Final Post

During this quarter we have studied many different types of art throughout history. One era of history that we studied was Realism. I liked realism because they wanted things to change in society and they were considered offensive to the bourgeoisie. I like realism so much because it was breaking away from what was considered the norm to academic standards.

            The painting “The Stone Breakers” by Courbet was the painting that I really liked from the realism era. I like it so much because the canvas size was so large and it was showing two guys working really hard. Realism art was breaking away from academic standards because it showed more of real life and what was happening in real life; rather than showing biblical subject matter. I also liked that the painting wanted things to change in society. There is so much emphasis on the poor rather the rich. The rich didn’t like that the paintings were so emphasized on the poor. According to academic standards the poor were supposed to be small and off in the background. This painting does the complete opposite; the men are taking up most of the canvas and are the main subject matter. Another thing I really enjoyed about this painting is that the men are looking away and you cannot see their faces. I think that this is key because it allows the poor to be recognized as a whole and not just as individuals. In doing this allows for more people to be aware that the poor are real people and that is a true part of life.

            Another era of art history that we studied was the political side of Impressionism because I really liked comparing “The Rue Montorgueil” By both Monet and Manet. The painting that I really liked was the one by Manet because it is closer up view of the streets of the festival in France. I also like that Manet showed a veteran that has one leg and is walking through the streets. I think that leaving this veteran with one-leg shows that there was a big price to pay for the festival they are having in France. I also like that Manet used a more up close and personal view of celebration in France. Monet’s version was a more an upper view and showed a very energetic scene. I like that Manet shows political things in his artwork. Manet didn’t want people to forget and him leaving in politics in his art can be considered avant-garde.

            I like the artwork that goes against academic standards and changes things and may even create controversy. I also think that art shouldn’t have standards. When I first looked at these two paintings I didn’t see the big deal with them. Learning the meanings behind them helped understand how they could have raised controversy in their time. In stonebreakers the bourgeoisie didn’t like to see the poor idolized and in Manets painting the crippled veteran is meant to remind people of the price that was paid to have a celebration after the war.

Pop Art- 20th Century

        Looking at art from the 20^th century I really enjoyed Roy Lichtenstein’s work. A painting of his that really stuck out to me was the “Drowning Girl”.  I like that he used comic book art as a major influence on his work. I think that this painting is very dramatic and I like that he considered adding text into his paintings as another visual element.

            Roy Lichtenstein artwork was a giant shift away from Abstract Expression. You can see very little of his feelings in art. You mostly see him recreating the culture. Abstract art has more of an influence by using their feelings and emotions into their work. Lichtenstein would use the mechanical reproduction, the use of the Ben-day dots; at times the dots would be highly exaggerated. They are small colored dots that are equal in size and evenly spaced. They are used to increase shading and contrast. Another characteristic of his works are the use of the thick black lines. The use of the thick lines helps give his painting the comic book feel because they look more as if they were drawn.

            “I’m never drawing the object itself; I’m only drawing a depiction of the object – a kind of crystallized symbol of it.” This was a quote from Roy Lichtenstein himself. (theartstory.org) It really explains how he is recreating the culture around him. As you look at the image of the “Drowning Girl” you can see the waves around her crushing against her. It makes me think that she has fallen or jumped off the boat and as she says “I don’t care- I’d rather sink than call Brad for help” makes me think she is talking to Brad on the boat. This painting is showing the drama in the culture and how this situation is humorous because the girl is choosing death out of feelings of spite. (artz.org)

            Roy Lichtenstein work is really moving away from the abstract expressionism I think that is why I like his style of pop art. I like the he takes the comic style of art and makes them larger and keeps them dramatic. I think that his use of bright colors was a big part of the 60’s and I like that he shows off that era in his work. Also the characteristic that he adds speech bubbles adds to the drama of the paintings and it allows the viewer to understand what it is going on in the paintings. His works are widely known and became very popular. 






http://www.artsz.org/lichtenstein-pop-art-drowning-girl/


http://www.theartstory.org/artist-lichtenstein-roy.htm

Effect of War on Art

The dada movement rejected subjectivity and left things up to chance. The dada movement also really challenged what defines art and challenges the nature of art itself. Artists wanted to make people understand that works of art are not defined as art has just objects made but by the reactions of the viewers as well. Both dada and surrealism questioned the modern society. Surrealism was considered to be more abstract and unorganized. Both were critics of work of art and critiquing the bourgeois life style. These movements raise issues on art and how it is created and also what considers art to be art.

Dada movement changed the artwork because it was letting chance take over. Dada movement was a big change in the art world. Duchamp buys objects that are mass-produced and he challenges the idea that the artist needs to craft something in order for it to be considered art. With that he brings up the question as to who is the deciding factor of what art is? Duchamp is a good example of the dada movement because you can see that he mocks the traditional art. Especially, with L.H.O.O.Q. that he painted facial hair to the Mona Lisa painting. I think that Duchamp takes other peoples artwork and just adds minor details and then calls it his own. Some might say that is not art, but then again you are questioned with who is the judge of what is art. I question that his art is actually art. I think that him taking mundane or ready-made objects and calling them art isn’t really art. Ready-made objects are objects or things that are mass-produced and things that people may use daily. But I also think it could be, because it makes the viewer pay more closer attention to the detail in the objects we see everyday. For example the “Bicycle Wheel” by Marcel Duchamp, he is taking two objects that are used in everyday life and puts them together to get people to look at them differently and more closely. This also goes with that art is just art sake and against saint-Simon said about art being useful. Duchamp took two useful objects and makes them not useful.

Surrealism movement was also against war and the bourgeois style of life. But the surrealism art was more unorganized and became more abstract, and sometimes violent. Surrealism had created different techniques to show works of art, such as the Photomontage. I think that the work done by Salvador Dali called “The Phenomenon of Ecstasy” was a good example of Photomontage. When looking at this work you really get that sense that it is a collage of pictures of different people and different parts of their body. The way that the women are positioned in the pictures makes the work of art seem somewhat erotic.

Surrealism and the dada movements gave art more ways to let the artists express themselves. There are more ways that art is created rather than using a canvas and oil paints. Both raise issues about art and makes people question art. 

Modernity and Masculinity in 19th Century France

        There are some strong differences between true impressionist art and the work of Caillebotte. Yet there is a similar quality to his work and the work of impressionists. I think you can really tell between the painting by Pierre-Auguste Renoir called “Moulin De La Galette” and the painting called “Paris Street: A Rainy Day” by Gustave Caillebotte.

            We haven’t talked much about the painting “Moulin De La Galette” but you can see the true characteristics of impressionist paintings. You can see a great deal of bright colors, the importance of lighting, and the thick brushstrokes. The first thing I notice in this painting is the lighting you can tell that Pierre-Auguste Renoir was paying strong attention to the lighting of this scene. In this painting there is so much energy throughout it. You see all these people and each are doing different things, some are dancing some are just having conversations with each other. What helps to create energy in this painting is the use of the bright colors of the sunlight shining through the trees. Pierre-Auguste Renoir used large thick brushstrokes to create this painting. You can tell when you look at the peoples clothing and their faces. The people’s faces are somewhat clear but yet they are somewhat unrecognizable.

            Some of the impressionist characteristics are seen in the painting “Paris Street: A Rainy Day”.  When you first look at this painting you see that it almost looks like a photograph. You see the bourgeoisie dressed in their finest clothes celebrating the modern life. When you look at the painting you see widen boulevards and lights are put in the streets, which is the updated modern city. This outdoor updated modern city worked well for the impressionist. In the painting “Moulin De La Galette” you see a great importance with the lighting. But in “Paris Street: A Rainy Day” there is not a keen study of the lighting, no scientific observation of color. However there is some sense of lighting because you can see shadows of the people and the lights casted on the puddles in the streets. Which fits with the impressionist. This painting is much more smooth and polished looked than other impressionist paintings. There is not that sketch like quality because the brushstrokes are more refined. You can clearly see the people’s faces in this painting verse the “Moulin De La Galette”.  In Caillebotte painting you can see that the scene is much more calm and the lighting is dim so there is less energy though the painting. Plus the widen boulevards add to the calmness of this painting because it creates that sense of isolation. This painting shows that modern life can lead to more isolation because you loose the interaction with people due to more machines and larger scale of productions. You can notice a Sense of loss and isolation in Caillebotte’s paintings especially paintings after he experiences death within his family.

            Both paintings do deal with the lighting in different ways but impressionist accepted both. However, Caillebotte doesn’t quite fit into this movement. Caillebotte’s paintings are much more refined because he doesn’t use bright colors, his brushstrokes are not as thick and you can clearly see the modernity in his work. I think the “Moulin De La Galette” shows the true impressionist. 

The Political Side of Impressionism

The painting “The Rue Montorgueil” by Claude Monet and the painting “The Rue Mosnier with Flags” by Edouard Manet are both painting of the French festival of June 30^th, 1878. They both show the festival but they show different point of views of the celebration. Both have a artistic techniques that are similar, from the outdoor scenes to the use of the light and colors.

In the painting “The Rue Montorgueil” by Monet shows from a viewpoint that is above the streets of France. You can see that there is a ton of flags hanging from each building. The flags in this painting add energy to the painting. You see many flags blowing in the wind and that there is so many it just gives the painting a great sense of energy. The use of the loose brushstrokes also adds more energy to the painting; you can see the use of them in the sky and on the flags. You can see that this painting is very celebratory because you see that the streets are filled with people. There are many people that are celebrating the festival. You see the streets filled with people and knowing the past behind this festival you seem to wonder if the people remember why they celebrate. The festival was to celebrate that France is getting back on their feet after the war, and to celebrate the new republic. Past is haunting and the painting is looking towards the future. The war and destruction is connected to this subject matter. 

As you can see that the two artists have very similar names. Manet even commented on the similarity with their names—“who is this Monet whose name sounds just like mine and who is taking advantage of my notoriety”. In this painting you can see that Manet brought his painting closer down to the ground, it is more up close and personal. You can see that the streets are emptier and you see a few flags hanging from the windows and buildings. It doesn’t show a large amount of blazing flags like in Monet’s painting. A way that you can differ Manet’s work over Monet’s is that Manet is associated with realism more. The major difference I find in these two paintings is the way they approach the subject matter. You can see that Manet often uses more whites and blacks. You can see the contrast with these colors in the painting “The Rue Mosnier with Flags” you see that the right side of the street is done in very bright colors and then you have this dark wagon. The crippled veteran also stands out against the light road. Another important difference is Manet brings in more politics than Monet. You can see this crippled veteran walking on the left side of the street. This man is showing the price that France had to pay to have this celebration. This man is a main reminder of the past that Manet didn’t want people to forget. Manet wants to continue to include politics in his art, avant grade art. With the on going tension between the radical art and the radical politics this becomes a part of the subject matter in this painting.  Everyone else is moving on to radical art and techniques

Each of these paintings show a great deal of pride with showing the flags that are up to celebrate getting back on their feet after a tragedy. Both use a nice detail in color and both are from different points of view. They are both reminders of the past but Manet’s painting has more of a reminder of what was lost for France to celebrate. 

Impressionism

In France in the mid 1800’s is when Impressionism began. Impressionism was a term used for the art movement that went against academic standards. The artist wanted to set up a group that goes against the academy.  They even stopped submitting their works to the salon for a while. Alla prima means at once. Artist of Impressionism started taking away the under painting, going against the academy rules of having the under painting layer. Monet is a main artist of the Impressionism. He was influenced by photography and that is why he creates art of that split second in time. And the photography influences go on to Impressionism.

A main characteristic of Impressionism is the use of the loose brushstrokes, the use of lighter colors, and the paintings were done outdoors not in a studio.  A good example of Monet’s work is the painting called “On the Bank of Seine, Bennecourt.

In this painting you can see that it is a relaxing day. You first notice a young woman sitting on the side of the riverbank staring out across the water. You get the sense of relaxation due to the colors that are used. Monet uses a variety of warm tones of colors. He would be blending different colors to show the effects of light. I think it really shows the urbanized Paris because Monet stays true to going outdoors and finding that different light. Monet was fascinated by capturing the different types of lighting so he would even paint the same scene at a different time of day just to show the different types of light.  You can also see the use of the loose brushstrokes, which is against that academic standard. With the loose brushstrokes Monet has created a depth and with Impressionism it’s not so much of the illusion that there is depth. Those thick spots of paint and the use of different colors create the depth in this painting. You see the paint that comes off the painting, true to the medium. And doesn’t use that illusionist quality set by the academy. Also using thin brushstrokes gives Monet a quick way to paint this moment in time. Impressionism was all about capturing a split second in time. A helpful tool that came about in this time was the painting tube, this allowed artist to take their art out of the studio and create more outdoor paintings.

In fact this is just a snap shot of what Monet had seen on the bank.  Monet picked a strong composition with this painting. He painted the trees on the left that seem to somewhat frame the young woman with its branches. Also the woman in the painting is not dead center, Monet is using that rule of thirds, and placed her off center to the left. Having her off center like that makes the viewer not all the way focused on her but it allows their eyes to move more through the painting.

            This painting also shows you more formal elements as Monet using the brushstrokes to create lines that guide the eye through the painting. He also created a sense of line because of the young woman looking out over the water and your eye just follows her gaze. I like that he created the houses on the reflection of the water. I think doing this adds more depth and also creates more lines that move your eye throughout the painting. As you first look at the woman looking out your eye goes up to the trees and out to its branches and then to the city. Monet using is using lines to move the viewer’s eye through the painting. He wants viewer’s to see the urbanized Paris of what it was in that moment in time. I think that viewers see this painting as relaxing because you can’t see a face to the woman sitting by the bank; therefore you can see yourself in her position. Her also face not being shown is also gives you a sense of mystery because the viewer tries to figure out what she is doing there.

Impressionism takes realism to the extreme. Impressionism goes against the academic standards by having those loose but thick brushstrokes, and having scenery from the outdoors. Monet’s work is a prime example of going against the academic standards. His work is full of loose brushstrokes, thick areas of paint, and Alla Prima. He paints what he sees and he is good at capturing a split second in time. 

Realism and the Early Avant-Garde - Option #1

      Gustave Courbet is a realist painter he only paints things that he can see and touch. A thing he said was show me and angel and I’ll paint one, I really like this quote because it shows his dedication to painting realistic things. Most of his work goes against the academic traditions. The painting “The Stonebreakers” and “A Burial at Ornans” are two examples of his that show social, political and artistic issues. These two paintings have moved away from the academic traditions and in doing so created strong rejections from the bourgeoisie.
      Academic traditions usually show biblical subject matter but in Courbet’s paintings he emphasized the peasant life. In the painting “The Stonebreakers” you see an older and younger man working very hard at breaking stones. You cannot clearly see their faces and that goes against academic standards. You can see that they are working hard because you can visually see the strain on their bodies. Another thing that goes against the academic standards is that these men are considered lower class or peasants and they take up the majority of the canvas. According to the older standards the peasants were made small since they are made much larger in this painting it’s a characteristic of Courbet’s to be technically radical.  “The Stonebreakers” painting was considered offensive by the wealthy because of the former issues of social, political and artistic in France. In this painting it was attacked, as being crude because Courbet was glorifying the working class and that didn’t sit to well with the wealthy. The bourgeoisies didn’t want to think about how they were oppressing the poor. This painting is like a kick in the face to them because you cannot see their faces and you just see these two men working very hard. Dimensions are radical, large painting. And in the academic style paintings of this size were reserved for historical subject matter. Again this is offensive to the bourgeoisie. Cropping is a characteristic of photography and that influences Courbet. It’s showing what is real and what is in front of him. The painting no longer exists it was destroyed in World War 2.

      In Courbet’s painting “A Burial at Ornans” was created on a much larger canvas than “The Stonebreakers”. In this painting you see an everyday even of a funeral. Some say that this painting is influenced by the funeral of Courbet’s grandfather, but as you see in this painting you can see that his grandfather is attending this funeral. In this painting you see many different people, it is not just poor people you can see that there are people that come from a higher class. In this composition the people are standing around, everyone has different reactions and looking in all different directions. There is no clear-cut subject matter so it takes awhile to even figure out what is going on. The biggest clue was the giant hole in the ground directly in the middle of the canvas. This hole was found to be offensive because it doesn’t make sense. Political suggestion is that the two men to the right are older revolutionaries. And Courbet tried to incorporate the newer social revolution. Both men and woman were offended by this painting. It is said that it disdained for the lower class.

     In both of these painting Courbet showed political radicalism by glorifying the lower class and showing empathy-oppressed state of the lower class workers. He showed the technical radicalism by now showing a clear view of the individual faces, that the lower class people filled the majority of the canvas, and using a canvas of a very large size. All these things were against the academic standards and offended the bourgeoisies.