The Beginnings of Dada

The Dada and Surrealism art movements that began in the early 1920's challenged the concept and idea of art at the time. The Dada movement represented itself through pieces such as 'readymades' or performances as well as standard art mediums. This movement rejected any logic and rationality within it's expression, and instead stood for nonsense. Primarily a visual art movement, Dada-ism stood for anti-war and was against alot of norms of society in general. Actually Dada ideas mainly revolved around this anti-art image and idea of challenging what is art and what it is contrived of. 

Where as previous art movements were concerned with aesthetics based of off traditional art works and previous movements, Dada sought to dismiss this whole conception. For example, one of the first pieces considered "Dada" was Hugo Ball Reciting the Sound Poem, from 1916. This piece consisted of Hugo dressing up in cardboard and reciting sounds, noises of gibberish to an audience at the Cabaret Voltaire. The ideas behind these Dada influenced pieces were revolutionary at the time, and made a mark within art history. However items like readymades and these performances were and still are considered as controversial within the aspect of art.

I think, when looking at modern art during the time period, that the Dada movement was more of a relief to artists. Taking readymades, items that had already been produced for a certain use, and turning them into art shocked the art world and left artists to ponder the idea of art. Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, a porcelain urinal, is a great example of a readymade and revolutionary Dada piece. He took this plumbing fixture and wrote in permanent marker “R. Mutt 1417”, which is considered as gibberish itself. This piece was exhibited in a museum and seen as offensive and absolutely non-art.

I would say that items like this readymade, can be considered art in a certain aspect. Not within a purely visual aspect, but more behind the idea of art and what it is. This readymade can be considered art, within the idea of it itself. This is the Dada idea of challenging the art world, a characteristic of the avant-garde.  People involved in this Dad movement, would not even consider it an art movement, and therefore perhaps their pieces are not art at all. They challenge the public to make these decisions of what is or is not art, of what is displayed in an exhibition or not.

Though some pieces of Dada are not visually appealing, they do not stand for aesthetics. This movement, different from any other within art, depicts nonsense and dismisses any logic especially within art forms based off of historical art movements.  The modern art world was witness to pieces that could be verbal nonsense, items from every day life, or anything in general. Artists like Ball and Duchamp were revolutionary within their art pieces, and challenged the art world with an avant-garde quality to it.

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

http://pmahoneyphotography.blogspot.com/

Paul Gauguin's The Yellow Christ

I will be focusing on Postimpressionist artist Paul Gauguin's The Yellow Christ, painted in 1889. This painting is considered an "avant-garde" work and I will prove so using Griselda Pollock's formula presented in The Challenge of the Avant-Garde. Pollock explains for an artist to be considered avant-garde, their work had to display reference, deference, and difference. I will go for in-depth to explaining these aspects and how they describe avant-garde works, such as Gaugion's. The first thing the viewer notices when looking at Gauguin's piece, is his color palette of mostly yellow's, oranges, and red's. He has seemingly rejected the notion of actual color and uses these colors to illustrate emotion, a vibrant and happy color palette. However doing so, he has created this bright and emotional palette on top of a more somber and perhaps morbid scene. He depicts a central character on a cross with a completely yellow skin tone, and particular bold outline. The other character's below this one on the cross, are also outlined in a more bold outline, which is pertinent to Gauguin's postimpressionist style. This character on the cross highly resembles Jesus Christ, but has been known to actually contain more similar facial features to the artist himself. Gauguin perhaps do this deliberately to compare Christ's sufferings with the ones of himself as an artist in society. The character resembling the artist is an elongated form, and contributes to Gaguin's abstract style. In depicting this scene resembling Christ on the Cross, however doing so in Brittany in 1889, Gauguin has touched upon Pollock's first point of reference (showing an awareness of what was already going on). Gauguin has chosen a scene that most people are familiar with and can refer too, and has obviously added some quarks to it. Adding different notions of color to play with the viewer's emotion, and depicting facial features similar to himself, Gauguin has radically developed and created a deference into his work. His abstract use of elongating the body, specifically arms of the character on the cross depicts the subject in an odd form. The usage of a solid yellow color with little to no shading for the character's skin color, also aids this notion of deference. With no shading, except a slight use of a blotchy green color, Gauguin has stepped out of the box here. We also see three subjects faces depicted below the central character, and however knelt and purposely there, they show little emotion through facial expression. This also adds to the abnormal feeling that a viewer may get, when noticing what this scene is depicting. This abstract style of Gauguin’s illustrates the last of Pollock’s aspects of the avant-garde, difference. Gauguin’s style and composition’s were very different from what the world was seeing in Impressionism and even the onset of Postimpressionism. His works were unsurely viewed by people at the time, and had a different mode about them then other artists of Postimpressionism. Pollock describes her definition of difference as; to be both legible in terms of current aesthetics and criticism, and a definitive advance on the current position. This absolutely illustrates Paul Gauguin and his style of art within the period of Postimpressionism.

Gustave Caillebotte's Floorscrapers

I will be discussing the concept of modernity in Gustave Caillebotte’s work, specifically analyzing his piece, Floorscrapers (1875). This is a great piece that highlights the Impressionist style of Caillebotte, which at first seemed unconventional within the Impressionism style. However, his use of light, loose brush strokes, and values is highly typical of an Impressionist artist. Floorscrapers was seen as a representation of gender roles within different workspaces, although this piece expresses a lot more. Caillebotte’s study and application of light across the floor and bodies of the workers is magnificent, and obviously the focus aspect of this piece. The light which comes through the upper left region of the painting where the window is located, floods across the room initially and falls across the three workers. It highlight’s their own bodies, with Caillebotte putting influence on the bone structure and slight muscle of the working men. The floor space seems to follow back into the rear in the piece, abruptly stopping at the wall line, which borders the background of the piece, except for the open window. Although Caillebotte was never considered an Impressionist artists and rather one border the lines of Impressionism and academism, the Impressionist style is completely apparent in his works. This piece reminds me of the differences between Claude Monet’s and Edouard Manet’s separate renderings of the Festival of 30 June 1878. I would rather compare Caillebotte’s piece to Manet’s rendering, The Rue Mosnier, rather then Monet’s because of the image of a working man. Caillebotte has illustrated an Impressionist scene, with great lighting and detail, but the scene is that of a hard working, lower class job. This is also where I can see the implications of gender roles within this piece, however it wouldn’t be one of the main aspects I would think of when first viewing this piece. However, the space in which these three men are working does seem like it could be a female dominated place, perhaps a dance floor or gallery of sorts. We also see to the direct right of the third figure, a distinct bottle of wine and full glass, which could also be a device to represent the idea of female and male gender roles in a space. Caillebotte often chose to depict men over women though, which we can also see in his pieces, Man at His Bath (1884) and Floorscrapers (‘side-on’ version) (1876). As previously stated, I don’t necessarily think this idea of gender roles is an important aspect. Although I can see how at the time, it was an noticeable aspect in this piece. Caillebotte’s usage of light and subject, is typical of an Impressionist artist, even though he himself was never considered as one. Although we do see modernity within most of his works, the most successful were those that depicted bourgeois scenes. Even though these scenes challenged traditional gender roles within the spaces they were depicted, Caillebotte did this on purpose. Personally, I enjoy Caillebotte’s Impressionist style, especially in this pieces that depict gender roles.

Claude Monet and Edouard Manet

This is a formal analysis of two works; Claude Monet’s The Rue Montorgueil and Edouard Manet’s The Rue Mosnier with Flags. Both of these works depict the Festival of 30 June 1878, which took place in Paris, France. Both of these avant-garde artists have rendered two different pieces of the same event, implying different meanings through style and depiction. Being Impressionists they created works that described feeling and emotion over detail, as a sort of opposition to Realism. Monet’s piece boasts a blazing color and high use of repetition to create this street as a space of high activity, implying celebration in this working class area. However Manet has depicted the scene as a more somber and tense one. He brings a more advanced side of avant-gardism to the table, successfully doing so through the tension he leaves the viewer within.

Manet doesn’t purposely try to leave the viewer tense though, he wants the viewer to create their own answers to what’s going on in the scene before them. This is where we see the more advanced side of avant-gardism, as compared to with Monet. Monet has shown the Rue Montogueil in a colorful pallet of mostly blues, reds, and whites. The flags that are hanging off the buildings seem to blend in a sea of color, and travel back into the vantage point of the painting as a blur. The next thing the viewer notices is the people in the street, mostly wearing dark blue with a few wearing white. Dark blue was the color of the working class clothing, which we also see in the subject of Edouard Manet’s piece. This piece expresses happiness and celebration of this street, with the viewer looking down onto this street. He was more concerned with expressing the happiness and vitality within this scene, rather then Manet’s portrayal of a more desolate but perhaps interesting scene.

Edouard Manet was more concerned with the deeper notions of why the people were celebrating, and therefore depicted a different street and scene on that same day. Rather then showing a large mass of people as Claude Monet had, Manet rendered only a few human subjects, with a main subject in the left foreground. This is portrayed perhaps as a, amputee war veteran, clad in dark blue, and using crutches to walk into this bleak street. This street, brightest right in the middle ground of the piece, has few people on it but dominates the space of this environment. This adds to the bleak emptiness of this piece, leaving the viewer wondering about a synopsis or perhaps situation of what is going on. Manet has seemingly depicted this street at the same high eye level as Claude Monet did in his piece.

Although both these artists had similar ideas, their depictions differ highly between happiness and somberness. As Claude Monet’s piece boasts celebration and exuberant happiness, whereas Edouard Manet has shown a more inauspicious scene. Both these Impressionist artists have specifically tried to express these different feelings through their work, with Manet using a more complex aspect of the avant-garde.

Formal Analysis of Gustave Courbet

This is a formal analysis of French painter, Gustave Courbet’s The Stonebreakers, completed in 1850. This piece is a work of Social Realism, which Courbet was known for depicting, and gave emergence to the term avant garde. Courbet’s subject matter at the time was highly offensive to the bourgeoisie, while his works moved away from Romanticism and towards Realism. The Stonebreakers is a great example of these new works, which illustrated truthful, unbiased, and genuine scenes mostly of the lower or working class. Courbet stood for this avant agarde aspect of pushing the boundaries or changing the status quo, even before it was a common movement. He is therefore considered one of the first avant garde artists of the time.

Stonebreakers moves away from depicting items of ‘importance’, which usually consisted of foods, pristine landscapes or architecture, and other components of the upper class. Instead, Courbet has rendered a large piece (over five feet wide and eight feet long) showing a man and young boy working along a roadside in the country. We see the older man in mid swing taking a hammer to the rocks along the roadside. The boy behind him is in midstep of holding a small woven basket of these rocks, giving the viewer a notion that this is a routine action for the two men in their job.

Beyond the foreground of the road, we see the men have a just a few items, consisting of another basket and some tools. At the far right there seems to be a pot and small bag and utensil, perhaps a meal of sorts. The background of the piece is illustrated by a slight hill, of a darker value (suggesting that the men are perhaps in a valley or area affected by sunlight and clouds) that opens up in the extreme upper right of the painting. Courbet has put what looks to be a small rock outcrop, or perhaps a vague representation of trees or shrubbery. This detail is conducted with an abrupt swatch of light brown/ tan value, with a light blue sky completing the space.

The lighting in this piece is beautifully crafted, with great value and spots of luminosity. The large shadow in the background of darker value suggests that maybe these men are working below a large tree or hill blocking the sun. However, the placement of the older mans ‘country style’ hat indicates the sun is still shining upon them. Courbet has rendered the older man’s face with two different values, creating this effect. Once looking at the lighter part of the values, towards the lower part of the man’s facial, the viewer’s eye is then directed towards the brighter part of the man’s hand; an intended highlight. This brings awareness to the texture and of the working mans hand, detailed with dirt and hard linear lines. This device adds to the element of depicting a working class person, in what was considered at the time on of the lowest and laborious jobs in society. Courbet has effectively illustrated these characters as highlighted heroes, through this lighting scheme, which is typical for his work. It is obvious that he has found beauty in this situation in which he actually viewed at one time. After viewing these two men working, he later brought them into his studio to complete this painting. The studio aspect is apparent in this piece, contributing to the great portrayal of ‘natural’ lighting, specifically in the foreground.

Thus, this painting was highly offensive to the upper or bourgeoisie class, whom didn’t care to see situations that didn’t involve any Romantic or Neoclassical elements, specifically including historical or religious references. Upon finish Stonebreakers was (knowingly of Courbet) attacked by critics, whom failed to accept this new and revolutionary style of art. However, with the state of Paris at the time, new artwork styles and techniques depicting scenes and context irrelevant to the bourgeoisie were on the rise. Along with the firm rigidity being taught within the academics of art, more artists began to emerge and create works moving away from the Romanticism, which had dominated French literature and art. These depictions of peasants, working class, and generally middle to lower class subjects became increasingly popular and gave way for the emergence of Realism.

Gustave Courbet and Realism

When looking at Gustave Courbet’s paintings, specifically, The Stonebreakers and A Burial at Orans, the expression of the lower class through Realism is highly relevant. During this time in France, especially Paris, there was much social unrest and division between the bourgeoisie and lower class. Along with the firm rigidity that was being taught within academic training, the avant garde seemingly emerged. These new artists, such as Courbet, moved in a direction of Realism and away from Romanticism, which dominated French artwork and literature. These works which boasted unbiased, truthful scenes, mostly depicted characters of the lower to middle class. Therefore these pieces were highly offensive to the bourgeoisie, and led way for the avant garde to proceed.

Gustave Courbet, born in 1819, painted landscapes, and still lifes that depicted social issues, often displaying characters of the middle to lower class. At the time these subjects were considered to be offensive when portrayed in artwork because of the previous influence of Romanticism and the bourgeoisie class. He often depicted subjects that were poor, peasants, and other working class people affected by the Industrial Revolution.

Courbet, who supported the Revolution, was one of the first artists to consider himself avant garde and led the Realism movement. In The Stone Breakers, we see a young man and an older man crushing rock a long a roadway in a rural area. This painting depicts one of the “lowliest” and most laborious jobs that existed at the time. Such beauty of situations like this was something that Realism stood for and is considered one of the first “socialist” paintings to ever have emerged. Not only was this piece was offensive to the bourgeoisie because it did not depict a Romantic or Neoclassical scene depict any historical, but it also rejects any historical or religious influence. However, Courbet seems to illustrate his subjects as some sort of heroes, or at least person worthy of mention. He found beauty in these situations and thus became one of the leading artists of the Realism movement.

In his piece, A Burial at Ornans, he more obviously illustrated the division and difference between classes. In this piece, which is an impressing ten by twenty one feet, the viewer sees a graveside service in which the figures to the left (considered the clergy) have completely different expressions then the figures to the right. The subjects to the right, “Courbet’s heroes of modern life”, express emotion, with some covering their faces or openly weeping. However even the altar boy and gravedigger, which happen to be more to the left, see to solely express boredom or nothing at all.

This painting was therefore attacked by critics, whom failed to accept this new style and technique of art. The bourgeoisie or upper class dismissed Courbet’s piece and many other Realism works, with the idea that is would digress artistic standards. At first, Realism was seen as the opposite of art, being called socialistic and unpleasant. With the rise of the Industrial Revolution and the current state of modern Paris, these Realism works were vital and increasingly prominent throughout art.