Posted on 05/25/2005 6:27:04 AM PDT by Republicanprofessor
Well, now that exams are over, grades are in, I’d like to bring some Art Appreciation ideas to Free Republic. Unfortunately, as artists have become more and more abstract, it really does take some study and/or education to understand what their ideas are. One doesn’t always need a snotty PhD art historian to do so, however. Once a person learns how to look at artworks, one can make one’s own decisions about form and content. (One can't just "appreciate" the blue in a painting to really understand what the painting is about.)
Form and content: that’s what I emphasize in all my classes. What is the artist trying to say and what forms (colors, lines, shapes, etc.) does he use to convey that message? Another fun thing about abstraction is that different people can have different interpretations, that the pieces can work on different levels. I’m hoping we can have some fun discussions here on FR about these works. (I didn’t “get” all this stuff right away; I’ve been studying it for decades.)
So, here goes.
The camera was invented in 1839. While I am not going to deal with the history of photography, what’s important is that at this point artists are freed to go beyond realism. The camera can take normal portraits and all kinds of realistic images. The artists can begin to explore abstraction.
In the late nineteenth century, Maurice Denis said this “A picture--before it is a a war horse, a female nude, or some anecdote, is essentially a flat surface covered with colors in a particular order.” Thus the artist is now free to do what he wants on the painting. Whistler won a court battle for this at the end of the nineteenth century.
So let’s begin with Eduoard Manet (1832-1883) Here is his Olympia 1863 in contrast to the older (more realistic) image of Titian’s Venus of Urbino from the early sixteenth century.
Can you see the differences between these? What has Manet done to update Titian? He’s made the lady flatter and bolder; she is definitely a prostitute, and a rather successful one at that (judging by the flowers from an admirer).
Manet is a part of the movement called Realism from about 1860-75 or so. This includes Courbet, but I’m going to spare you his more socialist works. This does not mean that the works look “realistic,” but that they are exploring a new, more modern and flattened style of realism. What is real in this world? That question is discussed in this famous work by Manet, Dejeuner sur l’Herbe (Luncheon on the Grass) which is another reworking of another Venetian Renaissance work, this time by Giorgione Pastoral Symphony.
Manet Dejeuner and Giorgione's Pastoral Symphony
Notice that, in the earlier painting, these ladies are not prostitutes. Notice also, in Giorgione’s work on the right, that those men are not even paying attention to these ladies. That’s because the women are muses. The large, golden size is inspiring to the men as they compose music; one woman dips into the well of inspiration, while the other plays a flute-like instrument. This is also one of the first luscious landscapes, with a beautiful golden sky typical of artists from Venice.
Manet’s work has often bothered me. Why the larger, dressed woman who is bathing in the background? She actually completes a compositional triangle that has been seen frequently in art history. The other woman is blatantly looking at you, and is not looking slyly to the side as in Giorgione’s nudes. She is also not dressed, in contrast to the dressed woman who is bathing. And again the men are not looking at her. Why? One idea that I subscribe to is that the men (who are artists themselves) are discussing how to portray a nude. And one says he would paint her flatly, as if in real light, and not with the veiled allusions of the past. He would paint her directly and “realistically,” and voila, there she is. Manet is also saying that he can do whatever he wants in a painting. That means he can play with our heads, just like he does here and at the Bar at the Folies-Bergere.
Now I want to end by looking at Winslow Homer (1836-1910) our great American painter from the end of the nineteenth century and a contemporary of Manet. Manet has a tremendous world-wide reputation, but Homer is seen more regionally. But what do you think? Who is better?
Homer’s The Gale and Fog Warning
Perhaps Homer just appeals to me because I’m a New Englander, and I love the ocean and think he captures that life and death struggle of the ocean very well. I also like the way the “stories” of his paintings are open-ended. Will her husband return from the sea? Will the fisherman make it back to his boat?
These works will always move me more than Manet. And both men have a wonderful way with the brush. Things look nicely detailed from a distance, but up close you see just a sweep of a brush here and there. That brushwork, what we call painterly, is even more important in Impressionism and thereafter.
We know because the similarities are too great not to get them, and I believe he must have made some references (although this is not my area of expertise). He also did a reworking of Goya's Three Majas. He was very upset because few of the Parisians in 1863 "got" his references and were just upset at the blatant nudity.
Please, add me to the ping list.
Thanks. I enjoyed the art lesson.
Nice pick. By far the most interesting figure in the series that Rep.Prof. posted was the black woman in the Manet.
I wanted to reply earlier, but I haven't been by the computer for long enough until now.
Hopper is awesome. There is always an intense loneliness and what we see as nostalgia in his works. And yet the daylight often mitigates this loneliness. This Nighthawks is different, more bleak somehow without the daylight.
Isn't teaching rewarding in this way? I make them go to a museum for a final paper, and they all appreciate how much they've learned through the semester.
Flat means without modeling, which is a fancy word for shading. So instead of making figures round, as did Titian and Giorgione, they are stressing a 2-dm flatness, like a plane in geometry.
This flatness, and a new kind of space through warm and cool colors and the tension and movement thereof, is what concerns much of modern art. More about this in upcoming "lectures."
The Impressionists outdoor colors were new, and new in tubes, so they could go outside. Manet's works, in 1863, feel very much like studio works. There is no sense of real light on the Dejeuner lady. The dappled sense of light will develop by 1874 in the work of Monet, Renoir and others.
So, I agree with you. Manet doesn't feel "real" to me. But, as you said later, real is what the artists say it is.
The ladies in the background of Titians Urbino are not praying or vomiting (as another post said). They are finding something for the (nude) "mistress" to wear in the trunk.
Please add me to the ping list, Thanks.
I love that painting. The waves are not realistic, and the catboat is distorted, yet somehow the whole thing captures that feeling of well being combined with awe and fragility that you can get on the ocean at times.
Going to have to get a print of it for myself.
This is a fine thread you have underway...if things keep going like this, Freerepublic is going to surpass Wetcanvas.com as an art discussion site. That would be weird, but healthy. I think!
This particular thread already surpasses most of theirs.
I also like the way the “stories” of his paintings are open-ended. Will her husband return from the sea? Will the fisherman make it back to his boat? When I spent an afternoon with this work, it felt like I could truly understand what was going through the minds of these two girls. Then I wanted to know what life would hold for them five or ten years later. It's not just art to look at from an objective distance but it brings you in and makes you wonder.
Thanks for the thread.
Love it!! Printing out for bedside reading. Thanks.
If you have a ping list, please sign me up.
Goya's Maja desnuda is far more effective, IMHO, but I have always liked Goya better than ANY of the French impressionists (except maybe Renoir). Besides, she looks like she is a girl who enjoys a good time and has a twinkle in her eye . . . unlike Olympia who as somebody said just seems to be saying "Next!"
Thank you for the art appreciation class RProfessor. The Homer works are beautiful. My tastes have mostly tended toward American and Indian southwestern art paintings,pottery and sculpture. I'm also looking forward to your discussion of modern architecture. Please include me on your ping list. :o)
While in Las Vegas a few years ago, I visited Steve Wynn’s art collection, being shown at the Bellagio Hotel.
I was struck by how very, very good every piece he displayed was. Even his “modern” art was excellent.
It was somewhat of a sad irony though, as Steve Wynn has this beautiful art collection and he is losing his eyesight.
The piece that really struck me was Rembrandt’s Portrait of a Gentleman in a Red Doublet.
http://www.forbes.com/2001/01/24/0124pow.html
The online picture doesn’t even come close to showing how good this work is. I looked at it and obviously knew it was a painting, yet the skin appears to have the same semi translucent quality of real skin, it was truly remarkable.
As I looked at it, I thought, this is why the very best artists still try to compare themselves to Rembrandt van Rijn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.