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. 

Realism and Early Avant-garde

            By the middle 1800’s, the Industrial Revolution was increasing at an unprecedented rate all over Europe and the United States. Many machines that required energy and a solid structure increased the demand for coal and iron. Many of the rural populations moved to the newly formed urban societies to hopefully work in the factories and industrial plants. Thus the middle class was born, also known as the bourgeoisie. While the factories provided work, the conditions in the factories and mines were unsanitary and unhealthy. Many of the workers subject to these working conditions were women and children, which forced the government to create regulations to have a safer workplace. Although the regulations helped the factory workers to a certain degree, some socialist thinkers shunned the capitalistic exploitation of the workers for maximum profit. Men like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued against the economic structure of capitalism and prophesized the eventual demise of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, or the working class. In the art world the same movement was taking forth.

In France, the Academie des Beaux-Arts was considered the highest influence over what styles of art was the most significant. Many of the art works were historic paintings and depicted the struggles and journeys of heroic and important men. Then in 1831, an architect named Eugene Viollet-le-Duc brought the idea of avant-gardism to the art world. Avant-garde artists thought their work to be in advance of the current artwork at the time and would reflect the ideas of socialism. Viollet-le-Duc gathered a few independent artists to create art that was against the Academie Beaux- Art. He wanted artists to create controversy and new political and social ideas. From this came Realism, the depiction of life in the real and natural world. Many of the independent artists depicted the urban lower class in their daily activities. The art was not to celebrate a historic moment or commemorate an important figure; the art was simply to show the reality of the modern world. An artist that conveyed this was Gustave Courbet in his work of the Stone Breakers.

At the time the Stone Breakers was looked down upon by the bourgeoisie. The piece looks very innocent and simple from a certain perspective, but upon further examination the piece conveys ideas of socialism and the flawed social class of the bourgeoisie. In the Stone Breakers two men are in their occupation breaking stones for road gravel. At the time, this was considered the lowest type of work, so this piece automatically receives negative attention from the bourgeoisie as it does not portray a historic moment and being in a large scale it should have portrayed something historical. One of the men is old while the other is young; they are both faceless, purposely done this way to show the unimportance of the men. This was another detail that was frowned upon the bourgeoisie because their styles of art called for figures of grand importance and with recognizable faces. Courbet then pictured the men in pheasant-like clothing; the younger one in more modernized attire, making a political statement that the new generation will have a grim future in a capitalistic system. This was far from the styles the bourgeoisie promoted in their artwork. Many of their artworks promoted the wealth and prestige of individuals, and emphasized the importance of an intellectual and ambitious mind. Courbet fought against this by picturing a scene with two poor male figures of unimportant background with little to no education, working in the lowest of society’s occupations. By doing this, Courbet in a way made these anonymous men into some kind of heroes, which was far from the hero the bourgeoisie conveyed in their art. The composition of the piece and the use of color further carry the piece closer to realism. The figures are juxtaposed in awkward positions and the colors used for the piece are dark gloomy and give a feeling of exhaustion. Courbet was intent on creating a piece that was a real as possible to give the viewer no indication that this was a dramatized scene in history like in the bourgeoisie art. The viewer is to see the harsh reality of the lower class and the exploitation they are subjected to by the bourgeoisie.