Post #5 - Option 1

            Since we have started focusing on the Impressionism era, I have always been drawn to the unique style of Gustave Caillebotte.  Something that stands out from Caillebotte’s style is the amount of personal emotion that is thrown into every piece.  It seems as if every drastic event that has taken place in his life has somehow molded his views and emotion for each new set of paintings.   I have decided to cover the first option since I don’t think there is a crystal clear answer to this; I say this because I feel like Gustave’s work could be considered a celebration of modern life, while on the other hand, some aspects of his work could be considered a critique on how modern life is affecting individuals in his subject matter.

            When viewing certain pieces of Caillebotte’s, such as Paris Street: A Rainy Day, we can tell that it is depicting more of an idea of celebration through his subject matter.  An interesting note is that in a lot of his earlier pieces, he focuses on artwork based on the bourgeois, which most explore the idea of modern life as optimistic.  Within the subject matter, people seem to be slightly content with the fact that it’s raining and you can see most of the figures are grouped with another with some minor exceptions.

            On the other hand, you have certain paintings like Pont de I’Europe, which focuses on a couple individuals who all appear to be slightly isolated from the rest of the interacting world.  While this painting can give the appearance of celebration and wonder because of the large truss that scales the outside of the steel barrier, giving a sense of modern life, it has a certain element of isolation that leaves a more empty feel to the piece.  As noticed, you can see the man standing alone next to the barrier, while there is a dog wondering the streets alone.  This is interesting to take note of, especially after the critique from the lecture that focuses on how it created a large public scare from the exposure to rabies.  When normal people envision a painting of upper class bourgeois, they typically wouldn’t imagine seeing a stray dog within the foreground.  Something else that was mentioned during the lecture that plays an important role is the fact that the man walking towards the viewer seems to be a few steps ahead of the woman.  It is speculated that he could be making a proposition to her, perhaps implying prostitution.  Making all these characters isolated from one another really gives a feeling of desolation and uncertainty, in my opinion.  At the same time, the perspective and overall composition is quite a view, giving this piece a contrasting feel than what the subject matter is actually depicting.

            Throughout Caillebotte’s work, especially seen in his other pieces like Luncheon and Still Life, his mood changes play a direct impact in how his emotion and representation of modern life is perceived.  These are some of the reasons why I don’t believe that there is a right answer in regards to some of his pieces emitting the idea of celebration or critique.

Post #4

            The Festival of 30^th June 1878 was more than just a date, it was a reminder of how France would celebrate their reborn stability as a nation.  This date emerged two unique avant-garde based pieces by similar artists, Claude Monet and Edouard Manet, each representing this extravagant festival in different ways.

 

               Within Claude Monet’s The Rue Montorgueil, there are so many initial elements that capture our attention and make us want to dissect this piece of art.  First off, this piece is filled with excitement, the streets are just flooded with people while the overwhelming amount of French flags are crowding the buildings towards the sides.  In terms of color and shades, there is such a variety that it makes the painting extremely busy.  There appears to be a fairly darker balance of shades towards the bottom half of the painting, while the tone eventually brightens as it makes its way to the sky, giving this piece a good sense of balance.  The piece doesn’t necessarily represent extreme avant-garde messages, but does help portray the importance of the festival and really captures the essence of the revived French citizens.

 

             In contrast to Monet’s piece, Edouard Manet’s The Rue Mosnier with Flags seems to take an entirely different approach on the outlook of the June 30^th Festival.  Unlike Monet’s painting, the streets are empty.  While some flags are still hanging on the sides of the buildings, it doesn’t nearly express as much excitement as the other piece.  In fact, this piece has a rather darker side, especially focusing on the French veteran who appears to be missing a leg.  Like mentioned in the lecture, this is an important part of what Manet is trying to depict in terms of how the French are thankful for their freedom and expresses just what they had to go through to achieve this new standard of life.  In regards to color on Manet’s piece, it is very different to the cluttered piece constructed by Monet.  This oil canvas has a more slightly limited amount of color and shades, but utilizes the shades from the shadows and blacks/whites.  Also discussed in the lecture, Manet focuses on more political based aesthetics, especially considering his past influence from political events.  Although the term avant-garde has been slightly diluted from what it used to mean or means to us today, this piece is a great representation of what avant-gardism symbolizes.  To elaborate, Manet has a certain aspect of trying to create political messages within his paintings, and has yet to let go of his already acclimated ways.

            While both of these paintings seem very different, they do have some things in common.  Aside from the artists having similar last names, they both appear to have been composed in plein air (both painted outdoors) and share common brushstrokes within certain pieces, such as the French flags strung around.  While both artists created different messages or imagery through their paintings, it is quite evident to determine each artists unique style of painting through the era of Impressionism.

Post #3

            When comparing Impressionist paintings versus other genres of paintings, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what defines this period as such an extravagant introduction of paintings.  One very famous painting that instantly caught my attention was A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grand Jatte, by Georges Seurat.  However, I assume many others will discuss this painting since it is such a remarkable piece of art.  Therefore, I will be taking a further look at Gustave Caillebotte’s painting, Paris Street, Rainy Day (on page 991 of Stokstad) and look deeper at the formal elements that compose this piece.  A general overview first off, I think that the transition in the formal aspect is an interesting change of pace.  Certain characteristics have been withered away, such as the extreme attention to detail in art periods prior to the Impressionism movement.

 

            Something that has stuck out immediately to me was the variation of line and brush stroke techniques.  If we were to take a look at the Realism movement style lines, for example, the popular painting The Stone Breakers that we discussed last week during lecture.  In comparison to this painting, it is clear to see that each line is clearly defined; figures are almost outlined with lines, enhancing this piece with rich detail and smoothness.  On the contrary, within Impressionism pieces, we can easily decipher that most of the figures and buildings have no definite lines that build extreme emphasis towards the subject matter.  It is mostly composed of open brushstrokes with various amounts of shades that help build a sense of depth in the piece.  The thing I thought was really unique about this painting in particular is that if you glance at the painting in the book from a reasonable distance, it looks very detailed, crisp, and clean.  However, if you move your eyes closer to the book, you can see each individual brush stroke on the reflection of the street lamp behind the approaching figures and so forth.

            While most critics during this time commented on this emerging Impressionist style as fast, sloppy, and had the looks of being unfinished, I think there is a lot of complexity and dynamics that go into this certain style.  Since most of these stylized paintings contain the subject matter of outdoor objects or landscapes, the loose brushstrokes really help bring out the light and color to create more of an understanding of what the audience is really looking at, to not understand the subject matter, but to illustrate the rebirth of the techniques used in these paintings.  Even the dynamic of perspective and time helps create a real unique sense of feeling through their artwork, mostly consisting of everyday events, this piece in particular really brings forth and captures all the elements within the downtown streets of Paris.  The shades of color throughout the tile on the streets has deep contrast as well which helps add the element of depth as the detail fades from the brushstrokes in the distance.

            These elements within the unlooked style of Impressionism contain so many of the obscure compositions while retaining some of the most interesting overall pictures.  I personally think that the whole aspect of fast brushstrokes with the unfinished look appears more as excitement for me because it leaves a lot of imagination for the viewer to try and fill in the caps in their own mind.  The way it appears as almost photographic quality from a distance and then each brushstroke is revealed with closer viewing distance makes it very intriguing as well, allowing the audience to construct their own inferences based upon the composition.  Even the principle of using small canvases (not enormous sized) made it even more remarkable that artists were able to utilize such small space with varying strokes and color shades.  All of the colors are pretty controlled, since they help blend in the idea of depth and perception throughout the street-like setting, but they are all very realistic as in comparison to real life outdoor sceneries.  I think one of the greatest thing about this painting is the fact that the Caillebotte was able to make the sidewalk the figures are walking on appear to be wet.  By blending the reflection of the street light, it really adds a personalized feel to this painting that can only be appreciated from noticing the close individual brushstrokes.

Post #2

             Gustave Courbet was a phenomenal painter of the realism movement.  His paintings depicted ordinary events with a political twisting message that caused strongly mixed emotions from different classes of society.  Courbet developed two paintings only a short year after the Karl Marx Communist Manifesto was unleashed upon the public.  Although it is not a direct cause and effect, it definitely made it a popular topic that many avant-garde artists took into consideration, the idea of exposing the working class.  For many years in Europe, artwork was considered to be more of a visual dream that people could escape to.  The wealthy were overly drawn to the idea of hiring artists to paint them as heroic figures or seen in the brightest of lights.  This is where the emergence of realism quickly struck down those ideal standards and made way for a new form of expression.

            One of the most controversial paintings Courbet constructed was The Stone Breakers in 1849.  This specific piece of work epitomizes the idea of realism, since it specifically focuses on two figures working away on some of the most backbreaking labor of the 19^th century.  There were some major elements within this piece that made it such a despised piece amongst the bourgeoisie (the wealthier middle/upper class).  Aside from the subject matter, it was created at a very large scale (5’ x 8’).  During this time, grand scale paintings illustrated mythological events, historical tales, or even portraits of vastly important figures, but never would people imagine such a depressing painting to be constructed at these extreme dimensions.  The subject matter also plays a huge role, as it shows two figures, an older man and a much younger boy, breaking rocks that would be used for the support of the under road.  As noticed, both figures faces are turned away from the viewer, almost as a message to the upper class of how immense the working class had it.  Each figure stands out as having some sort of tattered article of clothing as they were mostly consumed by the life of hard work and poverty.  The foreground consisted entirely of these two figures and had little to no background, focusing the audience towards the sorrow of the laborers.  This was a direct insult towards the bourgeoisie, as they were not comfortable with being confronted with the idea of how hard off the working class has it in comparison to their own lives.  It also was a slap in the face towards the wealthy class since it follows the idea of political radicalism by glorifying the working class.

 

Aside from this specific painting, his other popular piece, A Burial at Ornans in 1849 also made Courbet a disliked artist amongst the bourgeoisie.  Like the first painting, this painting had a much more unclear subject matter and highlighted certain elements that left many people puzzled and unsatisfied.  One of the most notable things in this painting was that the dog stands out much greater than those of the people there for the burial, which created quite a stir throughout the bourgeoisie.  Likewise, the foreground consisted of a large hole where the corpse was being buried, leaving the wealthy to relate this painting as “ugly, repugnant, disgusting, and too realistic”.

            In my opinion, Gustave Courbet had a fantastic understanding of how to politically control the expression of his audience.  He was one of the extreme definitions of “avant-garde” in terms of creating a piece of work that would change the way society is reflected and hopefully create change.