Join 500,000+ Artists
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
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
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
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
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.
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..
Amen brother! Spread the word. And his portraits are mindblowing!Originally Posted by patdzon
-I am my imaginary friend.
- omg ftw teh sketchbook -Updated 28-01-2005- w00t pwn3d
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
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.
well, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but....heheOriginally 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.
It's good to see someone who agrees with me
well, the IMO the impressionist's concept of painting how light hits the form is brilliant. I wont necessarily call it a corruption, but it lead to it. The corruption is those untalented, egocentric artists who make up silly concepts or explanations to compensate for their mediocre work.Originally Posted by Steinmetz
That critic was Louis Leroy, and he used the term "impressionist" for only a few of the artists (Monet, Sisley, and Pissarro.) The others were only guilty by association. He was derisively using the term to describe what he saw as incomplete works. What most people think they know about them is usually based on a warped version of how the myth and worship of their work has passed down through the years, such as how none of them used black paint which is not true. Most of modern art is actually a reaction against their ideals.
There were open air painters before this group came along, like Constable, Corot, and the Barbizon group; although, carrying paints in tubes was more convenient, but the plein air approach Monet and Pissarro took was more inspired by these other painters than having easy access to tubes of paint. Before hand they were mixed and carried in small jars.
As for Napoleon, he did promote the arts, but mostly only those that portrayed his favorite subject - himself.
It seems to me that one does not necessarily need or want to view impressionism in such black and white terms of a corruption or not of the eye. I like to believe that the impressionists tried to create a different emphasis on the ideas behind art. They tried to create forms that the eye could identify using only swatches of color and shade. They tried to pare down the actual visual information needed to recognise a form. They also experimented with the colors in much more interesting ways than the old masters. Attempting to visually blend colors, rather than acually blending them on the canvas shows a maturity of understanding of how the eye and mind percieve color. I would suggest that anyone interested should experiment with how the color blends when 2 colors are placed close to eachother, but not actually mixed. Even if you dislike the style, it will definitely change the way you understand color.
It does seem inevitable that some new form of art would come out of this time period. The total fall of monarchies, the rise of the middle class. More disposable income lead to the creation of a wider variety of distractions for the people. If it weren't for the middle class and the new rich, impressionism probably would not have taken off. Remember, the early stuff was subject matter of things like the opera, the Moulin Rouge (see Toulouse-Lautrec), and other pass times of the newly rich. These were the places that were quite often frequented by the new artist. And the baudy, bright colors (not to mention absinthe) would inspire this different kind of art. And, the freedom from the dependancy from monarchy or papacy on funds for the art, fueled this.
Now enough of my self-indulgent ranting. In conclusion remember. Good art shines out from the past, while crap fades away.
Hey, very interesting and fresh thoughts (at least for me ) on the subject.
I just would like to add. The ways in which art effect us are not simple at all. Masterfully performed forms or colors are not enough for an art piece to become dear to somebody's heart.
Art can bring to surface forgotten fears, impressions from childhood, associations entangled with a personality of a viewer, recognized images, places, which were stashed in subconsciousness.
An emotion or a thought of artist in his work is most important, in my little opinion. And there are million of different way to show them.
And (we are not talking about sales here ) one fan of artist's work is the same as crowd
Last edited by sve; November 13th, 2005 at 10:10 PM.
Monolith's statement about their experimentation with color is a good point to raise. There was quite a bit of scientific theory being developed at this time in regards to color and perception that they picked up on, which also possibly led to further connections between art, science, and philosophy in later modern art.
Yes, Im even wondering that why would any artist like to set any rules, is it like a second territorial nature in us that we have to always form a gang, I thought that, that is what seperates artists from other human beings, we are not cettle animals, we are like God's and we like to work alone, this almost makes me to think again that in order to give scholars a change to group you as an artist you have failed as an artist, because being artist is about self expression and nobody else can be like you, and that is why those laws will not workOriginally Posted by sve
I have copied Renoir and its probably as hard a painting style as is some Mona Lisa, why ? Because (okay now im gonna be reeeaal radical here lols) Leonadro Da Vinci made that painting only emasing because he used time time time to work on it, kind of like that anybody could achieve it just by consuming plenty of time you know ? But Renoir, he saw something that we could all see and naturally we all have our own way of perceiving things but he had elevated in his artistical mastery so much that he was able to paint what he saw or what he wanted to see, now thats what I call revolutional and emasing anybody who is anywhere claiming: learn to paint like so-and-so person is reduciling the essence of what we are as humans, why should somebody eat another persons dream, you should have your own dreams your own visions and then work on realising them,making the true in their own personal lives, okay, Im not saying here that Leonadro Da Vinci didnt do this of course he did realise all his dreams (and what a dreams he had ) but Renoir he went to another dimention, somewhere more deeper in the mind and he dared to
look I dont know why I love you I just do
About the start to the downfall of the art to the new stream expressionism. When renoir and stuff lived people just became in a technology development. This is showable in a form within the impressionism called the pointillism. (which was a form based on pure new knowledge, that all colors where created by little dots of different lights, they tried to recreate that) Expressionism on the other hand was a reaction to that, because they said (vincent v. Gogh did at least) that painting should come out of your heart, while the impressionism was well sort turning the other way. It wasn't about the story behind the painting anymore, but about the painting itself.
yeah that makes sense I mean the pointillism idea (never read about that one before that its based on knowledge) so the idea is that culture is kind of submissive to science and science is above anything else (if artist will beginning to look towards scientific facts and applying them to their arts), that is so depressive idea
I like science but I dont want to think about it only when I go out there I mean I dont want to perceive the world mere via eyes of science rather I would like the reality to slam me in the face each time looking different stimulating me surprising me inspiring me to go further or just flowing along with it
Dictionary says that word Culture means something manmade.
when I think about culture I feel like culture should be something made about human relationships, experiences, drama, feelings etc the diversity of human life in everchanging environment with different stories etc art should be something that nourishes human soul and makes you feel good about being a human being just for the sake of being human being
embrace the human cruelties, desires, wants.... the good and bad and eternalise it in any form of performance to underline the fact that we are what we are, have always been and its allright, we should bless ourselves agree to what we are and not try to shut the bad side of us and just highlight the good side in us
Last edited by Egets; December 2nd, 2005 at 10:29 AM.
look I dont know why I love you I just do
Another person that is being mentioned where impressionism is Charles Baudelaire
Baudelaire, the art critic and poet that vommitted his whole existance, soul and mind in to his few works and then died away exhausted not appreciated by his mother or other blood relatives neither the established "respectable" money driven society- but yet true to himself and things he knew was true to him as a person above all trivial things that brings a human being with individual point of views down in life
Why not be conventional, why not adapt to the massess opinion and make sure you are accepted and will fit in and secure your livelyhood, make sure you make your mother or father be happy and contented with you and your life no matter how you disacree with her or him, his life story is a lesson to all those who want to be different, dont try to fit in, dont tell the things people are expecting to hear, be obidient to the POWERS THAT BE just to live like an invisible mouse till you peacefully land to your pensioners life receiving the crumbs under the table of the cake of the conventional institution that the mediocre masses has provided to those that bows down to it ?
Learn from his miserable life!
Dont let the meak spirit of ME inside you to bother you!
Just see the fearful future of decaying body of those who sticks to their own personal visions and disregards the long established constitutions that rules the respectable!
Be left out of the blessings and acceptance and by stating your own mind SLIDE SLOWLY INTO A MADNESS that was perhaps merely an echo of your own question mark to a lonely valley, the loud echo of your own voice and no single person responding into it !
Why are people so afraid to be different or of something new ?
Is a proper society defined by how well it treats its old people, or by how it treats children or by how flexible it understands something different from the mediocre, I mean how it can tolerate something that goes beyond the mediocre ?
To me what BAUDELAIRE stands for is:
Seek Truth Beyond Tradition, Definition and Image (quote unknown)
You could have an approach to the society that there are masses or then there are individuals OR you could take more "sympatethic" approach thinking that the mass thinking is a safe haven to those who failed to receive the blessings of their parents, that we should allow it to be and of course thats what it is a blessing of a stranger in presence of void, we have nothing but at least we agree and are not enemies to each other, then in that case, if somebody wants to read a BAUDELAIRE a man who does not understand territorial things, who wants to be dissident, who fails to enjoy and understand the benefits of political comfort zone where no further effort is needed just to express your happiness in present situation and select a fellow partner within your territory and start to breed
look I dont know why I love you I just do
I feel related to Baudelaire in a sense that Im equally sinister and weird and seeking for perfection and hence procrastinate things a lot, I only hope I will not end up like him but will be able to start enjoying the fruits of my efforts in my lifetime, and of course I will intend to live at least till 80 years old
What I found similar in him also is the duality of his nature he is so plainly exposed to all negative vibes in the world and is on his own that he feels the presence of death all the time as if he knew he was going to die soon, or maybe he did architect it for himself by agitating the thought in his mind yet Because the closeness of death he had a very deep desire to search for beauty
He had a very precise and superb way of analising the paintings and he soon were taken seriously as an artcritic as his first Salon came out 1845.
Any artist who found himself to be in his favour were sure to be mentioned in the history of art that could have othervice not been noticed as they were now going to be. Such lucky people were Charles Meryon, Constantin Guys and Jacques-Louis David whose names he did eternalise with his praises.
He formulated a theory since 1845 that was to reflect his look towards art from then onswarth: "The artist, the true artist, will be the one who can extract what is epic from modern life" He was looking for something new, as he was living in the revolutional times in Paris he wanted to see painters who could depict the current events and surroundings as they were happening
He was also inspired by Richard Wagner in fact Wagner had a same affect on him as Edgar Allan Poe and M. Delacroix had had, once again Baudelaire had found a master whose work corresponded with his own instincts emotions and beleifs Wagner had revealed a universal soul.
Delacroix was a man after Baudelaire's own heart, most of his art criticism is dedicated to him, he had a great influence on Baudelaire, the influence of the man's prestige, his conversation, his aesthetic ideas and the example which he set. For Baudelaire, what was supremely important was the spiritual energy of man. He sought for intensity, energy and fervour !!!!
What Baudelaire admired in Delacroix was a man as passionate as himself, but a man who controlled his passions and made them servants of his work. Baudelaire had witnessed how Delacroix crew excited about work in presence of countless sketces. From 1844 the pictures and drawings of Delacroix lived in Baudelaire's imagination, they were to reappear in the images of his poetry he was to create Delacroix in words
Edgar Allan Poe, whos writings Baudelaire discovered in 1851 made him feel instinctive and extra ordinary symphathy. Poe had the same complexities in private life, felt the same bitterness towards the world, also searched for artificial paradise and had the same interest in macabre and the supernatural. This bird of the same feathers made Baudelaire feel more confident in himself and did empact him with courage in his own literary pursuits.
Last edited by Egets; November 23rd, 2005 at 11:06 AM.
look I dont know why I love you I just do
yet more words to illustrate the significant contributor of THE EVOLUTION OF EYE/TOTAL CORRUPTION Charles Baudelaire
What was Baudelaire as a person ?
There are some facts of his life that made permanent impact on his person, one was the "betrayal" of his mother when she re-married Charismatic and Strick Army Officer Jacques Aupick, this happened when Baudelaire was only 6 years old.
His new stepfather and his mother decided to put him to boardin school and this segregation policy continued leading Baudelaire without maternal quidance in his life to bad Voyages.
No doubt his bitterness and anger towards his stepfather was the driving flame to his selfdistructive life that he led from his early manhood. He was mishandling money, was frequenting prostitutes (contracting veneral decease) and had abandoned his studies.
Despite of the hate/love relationship he had with his mother, she remained the only woman for him that he was devouted to through his entire life. Apart from prostitutes and mistressess he was never able to form a serious relationship with any woman and for this he was doomed to "know nothing of love but a phantom of love"
QUOTE Woman is simultaneously the sin and the Hell that punishes it UNQUOTE
QUOTE Even if two lovers were very much in love and very full of desire for each other, one of them would still be calmer or less entranced than the other. This one, man or woman, is the surgeon or the torturer< the other one is the patient. It's a hideous game, in which one of the players must lose their self control UNQUOTE
Baudelaire wanted to embrace the present time, breath in the wind of changes. He was engaging in many long conversations with novelists and art historians, he spent lot of time exchanging ideas of present times and as one critic was to say of him "He is the chief accuser of the modern world, yet he is also its most patriotic citizen"
Baudelaire liked to schock people, although he was dandy, always elegant and polished from toes to head he could suddenly decide to colour his hair green or wear blue perruque.
Baudelaire didnt like children but he had a passion for cats, he was always chasing them in the street feeding them and playing with them.
Baudelaire thought nature is boring, that nature has no imagination, he said he would like rivers to be yellow, trees to be blue...
1847 Charles Baudelaire was addicted to laudanum (which he started to use as cure for his venereal decease)
1848 24 February Baudelaire joined the revolution, from a pillaged gunsmith shop he got himself brand new double barrelled rifle only having one thing in mind: To Go And Shoot General Aupick
Baudelaire was a perfectionist, he re-read what he had written 20 times over, let it mature in a drawer, took it out and again re-read it (altered it) until it was perfect
Baudelaire was a gentlemanly and romantic man but he prefaired to see the women in a distant pedestal rather than intimately he was constantly finding eloquent expression for escaping mutual love relationship with a woman "Love may derive from generous feeling, but it is soon corruped by the liking for possession"
Baudelaires interest towards art was inherited from his father
Baudelaire was a HOMO DUPLEX, he often professed two judgement on his friends, the ones he reached as a reflective man and the one he reached in a bad humour. It was a continuing necessity for his spirit to feel affection and dislike, admiration and contempt for the same person.
Baudelaire never had a home, he was just moving from lodgings to another throughout his life.
Baudelaire lived corrupted life and yet always condemned himself or the things he did in a way or another. of his own drug addiction he wrote purely analytically:
QUOTE Man sometimes needed to exalt his personality, to seek a state of grace: but man, is not so abandoned, so deprived of honest means to reach heaven, that he is obliged to call upon pharamcy and magic, I blame the man who wants to escape the fatality of his grief UNQUOTE
look I dont know why I love you I just do
hmm impressionism is wonderful..it told artists to look back to nature..so hence they did wonderful art.
ok, time to grab my history book, it's dutch but I'll try to translate it as good as possible some things may be already said, but thought this would be a worthy post nontheless;
After the Reformation of the church, artists got considarebly less tasks from them then before. Most of the tasks came from the government or were personal assignments. This was most high during 17th century.
To please the people who gave the assignments artists often had to lay consessions on there artistic way of thinking. Did he not do this, then his work would not be accepted. And if the artist didn't had a job beside being an artist this would mean that he would be a very poor fellah.
It is just in the late 19th century that the artist became autonomous. He chosed for or was against the views of that time. He did this pure out of neccesity. The world, and reality could be shown in two different ways;
- The objective reality, as everybody could see it,
- or a more subjective look on the world, in search of things that are beautifull, the pleasing purely for the pleasing, or exactly the opposite, the cruwelness of the world. The big contrast between poor and rich.
After developing of the specific way of viewing things which people discovered during the renaissance, people thought that this was the only right way. Artists of our century on the other hand came with totally different visions. Also with relation to form and spca.
In 1979 said Hugo Claus in a interview;
(..) the annoyance about something, pulling yourself against or for something is a important motif to creativity (..)
We will see this motive in the 20th century far more often.
Our world is one of action and reaction. That this movement has his extreme peaks is showable with the great variaty of art we have today.
Not always leads this great variaty towards appreciation of the viewer. But in the end it comes forth out of the amasement/imagination of the creators of the world in which they life, and invites to think about surtain subjects. This 'amasement' is always on the move, and continues to shock/give people something to think about untill this very day. This is why modern art keeps shocking/amaze or give you something to think about, in which beauty isn't always the central part.
Changes however never drop out of thin air. All kinds of steps come before the final step comes, how much it meight amaze us. At the end of the 19th century there were painters working in Europe to give the people different points of view.
An impression of...
in 1874 there came a new word that consealed a representative large amount of painters. Claude Monet had finished a painting of him named; Impression; sunrise. This painting quickly became subject of lots of critics. People gave the name Impressionism to paintings which looked alike.
- The need to just give a impression of something the painter thought was interesting, would become in Monet his work close to the non-figurative.
- Later he painted lots of paintings with the same subject. He made these paintings on different times of the day, and knew to lay down the influence of light in his paintings.
1 Impresionism is a form of art which came to it's expression mostly within the art of painting, and less in sculptures and not at all in buildings.
2 It was a reaction on the ruling academism (hope this the right term in english )
3 With the influence of photography, painters tried to give a fast impression of a image. Accidental compositions where often the cause.
4 Light makes form and color;
-appearantly it wasn't Monet his aim to define shape. In his paintings his shapes are that free that they often go into eachother. He did this on purpose, he knew ofcourse how things looked. He went however after the picture in total and wasn't interested in how 3d things were.
- The effect of light and color became main subject during the impressionism. They gave great attention to theorie's about color. Newton ahd already showed in 1702 that the colors of the rainbow could be brought down to six colors; 3 primair colors and 3 complementair colors. Between those colors you could achieve a mixture of endless transitions. Ostwald did this in a color-circle of 24 colors. Goethe had already been busy with color. He compiled his knowledge into a book called; Zur Farbenlehre. The Impressionism had certain ideas about the colors off shadows. The painter Delacroix had long before discover that shadow also contained color. This so called 'shadowcolor' was the complementair color of the the object or form that together with light caused the shadow. That meant that one color had an influence on the other. They gave great attention to this during the impressionism.
- To paint a landscape people weant outside in full light and painted 'plein-air. For his bright colors painters depended on countries with lots of light like French. Though in countries like the Netherlands and Belgium was also a form of Impressionism (The haagse school) They used a bit more bleau's and earth-tints within there paintings because the light outside was less bright.
5 The painter got painting for hisself because Impressionism had such a personal interpretation. Something that wasn't attached to pure reality; A world of hisself within a painting, a design, designed after the design of reality. They created the shout; L'art pour l'art (art for art if I'm correct, not the greatest in french )
this is from the book; zienderogen kunst
hope it was helpfull to some of you (sry for the long post )
thanks for popping in, this my monotonical fact resiting is beginning to look somehow hmm whats the word selfcentered or something but dont get me wrong IM first of all just stating the historical truth but as well Im so interested in what you yourself are thinking about it, its a nice topic of discussion to me because its so close to my heart, if it doesnt move you then of course you wont have anything to say about it
personally it forinstance liberated me from "the tyranny of the nature" Im so glad to read people with like mindnesses how they crystallised their own thoughts on their way to independent individual artists in their own personal expressions, any of these artist could have done their own way of painting regardless of each other, so to me I dont so much beleive that "impressionism" so much exists in their (or did, after all are dead already) own mind than other scholarly people who must give names to things to understand them or discribe them, to me each artist is just an artist, if there is similarities there are other reasons for it than that they were aiming for some kind of artworld revolution or domination, that kind of idea is just so boring
actually I feel like that basically they didnt want to spend ages on one particular painting indoors but because they often wanted to paint somewhere else than in their atelieer naturally they had to paint fast, and since these paintings were not commissioned there was nothing pressing them to make them "meet" certain quality or realism, I think they were just having fun with brush and colors, yes I realise Im simplifying things but I just want to give my own impression of things because its much more interesting in such way than just resiting cold facts and fall into a doubt and fact searching for eternity you know
I still have so much to pour out into this thread just have my other erands sometimes taking me away from it so have these breaks of not posting anything, but Im so glad if somebody can help me fill in the empty dead moments and then again if you are not really interested its not something you should waste your time with just contribute if you really are interested and Im more interested in your own opinions on top of the facts, I would say 40 percent fact and rest your own opinions if that makes any sense at all, I mean that it doesnt matter if you know exactly what you are talking about Im more interested in the motional part of things and how these paintings makes you feel and why etc........even in the case you dont like them
look I dont know why I love you I just do
Somebody could seriously start thinking already that why me an artist keep on talking about Baudelaire who was not even artist at all and didnt painting vice contribute to Impressionistic movement at all, well, I could ignore him because he has nothing visual for me to see but yet I he has shown to people like me who describes the world with pictures so much interest and made such effort in bridging the cap between literal and pictural people that the least I can do is to acknowledge him as well
He brought artists to the attention of public and he described the paintings in such manner that maybe he was able to interpret something to somebody that the person had not seen before hence elevating the value and meaning of that painting and painters honour in general, though he has said that the only true form of art is writing (which of course I dont really agree but not exactly denying either, it can be art in the haven of dedicated loving mind)
What made Baudelaire's name stay in history pages is his revolutional style of poetry, it was original and he disregarder traditions and there has been pabtist as the Father of Modern Poetry
Baudelaire recognised a soulmate in Edgar Allan Poe and dedicated himself for translating his works from english to french language.
What was distinctive about Baudelaire that he found and constantly searched beauty in corruption and ugliness, such as in Petit Poemes en prose or Le Spleen de paris, he wanter to embrase the reality as it was and found it fascinating interesting and beautiful, just like the impressionist painters (!)
However his poems had another prevalent theme as well, this was nostalgia and memory of a lost paradise, as if there was a perfect sensory soothing and pampering existance somewhere, perhaps in the childhood kind of free of worldy burden and problems.
Baudelaire has a very techinal pragmatic approach to writing, he was seeking for perfection and was constantly analising the writing methods, he was part of the literary movement SYMBOLISM, he was innovative, bold and had ever enthusiastic approach to his literary aspirations leaving a remarkable impact on modern poetry. It is said that modern poetry would not be the same without him and that Baudelaires writings are clearly the worlk of a genius.
As an Art Critic, Baudelaire was so serious about his role as an Art Critic that some of his best literary works are actually ART REVIEWS.
His originality as art critic writer began to reveal itself in Le Salon de 1846 where he critiques different works of art according to his OWN aestehtic ideas. He firmly believed that an art review should be entirely personal, and that a critic should write exacly what HE feels about a work of art, even if it be INTENSE HATRED. He wrote that a critic should not only reflect the beauty and experience expressed by the artist, but that he should also underestand the artist's intentions, and essentially "TRANSFORM PLEASURE INTO KNOWLEDGE"
Baudelaire's view of beauty is laid out in Le Salon de 1846, in which he wries that beauty was the goal of art. he maintained that beauty had two components. The first was eternal and absolute, and the second was particular, being determined by the nature of the artist himself. Baudelaire also held that beauty must have an element of strangeness, which is closely related to his belief that beauty must be associated with horror or melacholy
Today Baudelaire's reviews and criticism are still widely read. Most of them show remarkable insight, and they have had a significant impact on many critics of our day.
Here are some quotations from Baudelaire:
A SWEETHEART IS A BOTTLE OF WINE, A WIFE IS A WINE BOTTLE
ANY MAN WHO DOES NOT ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS OF HUMAN LIFE, SELLS HIS SOUL
EVERYTHING CONSIDERED, WORK IS LESS BORING THAN AMUSING ONESELF
EVERYTHING THAT IS BEAUTIFUL AND NOBLE IS THE PRODUCT OF REASON AND CALCULATION
EVIL IS DONE WITHOUT EFFORT, NATURALLY, IT IS THE WORKING OF FATE; GOOD IS ALWAYS THE PRODUCT OF AN ART
I HAVE TO CONFESS THAT I HAD CAMBLED ON MY SOUL AND LOS IT WITH HEROIC INSOUCIANCE AND LIGHTNESS OF TOUCH. THE SOUL IS SO IMPALPABLE, SO OFTEN USELESS, AND SOMETIMES SUCH A NUISANCE, THAT I FELT NO MORE EMOTION ON LOSING IT THAN IF, ON A STROLL, I HAD MISLAID MY VISITING CARD.
IF PHOTOGRAPHY IS ALLOWED TO STAND IN FOR ART IN SOME OF ITS FUNCTIONS IT WILL SOON SUPPLANT OR CORRUPT IT COMPLETELY THANKS TO THE NATURAL SUPPORT IT WILL FIND IN THE STUPIDITY OF THE MULTITUDE. IT MUST RETURN TO ITS REAL TASK, WHICH IS TO BE THE SERVANT OF THE SCIENCES AND THE ARTS, BUT THE VERY HUMBLE SERVANT, LIKE PRINTING AND SHORTHAND WHICH HAVE NEITHER CREATED NOR SUPPLANTED LITERATURE.
INSPIRATION COMES OF WORKING EVERY DAYS.
IT IS UNFORTUNATELY VERY TRUE THAT, WITHOUT LEISURE AND MONEY, LOVE CAN BE NO MORE THAN AN ORGY OF THE COMMON MAN. INSTEAD OF BEING A SUDDEN IMPULSE FULL OF ARDOR AND REVERIE, IT BECOMES A DISTASTEFULLY UTILITARIAN AFFAIR.
LIFE IS A HOSPITAL IN WHICH EVERY PATIENT IS POSSESSED BY THE DESIRE OF CHANGING HIS BED. ONE WOULD PREFER TO SUFFER NEAR THE FIRE, AND ANOTHER IS CERTAIN HE WOLD GET WELL IF HE WERE BY THE WINDOW.
NATURE IS NOTHING BUT THE INNER VOICE OF SELF-INTEREST
NOTHING CAN BE DONE EXCEPT LITLE BY LITTLE
ON THE DAY WHEN A YOUNG WRITER CORRECTS HIS FIRST PROOF-SHEET HE IS AS PROUD AS A SCHOOLBOY WHO HAS JUST GOT HIS FIRST DOSE OF POX.
POETRY AND PROGRESS ARE LIKE TWO AMIBITIOUS MEN WHO HATE ONE ANOTHER WITH AN INSTINCTIVE HATRED, AND WHEN THEY MEET UPON THE SAME ROAD, ONE OF THEM HAS TO GIVE PLACE
THE HABIT OF DOING ONE'S DUTY DRIVES AWAY FEAR.
THE MAN WHO SAYS HIS PRAYERS IN THE EVENING IS A CAPTAIN POSTING HIS SENTIRES. AFTER THAT, HE CAN SLEEP.
THE WORLD ONLY GOES ROUND BY MISUNDERSTANDING
THERE ARE AS MANY KINDS OF BEAUTY AS THERE ARE HABITUAL WAYS OF SEEKING HAPPINESS.
TO BE JUST, THAT IS TO SAY, TO JUSTIFY ITS EXISTANCE, CRITICISM SHOULD BE PARTIAL, PASSIONATE AND POLITICAL, THAT IS TO SAY, WRITTEN FROM AN EXCLUSIVE POINT OF VIEW, BUT A POINT OF VIEW THAT OPENS UP THE WIDEST HORIZONS
WHAT IS IRRITATING ABOUT LOVE IS THAT IT IS A CRIME THAT REQUIRES AN ACCOMPLICE
Last edited by Egets; December 26th, 2005 at 06:38 PM.
look I dont know why I love you I just do
I want to post a picture of Baudelaire on a seperate message because he is after all a writer, not a painter
Since I went through his lifecicle Im tempting to make some kind of at-the-same-time-funny-yet-sinister short comic or intense graphic novel, that could keep this thread going, not saying that it would not though but I just returned the books back to library and dont have any written material at hand and whats the point using internet for reference, that would only be transfering data from here to there hellooo
I just put a thumbnail here, probably will have to do the same to the others too ...
look I dont know why I love you I just do
ghehe, aslong as it looks interesting I myself think that impressionism has always been some of the best art ever produced. They were still greatly skilled, and had learned all the technique from all those great masters and knew how to transform it into a totally new and unique style.Originally Posted by Egets
I like the faces, I think you can recognise them, so that is a good thing though... renoir and monet looked the same?