Results 1 to 13 of 35
September 17th, 2005 #1
Impressionism- Evolution of eye or Total Corruption(plain text for now)
Since my ultimate favourite and ever first master study is Renoir I decided to take a deeper dive into the word i-mpressionism-, where did it bore from and what is the context in society vice?
(note to self and workaholics)If spending time pondering these things is considered to be a time away from developing once skills -who cares!!! Even those times (9 century) people were different (artists) like Renoir was a handyman and crafsman while Manet was an intellectual yet they were all part of the idea of "evolution of eye" painting style. Painting is essential, it is craftsmanship, but motivation comes from the bonding of mind or exchange of them, you dont know what will come out of the discussion but the most important thing is that you open it so the snowball of evolution can begin rolling...
Since I like to always guestion everything arond me and liking Renoirs paintings I start to ask why is this word impressionism mentioned?Is it because of the fact that more than one person was carrying the same style with similar factors? Is it some greater force (The Powers That Be) who wants to take forward an idea of consperiency that they harbour in their mind and wants to seed the evil seed of a constant word with a repetitious meaning into our heads or serving their coalitional powerhelding purposes to the benefit of the "human kind"?
Well whatever is the reason, the word impressionism has been and will be stuck into the english vocabulary and will be in use in our respectable education systems all around the world so why not I ignore (for a short while) my inner visions and emotions and bend below the monster of the educational language and its vocabulary to give it some more time to think about since I like to "evolve" in my language as well and see what the masses of invaders of my mind has come up to capture my thinking before it has developed its own wordings for that thing that I like to perceive (or could have like to perceive)
Is it like radical to say that "The Powers That Be" of those times (19 century) thought impressionistic way of painting was a decay of the human morals, that the establishment of the Salon that was dominating the artworlds at the time in Paris ( the word impressionism born by the art critic Louis Leroy in 1874 bowing down to the politics and finances that fed him bread ) was there to represent the harder-to-get-and-reach more nobel and elevated ideas of mind that lifted the painting much higher above the reach of language, customs and behaviour of the common lower working class people. Where something more higher than just your current fleshy desires to be satisfied asap where to be financed by something bigger than a singular dictator of his own life in the life of a average joe walking the streets trying to get his next months rent payed-a group of people with illuminous thoughts of getting to the higher hights something that will take people's breath away as they saw it thinking it was something inhuman from their own non-ambitious standard point of view
Wanting to say that only a man of higher noble desires to retain a untouchable halo of a beautiful woman and crown her in the glory that he is able to, because he has the wisdom, the power and the want of King Solomon to do that, and all the men who fell below his standards were not to have the access to be mentioned and therefore falling into their own self created effortless comfort zone.
Im thinking first that the person wants to get an easy way out if he does not want to paint in the style of forexample Couture's The Romans of the Decadence (1847) I then thought that if I as a painter, did live at those times and was asked to paint like with such painstaking manner but had no chance or will power nor desire nor courage but yet wanted to get an excuse to stare at nude women as Im painting them, I would have probably invented impressionism myself (lol) but then I found out that there were also women who painted like impressionists, who now in the age of civilisation had been openly mentioned while they didnt get fame at the times they lived due to been chaperoned (not allowed to be seen alone in public as woman and hence restriced to their domestic environment) so I concluded THERE MUST BE A CREATER DRIVING FORCE BEHIND MOVEMENT OF IMPRESSIONISM THAN AN EXCUSE TO PAINT NUDES AS A LOUSY PENNILESS PAINTER !!!!
The society -another word monster that annoyes me- but Im forced to mention it here- The Industrial Revolution, yes, weather we like it or not we are the products of our societies, and just image the kind of changes the painters of impressionistic movement did go through:
1830 the July revolution, King Charles X was taken over by Duke of Orleans, Louis Philippe
1848 Another Revolution, Louis Philippe was taken over by Second Republic
/Proclamation of Universal Suffrage
/Abolition of Slavery
/December Louis Napoleon (nephew of Napoleon 1) became president
1851 Coup d'etat: Louis Napoleon became Empreror Napoleon 3
1853 Hausmannization: Napoleon appoints Hausmann to create infrustructure
in france that crawls behind the rest of the Europe in the middle of its Industrial
Revolution = Huge Changes, development of Banks, Railways, Factories..
1863 Salon vs Salon des Refuses, painter gets another channel for showing
their artistical expressions, it was a two sided coin
carrying long lasting establishment's name with the rulers blessing in it
while having the word Rejected-in the same sentence, however the poor artists were happy with
it, and it gave the first push to the evolution (or decay) of
acknowledging a culture apart from culture of the bourgouse ( the prosperious middle
class) maybe the same what has today evolved into a pop-culture
1870 Due to Napoleons sickness his this far congerous
war plans failed and he made a miscalculation = as a result the Prussians
invaded the Paris
1870 The Parisians rebelled against new covernment= a Civil War=20 000
parisians were killed
1874 Paris had restored it's position as La Ville Lumiere, The capital
In the lifetime of Monet and most of the impressionists France had seen two revolutions, the rise and fall of Second Empire and the establishment of the third Republic
How did the Industrial Revolution affected the painters lives then ?
1. Napoleon 3 appreciated art-there fore made a way for it = financed it
2. railways-easy to travel from city to rural places fast for artists to change painting environments
3. factories found ways to mass produce oil paint in tin tubes and portable canvases which let painters out of the studio painting in "plein air"
Even as most of the impressionist painters were admirers and keen students of the past great masters and had acguired their knowledge and skills after many years of meticulous practise, the wind of change in their society blowed them away (or took them along) the past or the illusional painting subjects were no more More of interest to them as oppose to the current ever changing events that were occuring all around them, it seems as if there was a constant evolution of things going on around them.
Once traditional cultural Paris was now been transformed into a modern bubbling center of Europe in the middle of industrialation and they wanted to live it through ,wanted to be part of it, they wanted to breath it in and captured it on their canvases, wanted to eyewitness it in the best ability and way that they could-by painting it and eternalising it all on canvas in a way that they saw it and in a way that the changes did changed them as individuals, and since the changes were occuring so fast they had no time to paint one single meticulous painting perfecting it for months.... they wanted to paint it fast, they wanted to capture the moment that instant - asap - with beautiful flying colours!!!!!!!! Since the uncertainty of tomorrow was as true as the brush they held in their hands
Last edited by Egets; September 17th, 2005 at 03:18 PM.look I dont know why I love you I just do
Hide this ad by registering as a memberSeptember 17th, 2005 #2
I thought they called it impressionism because when they painted, they had to paint really quikly because they wanted to give the exact same ligt effects/mood the nature was giving right now. But because the sun and clouds etc moved they painted fast and just gave a impression of what they saw..
kick me if I'm wrong :p
September 17th, 2005 #3
I think its true, when they painted the landscapes in the rural areas the idea was to paint the first impression but since in nature the colour changes all the time how can you really see the accurate first colours or capture all the variotions in it in fraction of second with a mere human eye I mean with all the millions of different colours in it but basically the ideology was to capture it quickly and instead of the plain forms or idealised form of the present view they tried to capture the prismatic reflections of light in its all colours, actually they were not only trying to capture the current moment but the whole nature and everchanging character of the mother nature
look I dont know why I love you I just do
September 17th, 2005 #4
If I remember right they tried to form some principles for their totally new revolutionary manner to draw. Mainly I think with purpose to be excepted . They were rebels. I forgot some of the principles, but remember:
1 Always draw on open air, never behind closed doors,
2 Don't ever mix paints on canvas, paper. Use one stroke for one clear color. That's why when you see their paintings especially after oil of old masters, it's like a rays of bright light shooting in your face. It's effect of all those clear dots of paint, combined together for a strong accord.
Of course, they themselves didn't honor their rules .
The term Impressionism has its roots after scandals with Claude Monet's painting named Impression, soleil levant (Impression, Sunrise).
It had a huge negative response.
Last edited by sve; September 17th, 2005 at 08:03 PM.
September 17th, 2005 #5
Well actually you're all wrong. The title impressionist came from a painting by monet which was called 'Impressions at sunrise' a critic saw this and started calling the group impressionists, the name stuck and that was that. The meaning is that they wanted to capture the fleeting impression of a moment through natural light and effects.
I don't really see you're point Egets, you have already stated what most people know..
September 17th, 2005 #6
September 18th, 2005 #7
September 19th, 2005 #8Originally Posted by patdzon
-I am my imaginary friend.
- omg ftw teh sketchbook -Updated 28-01-2005- w00t pwn3d
September 21st, 2005 #9
Steinmetz, I think my point is to fish out anybody who has any emotions arised from this impressionistic movement like Im suggesting in the heading evolution of eye or corruption, because like honestly speaking most of the paintings suck but there are some few that pleases my eye and the colour usage that is not slavely following the nature's (sometimes) othervice dull colours
generally I have been moved and touched by Renoir but until recently began to think about it that why and then came to get to know with the whole movement but never have got too excited about the entire body of works created under the umbrella of this concept.
Edgar Degas,I liked to read his biography because when you understand why he did what he did (drawing and painting so many balette dancers) etc you develope interest in them and you feel like as if you are walking side by side with him:
"...draw all kinds of everyday objects, placed accompanied in such a way that they have in them the life of the man of woman-corsets whichhave just been removed, for example, and which retain the form of the body, etc, etc..."
like in the painting The Absinthe Drinker I like that there is like a story ...its cought in the middle of happening and action and nobody is posing not even knowing of somebody spectating I also like the way he is randomly drawing lines he is that kind of painter I was talking about previously that he is imitating camera wanting to capture a moment as it is not trying to beautify anything but yet making the image look nice for his own amusement, he can really paint too accurately proof of this his Orchestra of the Paris Opera -painting
Claude Monet thats the kind of impressionism at its peak that I dont like at all too blurry and dotty to my taste
Eduard Manet, loving his The Parents of the Artist painting (reminds me of Norman Rockwell) and then totally loving Madame Manet at the Piano the way he left the arm so unfinished but perfectly enough as it is and that reddish brown halo on her face+LESS IS MORE also loving his renoirish Banks of the Seine at Argenteuil-painting, I like the excecution (painting style) of the Luncheon of the Grass but dont like that he chose to put naked woman with two completely clothed men (kind of like a really annoying painting) The Spanish Singer, another painting that reminds me a lot of Norman Rockwell's style which of course I love a lot
Camille Pissarro, dont much like his style eather all the paintings I went through but might have missed something better since only saw the impressionist style paintings
Pierre-Auguste Renoir, the one and only man who introduced me to impressionists at all, which reminds me that sometimes in my life I have staired at his crowd paintings and thought to myself that I will never be able to paint like that which I dont think anymore well I love all of his works because they are happy social images of smiling faces and that is all that he wanted to eternalise I guess is something that makes your heart feel warm, he always payed a lot of attention to the facial expressions which is naturally the most interesting part in a painting to be approachable I love the way she succeeded in this task in Madame Charpentier and Her Children also loving the composition and his brave choice of using lot of red which does not take much anything away from the painting (although somehow strangely strong choice of colour for domestic portrait)
Then suddenly he is trying a different style which also looks like almost mindblowing after all the blurriness: The Umbrellas
Alfred Sisley, I usually like the colour palette he did use in his paintings but it seems like he did not finish them they dont look complete like Renoirs own
Frederic Bazille I dont really see what special is in his paintings the only painting that did impress me was Verlaine as a Troubadour
Berthe Morisot, there is somebody with visual eye, even that she is so extremely impressionistic she makes sure there is a hint of line here and there that gatheres the whole image together and makes it look very eloquent, IMPRESSIONISM AT ITS BEST ! Check out forinstance her Summer painting
Mary Cassat, another WOMAN impressionist painter after my taste, her Mrs Cassatt Reading blows me away for being so perfect Im also interested in The Reading and Lydia paintings, they are the kinds of paintings that one could spend a longer time casing and feeling contented about the whole thing
I long for the time when rulers did finance artists to paint huge impressive mindblowing paintings, I would like to paint such paintings myself where it will be in a public place and my name under it anyway such painting will take years to complete, probably what I should do is to build my own church or something where I can paint as much as I want now only need to find the financer
look I dont know why I love you I just do
September 22nd, 2005 #10
Well the impressionists did start the downward spiral that is now called modern art so they inadvertantly destroyed great art as well as produce it.
evolution of eye or corruption? I choose corruption.
September 22nd, 2005 #11Originally Posted by Steinmetz
What I do like about the Impressionists is that they're were trained intensively. They had a really good foundation. So I think that's important for any artist who wish to deviate from that and develop their own style. So its no wonder that we kept seeing mediocre art coming out during the 1900's when intensive training such as the one that the IMpressionists had was almost non-existent.
I thnk the Impressionists were really talented artists who could draw, paint and sculpt. Not like artists who splatter paint, or those who put one dot of paint on the canvas.
September 22nd, 2005 #12
It's good to see someone who agrees with me
September 22nd, 2005 #13Originally Posted by Steinmetz