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.
Titian balanced his painting by showing both "binge" and "purge".
But seriously, could you please add me to this ping list? Molto obrigado.
In the first pair of pictures. I far prefer the Titian as the image is far more appealing to me. (art is what looks good over the sofa). I've seen better art than the Manet in comic books.
The woman in the Manet is a hooker. Heels in bed and the choker, as well as the look that says "next". Can't determine if the flowers are from an admirer or just to cover up poor hygiene
While both are looking directly at the viewer the Titian nude seems to be looking at a lover vice a customer, her look is softer (beyond the different styles) and the placement of her left hand leads to a more sensual feeling to her. The sleeping dog (puppy) also lends to that easy carefree relaxed feeling while the alert cat in the Manet gives a more active feel to the scene.
Second set. Don't really care for either of these. Neither would go over the sofa.
The bathing chick is totally out of place. The extra figures in the Giorgione seem to set the park-like (or perhaps estate) atmosphere of the piece. They 'fit' where they are. The bathing chick looks like she was added just to fill that space. She doesn't connect to the rest of the piece.
To a lessor degree the other nude doesn't really fit either. She is obviously of the same 'period and place' as the two men but seems to have no connection to them. Kind of like a girl hanging out at a gay bar.
The whole peice just doesn't have any harmony.
Contrast that to the nudes in the Giorgione. They don't seem to have the same temporal connection to the men so it is easier to overlook the lack of relational connection to them. G manages to maintain harmony through the whole work even though the nudes aren't connected to the men. Somehow they fit.
Again the style of the G is much better than the style of the Manet but neither would go over the sofa
I can take or leave the Homer's. The Gale is too narrowly focused to attain visual appeal with such a limited color choice and Fog Warning doesn't do a thing for me. I've never been a seascape person. Again neither one goes over the sofa.
So in this roundup only the Titian passes the first test of art.
BTW, none of these are pornographic. the one that perhaps comes closest would be the Titian (I hope that doesn't say anything bad about me) as it's the only one that sets the appropriate mood for sex. The first Manet sets the mood for business and the middle set don't set a mood at all. (Of course some would say that the Homers tread the line but those folk are probably sexually depraved anyway. :^) )
By the storm torn shoreline, a woman is standing
The spray strung like jewels in the air
And the sea near the rocks, near that desolate landing
As though it had known, she stood there
For she had come down, to condemn that wild ocean
For the murderous loss of her man
His boat sailed out, on Wednesday mornin'
And its feared she's gone down, with all hands.
from "The Fisherman" by Silly Wizard
All these women need to take of at least 15 pounds and work on their abs.
"he would paint her flatly, as if in real light, and not with the veiled allusions of the past."
I disagree that real light gives a flat appearance, quite the contrary. Photographs give a flat appearance though, although some photograpers manipulate this in the darkroom, pushing the darks and lights. I understand that the Impressionists went for the flat appearance in an effort to portray realism through impressions of light and color, rather than strict representation. Did they also have some colors that were unavailable to the old masters? Of course, IMO, all artists, even the old masters, have altered reality in one way or another in order to portray a personal reality that they wished to share with others.
Homer is one of my favorites, I far prefer him to anyone else in your post - he catches a reality that, as an outdoorsman and former professional seaman, I can seriesly identify with.
From what few actual works by Titian I have seen, portraiture was something at which he excelled, though I believe Anthony Van Dyke has been the real master at that.
Great work, Prof.~! What a nice idea
This watercolor amazes me, by Baro:
What is the deal with the young girl praying in the background of the Titian, under the (apparent) watchful eye of what looks to be a nanny or governess?
My untutored guess: it is the woman as a child, begging forgiveness for her first lustful thoughts, in which she has just indulged as an adult woman.
Thanks for the ping. I prefer Homer to Manet. They appeal more to my sense of beauty.
I thoroughly enjoyed this mini-lecture and would appreciate you pinging me on your other lessons. My best friend minored in art and she is my "artsy" buddy. We attend galleries, museums, the opera and so on together. She may be moving and I am going to go into culture shock without her. My husband is a willing accomplice but he does not enjoy it so it takes some of my enjoyment out of it.
I happen to enjoy the realism of the past and am not so fond of the more modern artists; however, I can't explain why I like certain artists so much, such as Dali, Picasso, Basquiat, Pollock and so on. Ordinarily, I don't like surreal stuff or anything that is not very realistic. I also happen to hate how certain individuals consider themselves to be the elite of the art world and, thus, must interpret what is art to us, even though it might be pretty hideous and a mockery (e.g. the elephant that paints; saw on 60 Minutes).
Again, thanks Professor! I would not wish to imagine a world without art.
Thanks for the threads, great idea!
Of course this was considered shocking, shocking, when it was first shown. Which just goes to show that sensuality isn't just about clothes, more about gesture.
Don't mind another post from me - forgot to answer your questions.
1. Prefer Titian to Manet.
2. Definitely not pornographic.
3. Love Homer as artist but too dark and foreboding stuff for my taste.
Watercolors have always blown me away. With oils etc. if you don't like something, scrape it off or paint over it. There is no room for mistakes in Watercolor. Those artists have my great respect. The old man in the boat is absolutely wonderful.
Although when that portrait was originally shown, one of the straps on the gown was painted as having fallen down from the shoulder.
Add me to PING list please.
The Titian is gorgeous. The other is.. not.
Naked lady on a couch... Art
Naked lady on a couch eating a banana....?
BTW. Is it just me or is the woman in Manet's Olympia missing a nipple?
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.