Final Post

            When I knew I would have to take Impressionism through post-modernism I was not enthusiastic. But now that I have learned the history and technical advances in art that encouraged Impressionism and Post-modernism I am appreciative of the art movements. The reason why I did not like these art movements was because I held a deep love for realism and idealism, so the High Renaissance and Baroque period were my preferred art movements. Now though, that I have been immersed in the art world of Impressionists I have grown very fond of the Impressionists art, particularly the avant-garde realism. Although, artistically I have not recently been influenced by the artistic movements we discussed in class, I have seen some works of art that I am aesthetically pleased with.

            I would like to begin with the Stone Breakers by Gustave Courbet. I really enjoyed this piece not only because of its history, but because of its artistic style. At the time the piece was made the Socialist movements were taking place because of the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie. I’ve read the Communist Manifesto and I agree with many of the ideas that Marx proposed to form a more perfect society. Although some ideas would not work and need further adjustment, Marx’s Manifesto paved way for a new way of thinking. Today this could be brought up in the current Occupy movement. Many of the middle and lower class are protesting that the high class is not contributing as much as the middle and lower class are. The Stone Breakers although from a different time period, reflects those same ideas. The piece shows two men, one a boy and the other an old man. From their clothing and occupation, it is good to assume that they are the lower class. They are hard at work doing the jobs nobody wants to do to support their families.

            At the time it was made many of the critics that saw that piece where disgusted and offended at the piece because of its subject matter and its artistic style. The bourgeoisie did not like that the piece focused on such lowly life forms and not only that but exposed the unfairness the rich had against the poor. The piece was also presented as an academic piece, through its size and naturalist style. St. Simon stated that art should have a purpose in society, to contribute to society that would benefit it. I completely agree in that aspect, if we as human beings have something we can share with the world then we should have an obligation to share it and use it as a way to provide people with information and to better themselves and their community. Courbet used this piece to address the issue of the exploitation of the poor and to raise awareness of the new socialist ideas that were taking place. Like Courbet I want to create art that addresses the issues society currently has and hope that enough people see it to change their ideals and help society for the better. 

20th cent. art: Richard Hamilton

            Previous to WWII, America was not considered a world power by the global community. By the 1950s the Allies had won and the United States and the Soviet Union entered a Cold War. The United States came on top as a world power and saw itself as the protector from communism and its sphere of influence. Aside from the political problems, the Western powers had entered the new age of modernism. New technologies brought forth new ways of living and the people accepted these devices readily, thus the consumer culture was born. In the art world, specifically Britain, artists were commenting on the current consumer culture and critiqued how it changed the way society based its ideals. Called Pop art after the tootsie pop in Richard Hamilton’s famous piece, the art movement first comprised of British artists that were involved in the Individual Group in London. This group focused on discussing the place of art in a consumer society. Richard Hamilton’s piece Interior focused on the visual culture and comments on the ideals of the consumer culture.

            Seeing that art was being replaced by advertising to define beauty, Richard Hamilton made collages composed from various advertising magazines. Using old and new techniques of print making he was able to create interesting pieces. The piece Interior is a good example of his collage work. The piece juxtaposes different sections of advertisement prints. Some are colored and some are monochromatic. Hamilton juxtaposes the pieces to fit together, as if the scene is actually from a home magazine. Hamilton adds a television and fancy furniture to comment on societies need to define itself by the materials it possesses. Wendy Weitman from the Museum of Modern art states that, “through a complex layering of painting and photographic techniques, he [Hamilton] continues to examine issues of illusion and the processes of image-making.”

            Hamilton began his ideas of his collages from a film still in the film Shockproof while teaching a class in Newcastle Polytechnic. Lying on the floor, the still intrigued Hamilton by how it was arranged compositionally. Hamilton describes the still as focusing all attention on a girl in a ‘new look’ coat. Hamilton further notes that the girl’s angle seems awkward as the perspective seems distorted. What really toke Hamilton back though was the fact the still was not of an actual place but of a film set, so the wall were not together and the lighting in the still came from different angles. All these elements inspired Hamilton to experiment with his collages and some paintings specifically focusing on the interior. Interior echoes Hamilton’s experience by having the walls of the interior placed at awkward angles which gives no clear angle of perspective. The walls also don’t seem to be conjoined and the enlargement of some of the furniture creates a feeling of unease as you see a living space in a correctly placed atmosphere, but the direct manipulation of the objects around the woman are varied in scale. From a simple film still Hamilton was able to create compelling dynamic compositions that not only focus on the composition of art, but as well as the life of the consumer culture.

References:

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/hamilton-interior-p04250/text-summary

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A2481&page_number=4&template_id=1&sort_order=1

Dadaism and Duchamp

Dadaism and Surrealism began during the Great War. Many opposed the incessant bloodshed of thousands and the oppressive nature of their governments to create propaganda and conform society to their benefit. Dada and Surrealism questioned the rationality and logic of modern society when so many were being killed on the front line. Instead of creating art that was ordered and structured Dada and Surrealism was attracted to abstract, irrational, unorganized, and uninhibited art in a sense that it was not based on modern society’s values, but on the emotive and ideological senses of the artists. One such artist that decided to break from the traditions was Marcel Duchamp. His works became the most controversial and most talked about works of art to this day. Not because of their form or composition, but because they were not pieces that were created out of the mind of Duchamp, rather he grabbed mass-produced items and changed them slightly and called it art; such as the works Fountain and L.H.O.O.Q.

            Duchamp coined his pieces as ‘ready-mades’, the transformation of already made objects into works of art. In 1915 Duchamp would be graciously invited to America to be a founding member of the American Society of Independent Artists. As being the chairman for the hanging committee, Duchamp had the exclusive access to select which works of art would be selected for the exhibition that was coming soon. Duchamp already created Fountain years before the selecting of works. Fountain comprised of a male urinal turned upside down with a signature, R. Mutt. Duchamp guessed right when his work was rejected, although he had turned his work in anonymously. After that he left the Society and created some ready-mades, but would later retire from art for chess. What is most important though is that Duchamp was questioning the purpose of art. He argued that artists for centuries had had studio assistants create their design, while the artist didn’t even directly craft his piece. What Duchamp was doing was merely bypassing that procedure all together by buying it off the market. Although it was not of his creation, he believed it to be of his designed since he chose the piece and displayed it in a way more abstract. Many of course were horrified and shocked at the piece because of its obscene nature as being a male urinal and directly correlates with humanities disgusting nature, but the most important element was the piece itself. It questions what the real nature of art is and what can be called art.

            L.H.O.O.Q. was another piece that created controversy. At the time the Mona Lisa had made international headlines because the piece was stolen and nobody knew where it was. Before this event the Mona Lisa was not as prized as it was today, so the theft left it with much fame. While this hiatus was occurring, many vendors sold postcards of the Mona Lisa painting. Duchamp bought one and decided to draw in a handlebar mustache with a goatee. Under the postcard he wrote L.H.O.O.Q. When the general public viewed this piece they were horrified and insulted that such a sacred and highly revered piece could be vandalized this way. In this way Duchamp was commenting on the nature of fame and how art can be viewed differently when under fame. In my opinion I would call Duchamp’s work as art, I do not like it, but the ideas behind the art give his pieces meaning. It wouldn’t work any other way, for example if I had grabbed a desk and split it in half, but I had no idea or symbolism behind why I did it or what the piece stands for, then the piece is merely a short gesture for art. I feel that in order for something to be art one must be connected in some way to the art. To have some sort of ownership to the object whether it be craft, idea, or design. 

Post-Impressionism

Much like technology, art is upgraded to new trends and new functions as time passes by. During the late 19^th century, impressionist artists dominated the art world. Their imagined and happy depiction of life came across as appealing to many, but some wanted to go even further in terms of artistic conventions. Paul Gauguin was a new breed of artist that was burgeoning in Europe. Called post-impressionist, these artists incorporated some artistic elements from the impressionist artists into their artwork, but further morphed the idea of painting. Gauguin’s painting, The Yellow Christ, is a good example of a post-impressionist painting. Through its different and similar characteristics of artistic elements, The Yellow Christ, according to Griselda Pollock’s formula, is considered ‘avant-garde’ work.

            Griselda Pollock uses a formula based on three rules for an artwork to be considered avant-garde. The rules are reference, deference, and difference. Based on these rules, The Yellow Christ can be considered avant-garde. The Yellow Christ uses reference by paying homage to the landscape paintings of the impressionist artists and to the Medieval European artists that depicted religious or spiritual scenes. Landscape is shown in the background of Christ, although it is not the focal point of the piece it is still engaging enough to refer to the landscape paintings of impressionist’s artists.

            Gauguin uses deference by showing an interest in light in color. The entirety of the painting is filled with vibrant and warm colors. Yellow, red, green, and blue, these colors create a lively and calming effect that creates a glowing rhythm of color. Gauguin also applies loose brushstrokes to create his piece, much like the impressionists painters. What sets him apart though, the ‘difference’, is that unlike the impressionists, Gauguin utilized color not as a tool to depict naturalness, but to evoke a more emotive feeling towards the piece. For example, Christ is depicted Yellow much like the landscape, I’m guessing because Gauguin wanted to symbolize Christ as nature, or specifically autumn, since it looks like it is fall. The landscape was just as important to the people as Christ was, so Gauguin wanted to portray the commitment the working class had to their religion as well as to their work. Another difference is the use of line, Impressionist painters had no real use of strong bold lines in their work. They preferred color to make up the shape of the figures and objects in the piece. Gauguin goes away from this convention to boldly outline all the figures in his painting including Christ. By outlining the figures, Gauguin focuses attention onto the figures. The landscape has little to no use of strong lines, so the figures in the foreground are the main attention of the piece. By doing this Gauguin goes away from impressionist artists. Instead of focusing on the celebration of the bourgeoisie and overall feeling of the piece, Gauguin is focusing on the lives of the working class. He wants the viewer to focus on the emotional feeling the female figures have towards their religion. The landscape is merely a additive that establishes the mood.

            Gauguin criticized impressionist painters for only painting what they wanted to paint. To have no sense of thought in the painting, Gauguin thought to be a useless painting. The Yellow Christ evokes thought because the subject matter is provocative, and the use of color combined with the subject matter makes a compelling piece.

The Critique of Modernity

            Modernity toke forth as the impressionists’ painters painted the recurring theme of the bourgeoisie and their daily activities. Caillebotte was one of those painters that pictured the lives of the middle class. He was a wealthy patron of the arts, that felt the Academy of Arts was lacking in new art. Caillebotte frequently bought works from his impressionist friends and amassed a large collection that would be later donated to the state of France. Besides his wealth and obvious affection for the liberal arts, Caillebotte was a tortured soul. Having survived the loss of three family members in four years Caillebotte turned to painting and hobbies to cope with the loss of his family. With these feelings of depression and loss, Caillebotte changed his artistic style to not be as easily recognizable as his fellow impressionist painters. At first his paintings are looked upon with pleasant looks. His paintings picture the lives of the bourgeoisie going about their daily lives and the mood seems to be one of calm, but on a closer examination some elements of his design point toward other ideas of modernity. Not one of the celebrations of life, but of the loneliness and separation of modern life. Caillebotte conveys this well in his painting Le pont de l'Europe.

            In the painting a scene is shown of people walking by a steel or iron rail way. By this time the industrial revolution had begun and factories and urban cities were a manifestation of the industrialization. Mass production was brought forth as the new means of production and many laborers saw their skilled job turned over to a machine that could perform more efficiently and with little to no expense. From this many people saw less interaction from others as machines were now taking up the position their neighbor once did. Instead of a reliance on humans, people were relying more on machines to satisfy their desires and needs. Caillebotte conveyed this feeling through the imagery of the train railway. The railway dominates the frame, not only in size but in the use of low key colors. The man leaning on the railway enforces the feeling of loneliness and desire to be needed.

            Another element that seems to point towards a critique of life is the use of space. Caillebotte painting uses a deep sense of space, but Caillebotte fails to fill the space. The distance between the figures and the objects around them seem to be far from each other, giving off a feeling of distance and separateness. The man and woman in the middle ground who seem to be walking together are in a distance that questions if their relationship is marital or even intimate. The man in the top hat is far enough ahead to suggest that he may be turning his attention to the woman behind him for other reasons. The whole painting seems to exhume this type of feeling, that there is no intimate relationship with anything. People become as mechanized as the machine that is created to help them. There is no look for intimacy or friendship, but to how one can gain from the other. This is the feeling I get from the bourgeoisie, the less successful man on the right though is slumped and looks like in deep thought. He conveys this mood that he is not looking for gain in the material world, but in the emotional one.

            Although very ambiguous, the dog in the painting can also be used as a critique of modern life. At the time the bourgeoisie were in hysteria of fear over the rabies disease. The bourgeoisie were given information from medical documents, newspapers, and from friends about the dangers of rabies. From this a phobia developed and many of the bourgeoisies blamed the working class for the spread of the disease. I believe that Caillebotte was trying to convey the social issues that surrounded the middle class. All these elements are tied together to enforce the critique of modern life by the use of the color palette. The color palette is very static, it seems without feeling and raises the mood of loneliness. 

Political Impressionism

            Although both have similar sounding names, Monet and Manet were two artists that had distinct artistic styles. Monet was born in Paris and trained under academic artists, but developed his own type of style. His friends encouraged him to keep going with the type of artistic style that he conveyed in his first work; from this came impressionism. Monet and many other impressionist painters portrayed the lives of middle and upper French class citizens. The scenes would entail peaceful relaxing and cheerful themes. Manet also learned many of his techniques through academic training, but also developed his own style as well. As the socialist movements were taking place Manet used this social change to add a sort of message to his works. Manet’s works portrayed many scenes of modern life just like Monet, but Manet had a more controversial side to it. Although both the artists have different approaches to their art, Monet and Manet have some similar artistic styles that can be analyzed in Monet’s The Rue Montorgueil and Manet’s The Rue Mosnier with Flags. Both these paintings depict the French festival of June 30^th 1878 celebrating the birth of the French Republic.

            In The Rue Montorgueil Monet the festival is shown from an aerial perspective. On both sides there seem to be an array of buildings adorned in the flags of France. There are masses of people, so this indicates that this is a massive and joyous celebration, this ties well with Monet’s style, he preferred to depict scenes in joyous and happy moments. Manet’s The Rue Mosnier with Flags pictures a different scene. Manet’s painting portrays the painting in a more realist and modernist approach. The buildings are still decorated with flags but there is not enough energy that is reached in Monet’s painting. The streets are almost empty, but for a few upper class citizens indicated by their attire and horse drawn carriages. The one thing that does separate Manet’s work with Monet is the left half of his painting. A male figure is shown with crutches, one foot and cloaked in worn out attire. This man could very well be a soldier that fought during the French Revolution. He is walking close to what seems is a rundown fence. Manet unlike Monet was not afraid to portray the reality of modern life. Monet painted pretty pictures to make you feel relaxed, but Manet painted to get a message across and to show the reality of modern life. Manet’s work pictures the harsh reality that many men were wounded because of the revolution and even though they made big sacrifices, their work was for nothing since the rich and privileged still controlled the social system. Monet on the contrary wanted to depict the festivities of the celebration and the happiness at the moment in the scene.

            Although both have different interpretations of the French festival there are some artistic similarities. Both Monet and Manet used quick light broad brushstrokes to make their compositions. In this way both artists achieved trying to create an impressionist painting, to capture a feeling, and moment in time. Monet’s use of color depicts his painting as warm and inviting, while Manet’s is cold and very uninhibited. Manet’s brushstrokes though seem to be not as quick as Monet’s because I believe that he was trying to raise an issue, to have the viewer think about the problems of modern society, while Monet’s use of brushstrokes only wants the viewer to feel the intensity of the celebration at the moment in time. Although both are great compositions, I prefer Manet’s because I like art that informs the viewer or makes the viewer think critically about social problems. Monet only wants to show the political celebration as a sort of propaganda. He is not concerned with the problems of that time only the moment in which the people of France are celebrating.

Impressionism

            Impressionism was born in France when groups of painters wanted to go away from the Salon artistic standards and create their own independent art group. When the independent group held an exhibition of their art, an art critic named Louis Leroy named the exhibition ‘impressionist’ based on the title on Monet’s painting, Impression: Sunrise. Intended to be a negative review, Monet and his colleagues liked the impressionist phrase and utilized it to characterize their art. Impressionism is supposed to evoke the feeling of the moment captured in the art. An example of this impressionist art is in Claude Monet’s On the bank of the Seine, Bennecourt. My reaction to the painting is one of calm and relaxation. Monet conveys these feelings by the use of color and line.

            Monet’s use of color helps the piece exhume the feeling of calmness. The colors in the background are warm. There seems to be a variety of neutral colors and a mix of low and high key colors to create a balanced visual weight. What makes this painting different than the past academic paintings was the use of atmospheric perspective, using cooler colors and blurring figures or objects to project the illusion of depth. Monet though, does not use atmospheric perspective. While the sky is a cool color, Monet is not trying to create depth; there is no difference between the middle and background. I believe that by doing this Monet was trying to engage the viewer to see the painting as a moment in time, to not think about the depth or narrative of the painting. Just to enjoy the scenery and have a sense of relaxation. The cooler colors on the foreground though contrast with the warm colors in the background. Although they contrast, the difference between the backgrounds does not distract the viewer from the overall composition of the piece. In a sense, the use of the cooler colors helps balance the temperature of the painting. Making a well balanced composition of color.

            The use of line that Monet uses also establishes a mood of relaxation. Monet uses light, fast, and open brushstrokes to create line. This action creates a very liberating movement in the piece. If Monet used hard solid lines to create objects, the scene would have been more serious and rigid. Monet’s use of line though creates this feeling as if someone was in a dream or in a faraway place where none of life’s worries take place. Although some of the houses in the background exhibit straight lines, if one where to look closely, one can see that the lines have bumps or curves that make the staccato line into legato. The use of line in the figures is also very indistinct. There are no details to outline the figures in the background, just little blobs of paint here in there. This is to reinforce the idea of relaxation, the figures are not what are important in the painting it is the overall feeling one experiences as they are placed in this space. The woman in the foreground is much more detailed than the figures on the background, but her clothes are made up of very quick strokes that the clothing in front of her is unrecognizable. The use of line in the female figure suggests ambiguity, that anyone could be in her position. Instead of focusing on her looking at the landscape, the viewer can imagine him or herself in the woman’s place.

            In the background, almost all the lines are horizontal. There is no intense use of line to suggest focal points or high interest points. From the shoreline to the hilltop the lines seem to be parallel to each other. Nothing stands out, so there is no need to pinpoint details in the scenery. The viewer is not stressed to find any meaning to the piece. The placements of the trees are vertical to the horizontal seating position of the woman on the grass. This creates a sort of right angle that places the woman right at the vertex. She is the point of interest, the high key hues used to formulate her enforces her as the focal point. Although she is the obvious focal point, again, the idea is not to see her within the space it is to see through her eyes the space. This idea is reinforced by the identity of the woman. You cannot see her face, so you cannot define her, you cannot read her expression, and you cannot tell what the narrative in the painting is. By having the woman be unidentifiable the viewer doesn’t focus all attention to her. Your eyes wander off to the landscape the woman is viewing giving the piece a relaxing and calm feeling.