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.
I see where that painting is coming up for auction. Apparently, infuriatingly, it's not quite in the same price range as a Warhol, but I gues it'll still bring millions.
I was really rushed yesterday and didn't have the time to sit and write as much as I would have liked.
I didn't respond to you in part because you were right on. In fact, I haven't heard such a good interpretation of that "cotton picking" work before. It is wonderful to be absorbed into any artworks and to really "get" what the artist intended.
Homer was one of the first artists to paint black people with dignity and without racial stereotypes. One of my favorites is The Gulf Stream. I often pair it with the Fog Warning shown earlier on this thread.
In this work, the ending is more pessimistic than in the Fog Warning. This was inspired by a water spout storm in the Carribbean (vs. New England for the other painting). The black man is cut adrift, unaware of the ship in the background, without any mast or oar or controls. This painting has been connected to Reconstruction. Yes, slaves were freed, but there were no schools, no banks, no infrastruction. And the KKK developed, like the sharks swarming here.
Homer's work is very powerful.
I have heard of some who wanted to cover reproductions of David. There were also some cardinals who ordered the loin cloths to be added to Michelangelo's Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.
To me, nudity alone is not pornographic, and many on this thread nailed that. It has to excite to be pornographic. (But, of course, different people are excited by different things....let's not go there.)
Anyway, modern art seems like the longest-running hoax in history, kept alive only by financial speculators and academics.
I prefer realism, or any related style. I like the paintings you selected above, particularly the image of the men in the boat. I have no tolerance for abstract and modern art.
Homer and Manet, and many others, were inspired by Japanese prints and their frequent use of diagonal compositions. But, I agree, Homer is much more subtle in his use of them. And more powerful as a result.
Re Goya's Maja, the image of which is in post 90 something. The head always looks wierd on this. From the top of my head, I think this work and its clothed counterpart were made for a man with the head of his mistress painted on the top of another model. I also remember something about this also being Goya's mistress. But I'm not sure (and I definitely don't have the time to research this.)
I'm not sure I can be so selective about my pings, so I'll just add you and you can ignore what you don't like. I'm also not sure I'll do Remington, although his work is fine. I'm sorry to say this, but I don't know Charlie Russell's work. I'll have to look it up.
I could do this "lecture" thing for hundreds of lectures to get all the important people. I think I'll just hit the highlights and do a few. But I'm beginning to think an on-line course might work. I'd dismissed that idea before.
Put me on your ping list, please...
I thought (maybe incorrrectly) that Manet was a Mannerist painter...
The Phillips Collection in D.C. is even better because you can see the house where he hung the works. His taste was broad and wonderful. He's one of my favorite collectors, especially since he loved Ryder and Dove.
Loved all your discussion of Sargent. And thanks for the photo of the original (more shocking) painting. I'll use that in class!
I understood that she is a prostitute...
The flowers, as you mentioned, the slave presenting them, wearing shoes in bed, the neclace...
I understood that she is a prostitute...
The flowers, as you mentioned, the slave presenting them, wearing shoes in bed, the neclace...
Also, notice in the second painting, the subject looking directly at the viewer...
I checked out the link, and I had a thought. Are you (and Steve Wynn) sure that this is an original? They had a group of scholars within the last decade or so who sought out most of Rembrandt's works to determine authenticity. A surprising number of them were fakes, or were by his students, or whatever. Imagine the Frick Museum in NYC "discovering" that one of their Rembrandts has been designated a "fake."
Of course, it may just be a bad internet image (even more common than fake Rembrandts). But it seemed to lack a great deal of his subtlety, especially in the doublet. My guess is that it is a bad image on the internet. But that's something to watch out for when you buy your next Rembrandt. :)
I'm adding you to the ping list to see if I can get you to see some other qualities in modern art, when we get there. I expect you will add a great deal to the discussion.
Many years ago, when the show was still funny, the Simpsons did a clever bit on this subject. The statue was touring the US and some mothers objected that it was harmful to children so a fig leaf was strategically placed.
Good luck ;-)
I expect you will add a great deal to the discussion.
Being self-ignorant has its advantages and disadvantages.
I always loved the fact that Roseanne's TV kids had a poster of Munch's Scream on their bedroom door.
And, I go to museums in NYC, but appreciate the background that you are giving. It helps--keep it up!!
Goya is a splendid painter, sometimes very disturbing.
Poor dog!
Yes. One always sees Nighthawks, but I prefer his early morning cityscapes.
We recently had a battle about that very thing here in Richmond within the last 6 months. Seems one snotty person thought that David was "inappropriate" (repro statue in front of a mediterranean restaurant) and insisted on covering it. Finally, saner heads prevailed.
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.