Art Nerd Alert
Art Nerd Alert Yesterday, my friend Jill and I had a day full of adventures! Starting with a lucky score of a table at Cafe Besalu, where we had perfectly made pastries and fantastic coffee. But, it's Cafe Besalu, and that's why you go there. From there we caught a bus downtown to The SAM. I'm fairly comfortable bussing places. I like public transportation because, well, it's cheap and convenient enough for me. The SAM's current exhibit, that ends today, is Inspiring Impressionism: The Impressionists and the Art of the Past. I'll be honest... I've never been a huge fan of the Impressionist movement. I always found it pretty bland, and certainly not my esthetic tastes, but, as an art major and an art history minor, I had to at least study it in SOME part. Well, that some part left me pretty apathetic , and with no desire to really ever study it further. Kinda like the first time I visited Paris.. but, in both cases.. Damn, I'm glad I gave them a second chance!
*** WARNING! The Following is an Art History Lesson! Please scroll past if you do not want to read about art! ***
The exhibit was PACKED! Full of people AND pieces. Manet, Cassatt, Degas, Renoir, Monet, Pissaro, Morisot... the rest of their contemporaries.. AND... the works in which they studied almost exclusively in the Louvre. Now, my ambivelance to the impressionist movement had sortof an exception. There was Degas. Degas is, well... different. Degas had MOVEMENT! Degas had LIFE! still lifes and landscapes be damned. As a photographer, I appreciate the "candid shot" aspect he has in his compositions. Sure, that was a major part of the impressionist period, the deviation away from The Salon, and the tradition in Beaux Arts that themes were classical and "elevated" and composed with a rigid structure, where the impressionists tossed that all out for a "stick it to the man" sort of movement. "Fuck this 'elevated themes' shit, give me REAL life, give me the things that everyone can relate to and appreciate, give me simplicity."
But, wait! Hadn't this all been done before? Yeeeees! and the Dutch were MASTERS of it! The Dutch were, and I guess are, famous for their paintings of still life scenes, of the ordinary, of the everyday. Ice skating on the lake, maids at work, people eating dinner at a table. That was an edgy move, breaking tradition, painting art that wasn't religious scenes. Elevating the ordinary to art worthy? Kinda a ballsy move.
So, you might be asking (and if you're not, fine, I did) "if it had been done before, what's the big deal?" AH HA! Exactly! What IS the big deal?! I'll tell you. This is going to take some explanation. Sorry, you'll have to keep reading if you want an answer, cause it's not that simple!
Art follows a pendulum. It's true, check it out, I know, I studied this... Art goes from very conservative "classical" themes to the silly and abstract and absurd, and then right back again. Sometimes the pendulum swings faster than others, but, look at a timeline of art, and you'll see where this is going. I promise.
Let's start with Rococo, because, well, this is the closest PEAK of the pendulum on the "absurd" end before impressionism. So, Rococo. Yeah... that RIDICULOUSLY over-the-top gilded and flourished and dramatic and.. well, garish art of the 18th century. Spanning from the early part of the 1700's to about 1780. So, after about 80 years of what in literature would be called "purple prose", it had to go! So where do you go from there?
Neoclassism. Yuh. That's right, the most extreme change you could make. Calm, simple structures, portraying classic, heroic themes. Coincidence that it fell into the period of the French Revolution? Uh, no. The Neoclassical period is FULL of revolutionary imagery and themes.
So, from the neoclassical to what? What would follow a revolution and civil upheaval? The Romantics, and the Realists. Shocking. Don't get the wrong impression about the romantics. They weren't painting pictures of lovers under shady trees. That was the Neoclassicals, with Aphrodite lounging naked on the beach with cupid.. No No Noooooo! The romantics were CRAZY! They painted with emotion. With PASSION! Bright, firey colors! Battle scenes, soldiers fleeing, art was a portrayal of the news that they were getting everyday. Especially in France, where there was a growing sense of despair after Waterloo. And the Realists? While war made the Romantics firey and passionate, the Realists became the mundane "so, this is our life..." painters. This was now art depicting humble citizens doing what they do. Mythical heroes found themselves thrown out, just like the Romantics had done with them. Portraits of the rich and well-off were nowhere to be found.. Revolutionary War-torn, and industrial-revolutionized societies weren't feeling so hot about those in the "haves" half of life.
So, political art, right? I'd say those 2 both would fall into that category.. making a statement about the status quo? Yeah. So, after art becomes a downer with themes getting a little too personal and depressing about everyday life, there's only one thing to do. Bring in some movers and shakers. Here come the Pre-Raphaelites! Wooo! The PRs were a group of rebel artists challenging the Royal Academy. They felt art was starting to portray subjects that seemed "artificial", and the color was muddy and dark. So move back to.. dun da da dun! Scenes from the bible! They also favored mythical themes, and heavily dosed their paintings with symbolism because art should be "serious", with "deeper meanings!"
The impressionist movement followed the Pre-Raphaelites... See where this is going?? Frivolous to a build up of seriousness in art, and then.. gotta go back the other way! I told you it'd all make sense. And, if you continued the timeline, you'd see the pendulum swinging back to silly (dada, surrealism, etc).
But anyway...the Impressionists were about to buck the system again. Like I said before, they wanted art that was "accessible" to the general audience. Art everyone could understand, and could say "ah, how nice". But, dear ducklings, these artists weren't just trying to paint pretty pictures. No way, Jose. These guys a couple gals were some sassy bitches, too. While they may have been reaching back to the past for inspiration, they were bringing about a new perspective! Literally. HOW do we see things? The camera had become more available for people... you could get your portrait taken where before you had to be fairly wealthy to have a portrait painted. Photo prints were even becoming art themselves. So, now there's this huge interest in optics, and how they work. How does a lens capture light? How do we manipulate light? How do we INTERPRET light? The impressionists were on it. Start with Pissaro.. an almost pointalistic approach to depicting scenes. For the sake of time, skip the in between of the impressionist timeframe and look at Renoir's "the wave". How incredibly different the way that light was translated onto a canvas! from lots of time little sweeps of the brush in Pissaro's work, to the broad, "general" strokes of paint in Renoir Compare these artists works to the other masters of light... The Dutch. Compare how Monet and Renoir capture light to how Vermeer and Rembrandt approach it. The soft, subtleties of Monet's mid-day sun filtering onto a seated couple, or even Renoir and his garden party scenes.. and then contrast that with the dramatic direct light that illuminates the faces of Rembrandt's subjects.
I get that this, if you read it, probably bored the hell out of you. But, for me.. well, this was a new found appreciation of a period of art I found to be overrated and even superficial. Looking at these artist from a more founded history really gave me a new respect for their work and what they achieved, and what they inspired in future artists. I like me some sassy bitches.
*** WARNING! The Following is an Art History Lesson! Please scroll past if you do not want to read about art! ***
The exhibit was PACKED! Full of people AND pieces. Manet, Cassatt, Degas, Renoir, Monet, Pissaro, Morisot... the rest of their contemporaries.. AND... the works in which they studied almost exclusively in the Louvre. Now, my ambivelance to the impressionist movement had sortof an exception. There was Degas. Degas is, well... different. Degas had MOVEMENT! Degas had LIFE! still lifes and landscapes be damned. As a photographer, I appreciate the "candid shot" aspect he has in his compositions. Sure, that was a major part of the impressionist period, the deviation away from The Salon, and the tradition in Beaux Arts that themes were classical and "elevated" and composed with a rigid structure, where the impressionists tossed that all out for a "stick it to the man" sort of movement. "Fuck this 'elevated themes' shit, give me REAL life, give me the things that everyone can relate to and appreciate, give me simplicity."
But, wait! Hadn't this all been done before? Yeeeees! and the Dutch were MASTERS of it! The Dutch were, and I guess are, famous for their paintings of still life scenes, of the ordinary, of the everyday. Ice skating on the lake, maids at work, people eating dinner at a table. That was an edgy move, breaking tradition, painting art that wasn't religious scenes. Elevating the ordinary to art worthy? Kinda a ballsy move.
So, you might be asking (and if you're not, fine, I did) "if it had been done before, what's the big deal?" AH HA! Exactly! What IS the big deal?! I'll tell you. This is going to take some explanation. Sorry, you'll have to keep reading if you want an answer, cause it's not that simple!
Art follows a pendulum. It's true, check it out, I know, I studied this... Art goes from very conservative "classical" themes to the silly and abstract and absurd, and then right back again. Sometimes the pendulum swings faster than others, but, look at a timeline of art, and you'll see where this is going. I promise.
Let's start with Rococo, because, well, this is the closest PEAK of the pendulum on the "absurd" end before impressionism. So, Rococo. Yeah... that RIDICULOUSLY over-the-top gilded and flourished and dramatic and.. well, garish art of the 18th century. Spanning from the early part of the 1700's to about 1780. So, after about 80 years of what in literature would be called "purple prose", it had to go! So where do you go from there?
Neoclassism. Yuh. That's right, the most extreme change you could make. Calm, simple structures, portraying classic, heroic themes. Coincidence that it fell into the period of the French Revolution? Uh, no. The Neoclassical period is FULL of revolutionary imagery and themes.
So, from the neoclassical to what? What would follow a revolution and civil upheaval? The Romantics, and the Realists. Shocking. Don't get the wrong impression about the romantics. They weren't painting pictures of lovers under shady trees. That was the Neoclassicals, with Aphrodite lounging naked on the beach with cupid.. No No Noooooo! The romantics were CRAZY! They painted with emotion. With PASSION! Bright, firey colors! Battle scenes, soldiers fleeing, art was a portrayal of the news that they were getting everyday. Especially in France, where there was a growing sense of despair after Waterloo. And the Realists? While war made the Romantics firey and passionate, the Realists became the mundane "so, this is our life..." painters. This was now art depicting humble citizens doing what they do. Mythical heroes found themselves thrown out, just like the Romantics had done with them. Portraits of the rich and well-off were nowhere to be found.. Revolutionary War-torn, and industrial-revolutionized societies weren't feeling so hot about those in the "haves" half of life.
So, political art, right? I'd say those 2 both would fall into that category.. making a statement about the status quo? Yeah. So, after art becomes a downer with themes getting a little too personal and depressing about everyday life, there's only one thing to do. Bring in some movers and shakers. Here come the Pre-Raphaelites! Wooo! The PRs were a group of rebel artists challenging the Royal Academy. They felt art was starting to portray subjects that seemed "artificial", and the color was muddy and dark. So move back to.. dun da da dun! Scenes from the bible! They also favored mythical themes, and heavily dosed their paintings with symbolism because art should be "serious", with "deeper meanings!"
The impressionist movement followed the Pre-Raphaelites... See where this is going?? Frivolous to a build up of seriousness in art, and then.. gotta go back the other way! I told you it'd all make sense. And, if you continued the timeline, you'd see the pendulum swinging back to silly (dada, surrealism, etc).
But anyway...the Impressionists were about to buck the system again. Like I said before, they wanted art that was "accessible" to the general audience. Art everyone could understand, and could say "ah, how nice". But, dear ducklings, these artists weren't just trying to paint pretty pictures. No way, Jose. These guys a couple gals were some sassy bitches, too. While they may have been reaching back to the past for inspiration, they were bringing about a new perspective! Literally. HOW do we see things? The camera had become more available for people... you could get your portrait taken where before you had to be fairly wealthy to have a portrait painted. Photo prints were even becoming art themselves. So, now there's this huge interest in optics, and how they work. How does a lens capture light? How do we manipulate light? How do we INTERPRET light? The impressionists were on it. Start with Pissaro.. an almost pointalistic approach to depicting scenes. For the sake of time, skip the in between of the impressionist timeframe and look at Renoir's "the wave". How incredibly different the way that light was translated onto a canvas! from lots of time little sweeps of the brush in Pissaro's work, to the broad, "general" strokes of paint in Renoir Compare these artists works to the other masters of light... The Dutch. Compare how Monet and Renoir capture light to how Vermeer and Rembrandt approach it. The soft, subtleties of Monet's mid-day sun filtering onto a seated couple, or even Renoir and his garden party scenes.. and then contrast that with the dramatic direct light that illuminates the faces of Rembrandt's subjects.
I get that this, if you read it, probably bored the hell out of you. But, for me.. well, this was a new found appreciation of a period of art I found to be overrated and even superficial. Looking at these artist from a more founded history really gave me a new respect for their work and what they achieved, and what they inspired in future artists. I like me some sassy bitches.