, soleil levant (Impression, Sunrise), which provoked the critic Louis Leroy to coin the term in a satiric review published in the Parisian newspaper Le Charivari.

Characteristics of Impressionist paintings include relatively small, thin, yet visible brush strokes; open composition; emphasis on accurate depiction of light in its changing qualities (often accentuating the effects of the passage of time); common, ordinary subject matter; the inclusion of movement as a crucial element of human perception and experience; and unusual visual angles. The development of Impressionism in the visual arts was soon followed by analogous styles in other media which became known as Impressionist music and Impressionist literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressi...

Interesting how one of the definitions of Impressionism is the "accurate depiction of light in its changing qualities".

The first thing that came to mind was Monet's haystacks


Morning Snow Effect


End of Summer


Haystacks at Chailly at Sunrise

This is an early work done a quarter-century before the famous Wheatstack series of 1890-91. In those later works, Monet succeeded in expressing the immutable essence of the Wheatstacks; here they are integrated into the overall landscape. The relative sizes of the Haystacks as well as the inclination of the low-lying clouds leads the eye forcefully toward the vanishing point of the rising sun. This leftward-leaning composition is accentuated by the exaggerated horizontality of the canvas. The muted colors and relatively finished brushwork, along with the pyramidal shapes of the haystacks, convey a sense of permanence that somewhat contradicts the depiction of something as transient as a sunrise. This is an important early reference point illustrating the artistic problems Monet worked to resolve as his style developed.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/...

How much time was invested? Amazing!

Timeline: Lives of the Impressionists



Who's missing here?

quite a few views just within an hour! Must be one of the more popular movements.

Comments anyone?

Although the impressionists tried to depict the severity and vividness of actual light, they seem to have wanted to create a personal equivalent in paint to the "impression" that it made on them.

Many years went by and Monet was much older and finally a very rich man with his estate in Giverny. Giverny had become somewhat of a pilgrimage site to young plein aire painters seeking to follow in the footsteps of the master. Well one day, Monet happened upon an earnest young main painting outdoors. Monet took one look at the painting and said to the fellow, "Young man, why are you painting that way?" The painter looked up into the face of the famous artist, and humbly said, "I am painting what I see." Monet retorted, "Impossible! That's exactly what I see."

Thought that was a great insight into Impressionism.

I cannot say I dislike Impressionism. It's very pretty. But perhaps that's why I've become bored with it. That, and too many bad reproductions in doctor's waiting rooms.

For me art is the representation of beauty. Political and social statements and violent (and often ugly) unleashing someone's innermost emotions are just that, but they are not art for me.
I find Impressionist paintings beautiful, some more beautiful than others, but to some degree I like them all.
Great quote, Ed.
And Ruth, I can't see not liking one form of art or another because of some quantity of poor reproductions.

Dvora wrote: "For me art is the representation of beauty. Political and social statements and violent (and often ugly) unleashing someone's innermost emotions are just that, but they are not art for me. "

It's interesting, though, that the Impressionist paintings were seen as violently ugly and incompetent by much (but not all) of the public.

Their name (and this became sort of a precedent with modern art movements) came from a scathing review. "Impressionism" was not a term of approbation:

...A catastrophe seemed to me imminent, and it was reserved to M. Monet to contribute the last straw....

Impression I was certain of it. I was just telling myself that, since I was impressed, there had to be some impression in it — and what freedom, what ease of workmanship! A preliminary drawing for a wallpaper pattern is more finished than this seascape....

Alas, go and look at it! A woman folded in two from whom a Negro girl is removing the last veil in order to offer her in all her ugliness to the charmed gaze of a brown puppet. Do you remember the Olympia of M. Manet? Well, that was a masterpiece of drawing, accuracy, finish, compared with the one by M. Cézanne....

“Is he ugly enough?" he remarked, shrugging his shoulders....

"From the front, he has two eyes ... and a nose ... and a mouth! Impressionists wouldn't have thus sacrificed to detail. With what the painter has expended in the way of useless things, Monet would have done twenty municipal guards!"

Not a knock on what you are saying. Just pointing out that what we consider unacceptable or even beautiful in art is (partially) culturally and historically determined.

Dvora, I think to limit art to the pretty or the beautiful, is to deny its potential and its power. Look at the history of world art. How much of it is "pretty?" Isn't that evidence that for most civilizations and cultures that the power of art extends far beyond beauty?

And yes, a prevalence of bad reproductions can suck all the juice out of a work of art. We become jaded and bored, because we are not exposed to the power of the original piece, but merely these insipid reproductions. Look at Munch's The Scream. When I was first teaching Art History, students used to gasp when I put that image up on the screen. Now, we're so used to seeing it on balloons, coffee mugs, aprons, tee shirts, and what have you, it's lost its power to shock us.

Ed, the thing is that I didn't live when Impressionism was new and ugly. I live now, and I find it beautiful. I have read a fair bit of art history and understand how things have evolved, but after all is said and done, I am a product of my time and I like what I like.

Exactly, Dvora, I find a lot of it very pretty, and I enjoy it, especially Monet's very late painting.

I've never truly warmed to Impressionism. I like the post-Impressionists much more.

Lobstergirl wrote: "I've never truly warmed to Impressionism. I like the post-Impressionists much more." I tend to feel more attracted to the post-impressionists too, especially van Gogh and Cezanne. Monet's late work which I mentioned, is much more inventive and expressive and colorful, although it is not exactly post-impressionist (in some cases it verges on abstraction).

Impressionism isn't my favorite either. There might have been interesting play with light, but mostly it lacked emotion. Although I like looking at the paintings, I wouldn't necessarily choose any of them to put on my walls (ha! if I could afford it), whereas I would be very happy indeed to have a Van Gogh at home (and not because of the monetary value). Then again, Rembrandt is my other favorite but I think one of his portraits at home would drain me.

Ed wrote: "Lobstergirl wrote: "I've never truly warmed to Impressionism. I like the post-Impressionists much more." I tend to feel more attracted to the post-impressionists too, especially van Gogh and Ceza..."

As for me, I only love van Gogh and Paul Cézanne, I just don't understand where Impressionism and Post-Impressionism divide. I feel like there’s probably no period in art history more widely misunderstood. The problem is, defining who and what were the Impressionists. Usually when I think about it the first names pop into my mind are Manet, Renoir, Cezanne, and Van Gogh but Cezanne, and Van Gogh are post impressionists as I know now.

Here's something I read recently although Manet, widely considered to be the “Father of the Impressionists,” in mounting their first group exhibition in 1874, he chose not to participate, and never thought of himself as one of them.


Having said all that, I just want to tell I'm not an art teacher nor have done any academic studies after my school days but I do paint and occasionally sell a piece or two :)

Impressionism didn't lack emotion at all. A few examples of subject matter are: Camille Pissaro's peasants, Degas' dancers, bathers. Mary Cassett with her theme of mothers and their children, etc.

From the art aspect, one example is the loose brush strokes which contribute to the feeling of movement, creating emotion in the painting.

Susan Bernhardt

I have always loved Impressionist art. I agree with you Susan. It does bring movement to a painting.

Impressionism was more about light and seeing, than it was about emotion. Frankly, it's too pretty for me. And all those bad prints in doctor's offices...

I like the fact that it's pretty. It gives me a lift.

Yesterday I've seen an art exhibition on Impressionism in Verona :) It was called:To Monet-The Hystory of landscape from '600 to '900

Benedetta wrote: "Yesterday I've seen an art exhibition on Impressionism in Verona :) It was called:To Monet-The Hystory of landscape from '600 to '900"

How nice. I would love that!

Speaking of doctor's offices, I love the pictures in my Doctor's office and waiting room. They also have a nice aquarium there. If you have to wait to go to an unpleasant doc's exam it's nice to enjoy your surroundings.

It's kind of funny, I made my first trip to NYC in May and saw the Impressionism, Fashion, and Modernity exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. And then in early August, I went to The Art Institute of Chicago and the same travelling exhibit was there, so I went to see it again. Very nice.

Jamielynn, thanks for turning me on to this group.

Susan Bernhardt

Thank you for being here, Susan!

You're welcome, Heather. Glad to be here.

Susan Bernhardt

Susan wrote: "It's kind of funny, I made my first trip to NYC in May and saw the Impressionism, Fashion, and Modernity exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. And then in early August, I went to The Art Insti..."

My pleasure Susan. I'm very glad you like it!

That trip sounds like a lot of fun!

Here is a wonderful link to NYU.edu's The Van Gogh Chronicles. A collection of short stories and poems based on paintings by Vincent Van Gogh. I love Van Gogh's clouds and skies.

http://i6.cims.nyu.edu/~sem570/

Susan Bernhardt

Thanks for sharing, Susan!! I will check the site and will read!

Ruth wrote: "I cannot say I dislike Impressionism. It's very pretty. But perhaps that's why I've become bored with it. That, and too many bad reproductions in doctor's waiting rooms."

Also too much third rate drawing and painting posing as a discovery. Go look at some detail in classic painting and you will find impressionism.

When I walked in for the first time into the room at the Museum of Fine Art Boston with the three Renoir dancing pairs including “Dance at Bougival” I decided to propose marriage to a young lady I had met some ten months earlier. She was not with me. Some twenty years later, three or four years ago, we visited the same room with her, now my wife. I wanted to show her the paintings but they were gone. We asked an attendant where they were and were told they were on a loan in Japan.

Great story, Galicius! That's too bad they weren't there when you both went.

Heather wrote: "Timeline: Lives of the Impressionists



Who's missing here?"

Heather wrote: "Timeline: Lives of the Impressionists



Who's missing here?"

Vouillard

Ed wrote: "Dvora wrote: "For me art is the representation of beauty. Political and social statements and violent (and often ugly) unleashing someone's innermost emotions are just that, but they are not art f..."

But too often it just spirals downward into mawkish sentimentalism. Of all human emotions, the romanticism of impressionism is most common but hardly the deepest feeling. That is why political art sometimes is its superior. And I couldn't disagree more about the political comment. I suspect romantics just can't handle real life. How's that for thowing some gasoline on the fire.

Heather wrote: "Timeline: Lives of the Impressionists



Who's missing here?"

I found Federico Zandomeneghi:

"Federico Zandomeneghi (1841-1917) is the best-known Italian Impressionist. Born in Venice, he spent the years 1862-66 in Florence, working with the artists known as I Macchiaoli. He traveled to Paris in 1874 intending to stay for a few weeks. Instead, he never left. He became friends with Degas, Manet, and Renoir, and exhibited with the Impressionists four times between 1879 and 1886. His most common themes were the daily life of women-he showed them at home or watching children in the park. The dealer Durand-Ruel devoted the first one-man show at his gallery in Paris to Zandomeneghi's work in 1893."
http://www.impressionism.org/painting...


Place d'Anvers, Paris, 1880

Of course I found a few more whom I hadn't heard of before. But I thought I would add Federico Zandomeneghi because he was the "best known Italian impressionist"

I keep up with the news and participate in trying to make the world better. I read a lot and read as much non-fiction as fiction/literature. But when I look at paintings, I want beauty -- something to lift my spirit -- just as when I go for a walk or listen to music. That's a personal thing. I simply don't look to art and don't particularly want it to talk to me about world issues.
Geoffrey wrote: "Ed wrote: "Dvora wrote: "For me art is the representation of beauty. Political and social statements and violent (and often ugly) unleashing someone's innermost emotions are just that, but they ar..."

"The major classical periods from ancient art onwards were superficially presented with the usual implication, that art reached its ultimate culmination with Impressionism and Modern Art. Impressionism started as a deviation from the 19th century highly finished detailed realistic painting and turned into what historians and critics consider a major revolt. Traditional Academics denigrated the degree of realism in finished Impressionist paintings, claiming they amounted to little more than unfinished sketches. Post Impressionism, a more abstracted Impressionism, followed.
By the first years of the 20th century, what was left of abstracted realism led many now famous painters to become ever more abstract. The extreme among them became part time art theoreticians who rejected any semblance of a realistic image, giving birth to assorted labels like non-objective or pure abstraction. Claiming that pure abstract painting falls in the same category as great art is historically speaking a 20th century phenomena. This category of artwork should technically be labeled abstract pattern design, or as Dali aptly categorized it, “pseudo-decorative art.”
The subjects of painted images can be divided into a range between realism, a recognizable 3D image realistically rendered and totally non-objective abstract pattern design. Examples range from Japanese textiles to oriental carpets, advertising art, bath towels, wall paper, table cloths, quilting, upholstery (stripes included), plastic shopping bags etc., and sometimes details in fine classical paintings.
We live surrounded by examples of abstract patterns, man-made and natural. Although critics would deny it, all non-objective artwork amounts to not much more than examples of abstract pattern design. No artwork in this class was ever categorized as "great Art" until the beginning of the 20th century.
It is ironic that sketches and preliminary work by Academic and Victorian painters were until very recently an ignored subject. Greenberg and his disciples have developed a clever way to evade the need to consider all the abstract elements to be found in these preliminary sketches and rough idea notes by introducing the phony philosophical idea that an artist’s intentions count for more than the finished product. Therefore, an artist like Bouguereau, whose paintings are considered abominable, does not deserve any credit for his drawings and sketches even though they conform far better to fashionable taste and the very tenets which Modern Art critics consider theoretically admirable in Impressionism. This is considered irrelevant because an artist’s “intentions,” whatever these were, must be considered first. Greenberg at one time even dismissed some moderns, including Malevich, on this basis.”

Heather wrote: "
"Federico Zandomeneghi (1841-1917) is the best-known Italian Impressionist...."

---he wasn't and this painting is very average artwork. The figures are amateurish and poorly drawn. It looks like a bad copy of a photograph. Better Impressionism style painting can be seen in most European major museums. Better even than the vastly overrated famous variety.

I actually like it, but then again, I'm not a critic.

Thank you, Poly. I'm enjoying (and learning from) your comments. Maybe that's because you explain from an informed place what I feel in my gut.
Poly wrote: ""The major classical periods from ancient art onwards were superficially presented with the usual implication, that art reached its ultimate culmination with Impressionism and Modern Art. Impressio..."

Heather wrote: "I actually like it, but then again, I'm not a critic."

I hope you don’t get an impression that my comment implies that I object to anyone liking something. If one says they like or dislike something they are being critical. It shouldn't require an excuse.

I try to judge artwork somewhat differently than most. To say it succinctly, I judge by comparison.
This is what leads to my negative views on most Modern Art.
The standard historical view of the 19th century, with few exceptions starts with pre-impressionism, then impressionism and on to post-impressionism and the glories of abstraction. It pretends that the rest of art during that time, denigratingly labeled “academic”, isn’t worthy of serious consideration.
I’m sure that those who have read that art history were left with the impression that there once was a battle of Biblical proportions against academic traditions. It is as if a history of world war two only mentioned the glories of the victors and designated two paragraphs to Nazi Germany.
The result of all this is that only so called Modern Art is allowed entry to that section of museums. The public then fails to see any other work. That public has essentially been prevented from making any comparisons to all those other works of the period. I have always been amused by students of Modern Art who belittle Academic art and what followed with the three standard words they learned in school, Kitsch, illustration and commercial. They most always fail when I ask them to name five academic artists.
I will elaborate in subsequent posts.

I remember some years ago my then sister-in-law, who was studying art -- that is learning to paint -- telling me that it wasn't so important to have technique. What was important was expressing yourself. And since then I've looked at modern art with that filter. If what I see seems to be more "me" than anything else, then I'm probably not interested. I have a problem with Salvador Dali for that reason, although he had excellent technique. But he also had such a big ego that it's hard for me to enjoy his work. As it happens, I live in Figueres, his home town, and am a member of the Friends of the Dali Museum, where I go, from time to time, to learn about him and his work and how to understand his work. It isn't easy!

Poly wrote: "Heather wrote: "I actually like it, but then again, I'm not a critic."

I hope you don’t get an impression that my comment implies that I object to anyone liking something. If one says they like or..."

I never thought your comment implied anything. Each person has a right to his or her own opinion. But let me rephrase what I posted. I may evaluate differently in my own opinions than other people. I'm not being 'critical' of anything or anyone. (And I meant a professional art critic, not me.)

Thank you Heather.

Perhaps you or anyone here can tell me how to include pictures in my posts or refer me to where I can find instructions. Thanks

right above the box where we write the post, in the parenthesis, it says (some html is ok). That shows how to do it. Personally, I find it a bit confusing, I will try to explain.

img src="place the link to your image here"/>

before the word 'img' put an arrow < (I can't do it or none of it would show up.

So when you have a picture from the net, copy the link address and place it in between the two quotation marks. Then do the above as shown.

If anyone else can explain it more clearly, you are welcome to do so!

Heather wrote: "right above the box where we write the post, in the parenthesis, i---

Thanks so much!

You're welcome

Dvora wrote: "I remember some years ago my then sister-in-law, who was studying art -- that is learning to paint -- telling me that it wasn't so important to have technique. What was important was expressing yo..."
Dvora wrote: "I remember some years ago my then sister-in-law, who was studying art -- that is learning to paint -- telling me that it wasn't so important to have technique. What was important was expressing yourself..."

Most all Art teachers today are the result of five generations of the tradition of incompetence. They cannot teach the foundations, drawing and painting technique simply because they don’t know it. Most all schools and universities are inhabited by that tradition of incompetence.
At present a strong reaction is slowly occurring because some students are at last becoming aware of the mass of their own failure. Most students who haven’t learned any technique to paint what they want are forced to verbally defend the results of their incompetence. Its self delusion.
The incompetent teacher who emphasises “express yourself,” a term which means little beyond stating the obvious, is wasting the student’s time. Most art isn’t about “expressing yourself.” Fine artwork roughly speaking is about masterly technique and expressing ideas, often technical ideas.
I will address your other points in later messages.

Poly
I have taught at two art schools and there is something to be said about what you write. One was a fine arts school, dedicated to producing prodigies of future ART IN AMERICA showcases, the other was at a career oriented school which emphasized web site design, page layout, and ad copy. At the latter, in 2004, the faculty was disappointed when illustration design courses including drawing were dropped from the visual communications program, not the decisión of the chair or any of those teaching but by administration. Photography was also eliminated, hence my departure, as it was considered superfluous in today´s digital era. In its attempt to eliminate the wet darkroom, it also rid the school of photojournalism, advertising and portraiture course, a very unwise decisión.
The Art Institute of Chicago at the time also eliminated the wet darkroom feature of its program but fortunately there was a hue and cry and the administration was beaten back on that issue.