Bad Impression (A critic confesses: I hate Monet.)

New York Magazine ^ | Mark Stevens

[Republicanprofessor]

Art ping.

Let Sam Cree or me know if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.

[Republicanprofessor]

We need some images for this article.

Monet's and Derain's views of Parliament. I don't know if these were in the show or not.

I love the internet; not only do I get my "fix" on art topics, but I can see images paired that I've never seen in person before.

Derain does have more solid images of Parliament. Even the sun is more solid. But the author is wrong that Monet is all eye candy; he does have content and meaning in the very items he chooses. Why Parliament? Probably because it is a symbol of English government and national Gothic architecture. Monet chose Rouen cathedral to paint for the same reason: it glorified France.

[Joe 6-pack]

It almost looks as if Monet was trying to recreate the now mythic "Impression: Sunrise," for the British crowd....

[AnAmericanMother]

J.M.W. Turner

Henry Pether

Another, I think better, Derain

[AnAmericanMother]

BTW,

Baroque is what you are when you are out of Monet.

. . . badda-bing.

< sorry, you can hit me now. >

[Republicanprofessor]

I was looking forward to your comments.

Monet was definitely influenced by Turner, and I love that Turner of the burning of the (old) Houses of Parliament. It shows how his work is all fire, air, water and very little solid ground. Even the bridge at the right hardly looks solid.

I do a funny thing in class with Monet and works like these. If you could "punch your hand" at the objects in the painting, would you hit something solid? With Monet, even his cathedrals seem like air and you could punch with impunity. Same with Turner. (Now, with the Post-Impressionists, you'd hit something solid and hurt your hand.) Don't do this in a real museum; you could be in for $40 million worth of damage!

Sorry your Pether work did not come through. I don't know his work.

[wagglebee]

I went to the Monet exhibit at the Bellagio in Las Vegas back in December, it was absolutely incredible. I stayed for three hours.

[AnAmericanMother]

Dang, it was there a minute ago!

Mid- to late-Victorian English painter (1830-1902). Somewhat pedestrian but very atmospheric work. Best known for his pictures of water by moonlight.

[walden]

I was also there a long time-- in fact, I was back in town the following year and went again. Fabulous! And, I disagree that Monet was merely an "eye"-- in fact, I don't know what that means. If they're trying to say that his work isn't "emotional" then I disagree completely-- to work to capture light as he did displays a passionate love of the beauty of color.

[Sam Cree]

I am pretty much of a Turner fan. This is one of my favorites, I love trains also:

[wagglebee]

The thing that amazed me the most is that all of Monet's worked seemed to become "clearer" depending on the distance you stood from them. Posters and pictures in books don't do them justice.

[Sam Cree]

The writer doesn't make his point. It would have helped if he'd mentioned what it is that he really liked. I guess I am not taking him seriesly after having read this (silly) sentence:

"I prefer the exquisite Dionysian ferocity of Matisse’s Dance I, which emphasizes communal release"

[Ditto]

The thing that amazed me the most is that all of Monet's worked seemed to become "clearer" depending on the distance you stood from them.

Exactly correct. Juxtapositions. The eye blends the image.

Nobody "gets them" without seeing the original. One of the most fun I had with my kids was showing them a very large Monet Water Lilly canvas at the Carnegie in Pittsburgh. I intentionally walked them up close to the painting at first and asked them what they saw. They were not "impressed".;~))

Then I walked them across the room to sit on a bench and asked them to look at it again. They fell in love with it.

Amazing talent involved in painting a large canvas, at arms length, that is intended for viewing from many yards away. A person has to be exceptionally skilled in seeing the "important" detail to render that image. I only wish I had a room big enough to do a Monet justice.

[wagglebee]

I only wish I had a room big enough to do a Monet justice.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that most people who can afford a Monet probably have a room in their house that's big enough for it.

[walden]

"Posters and pictures in books don't do them justice."

So true. I think there's something about the brokenness of the color, and the way one color zings off of another, that the camera just cannot capture.

I am a painter myself, mostly in oils, and I had the funniest reaction the first time I left that exhibition-- even though I KNOW it's not true, my thought was, "His paint must just be BETTER than mine!" Wrong-- it's not about the paint. ;)

[wagglebee]

My guess is that the moronic author of this commentary was very supportive of federal money being spent on "artwork" such as a Crucifix in a jar of urine.

even though I KNOW it's not true, my thought was, "His paint must just be BETTER than mine!" Wrong-- it's not about the paint.

Maybe it was this:

[walden]

Oh, I doubt it. He just saw more color than most people, and I have discovered that a trained eye is something one can acquire. Takes time, and practice, though.

[Petronski]

Monet is genius.
This writer is jealous.

[vannrox]

I was wondering if you liked more impressionist art... I have a real liking for George Inness. He might be too reaslistic for some people, but he blends his images with such beauty and sweep that they appear magical.

October

Passing Clouds