[Sloth]

I rather like the ones where the painting is very much like a photograph taken through something blurry, like a rain-spattered window -- if you squint at them, they could pass for photographs of real subjects.

The first one you posted of the seascape at sunrise, is a little *too* impressionistic for my taste; the boats & the water are fine, but the stuff beyond is kind of a mess -- I can't tell if the slate-colored crap at the upper left is supposed to be sailing ships, or a shoreline with mountains or buildings, or what.

But I like much of Monet's other work. I found an early one where he does a remarkable job on the water, given how little detail there is:

I don't much care for Gauguin stuff, though. The 'Vision after the Sermon' looks childish. Looks just as bad squinting at it.

I think the cow was probably just looking for a nice painting with a lush meadow and some reasonable sense of perspective (like the Monet below), but took a wrong turn at Albuquerque and ended up in Crazy Red Flatworld.

[Republicanprofessor]

But I like much of Monet's other work. I found an early one where he does a remarkable job on the water, given how little detail there is.

Painting water is difficult. I think it was Sir Kenneth Clark who noted that the impression of water was essential to Impressionism. Think of it: if the water is not still, how on earth do you pin it down to paint it? A wave or ripple comes towards you, and it's gone before you can comprehend its shape and color. Thus you study how water works and paint an impression of it.

Monet's late waterlilies are incredible, especially at the Carnegie in Pittsburgh. There is no horizon line. What you see is reflections from a millileter of water, and the reflections of sky, clouds and willows are infinite. Plus he is doing this at what I think of as sunset, at the sunset in his life. More profound than you might otherwise think.

This one is from Paris, not Pittsburgh. I couldn't sort thorugh over 2,000 images to find the Pittsburgh piece.

And Chicago does have great Monets and Impressionist works in general (including a fine Caillebotte).

[John O]

I agree with Sloth. And thanks Sloth for the new way to look at these. If you squint they actually look good sometimes.

I like the Caillebotte's from post 14 and post 36, the Twachtman's in 16 and 24 (although the 16 is a better painting even though I love the real Emerald pool. God is the best artist of them all), the Monet's in 22 and the two Sloth posted (although the second is better than the first)

The Monet's posted in the article are too formless and dreary to go over the sofa. Likewise the haystack just doesn't catch the eye or the imagination.

[Republicanprofessor]

I rather like the ones where the painting is very much like a photograph taken through something blurry, like a rain-spattered window -- if you squint at them, they could pass for photographs of real subjects.

I'm not sure about this squinting thing. We don't usually do that in class, because I just relish the brushwork as it is. What I love is how they can create images with just a splash of paint. That loose brushwork is not as easy as it looks and has more immediacy and spontaneity than using a very small brush and tight hand to get things exactly "right" as in a photograph.

I also just like the way the blobs of paint, if you will, create a new level of visual interest, especially if the white of the canvas or other colors shine through. I think this is from one of the waterlillies, but I just found it on a google search and love it at it is: a detail of his brushwork.