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.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, March 30, 2012
The Avant Garde and Edouard Manet
The term ‘avant-garde’ in a basic definition, describes artists that have moved their work towards a more radical and different representation. Moving towards a more modernistic influence, avant-garde artists of the 19th century depicted different subjects and styles of paintings. For myself I seem to associate this term with the idea of art for arts sake, and moving from Realism towards Impressionism. French painter Edouard Manet, played a vital role in bridging this transition. Works like Luncheon on the Grass, are currently considered as the beginning of modern art.
Manet is a great example of the classic avant-garde, but I do feel as though the term itself in modern times carries different implications then it did in the 19th century. This is where most negative associations can arise from the word, but when looking at the onset of Impressionism, I have found little if none negative aspects. This is because avant-garde is a relatively prominent term that once, during the 19th century marked artists going against the norm and pushing boundaries within art, a highly pivotal time. Within post-modernisim some of these aspects are relevant, just on a different level then the classic avant-garde artists.
Luncheon on the Grass is a great piece that represents this classic avant-garde influence of the early 19th century. This painting was highly controversial and was rejected from multiple salons when Manet first tried to exhibit it. In this piece we see two middle or upper class men sitting in a picnic like setting with a completely nude women. Depicting prostitution within the middle and upper class in painting, was highly controversial and sparked public notoriety. The way the nude women in this piece is staring at the viewer, challenges you viewer into understanding what is going on. This is also the case, somewhat, in Manet’s Olympia, where a nude women stares at the viewer.
Another aspect that seems to challenge the viewer is the use of lighting throughout this piece. Obviously in an outdoor setting, certain things such as the picnic food and the background seem to be highlighted unnaturally. It seems as though this scene could almost have been shot in a studio with the way the light falls across the scene.
The two men seem to be engaged in conversation, almost ignoring the nude female figure as she sits there somewhat comfortably. When this piece arose in 1863, there was much disdain felt by the general public towards it.However, a beatufiul piece, the ‘avant-garde’ aspect is highly emphasized. What also challenges the viewer in this piece is the painting style in which Manet was known for, a more sketched out and scratchy style, moving away from Realism in a more impressionist technique.
Manet is a great example of the classic avant-garde, but I do feel as though the term itself in modern times carries different implications then it did in the 19th century. This is where most negative associations can arise from the word, but when looking at the onset of Impressionism, I have found little if none negative aspects. This is because avant-garde is a relatively prominent term that once, during the 19th century marked artists going against the norm and pushing boundaries within art, a highly pivotal time. Within post-modernisim some of these aspects are relevant, just on a different level then the classic avant-garde artists.
Luncheon on the Grass is a great piece that represents this classic avant-garde influence of the early 19th century. This painting was highly controversial and was rejected from multiple salons when Manet first tried to exhibit it. In this piece we see two middle or upper class men sitting in a picnic like setting with a completely nude women. Depicting prostitution within the middle and upper class in painting, was highly controversial and sparked public notoriety. The way the nude women in this piece is staring at the viewer, challenges you viewer into understanding what is going on. This is also the case, somewhat, in Manet’s Olympia, where a nude women stares at the viewer.
Another aspect that seems to challenge the viewer is the use of lighting throughout this piece. Obviously in an outdoor setting, certain things such as the picnic food and the background seem to be highlighted unnaturally. It seems as though this scene could almost have been shot in a studio with the way the light falls across the scene.
The two men seem to be engaged in conversation, almost ignoring the nude female figure as she sits there somewhat comfortably. When this piece arose in 1863, there was much disdain felt by the general public towards it.However, a beatufiul piece, the ‘avant-garde’ aspect is highly emphasized. What also challenges the viewer in this piece is the painting style in which Manet was known for, a more sketched out and scratchy style, moving away from Realism in a more impressionist technique.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Mannerism in Art History
One of my favorite types of art we have looked at in Art History 236 has been art depicted through Mannerism. Before this class, I had seen pieces that are made within the Mannerism style, but what highly interested me this quarter was discovering the stylistic concepts and historical context behind this period of art. Mannerism was influenced by naturalistic styles of artists like Raphael, Michelangelo, and da Vinci but seems to encompass a more artificial, however exceedingly sophisticated quality. Artists like Parmigianino, Pontormo, Bronzino, and Fiorentino have all produced pieces of art within this time, and these similarities can be found throughout their work. Pontormo, specifically, seems to express this graceful notion that Mannerism is known for.
Jacopo Carcucci, or Pontormo , was an Italian artist during the onset and early years of Mannerism. His paintings depict a different perspective then previous High Renaissance artists, with figures elegantly floating in the air, a characteristic of Mannerism. Pontormo uses bright colors to depict a group of people in a grieving manner, supporting Jesus and encompassing the space around him. These figures seem to be struggling, implying that help is needed to sustain the weight of Jesus. The man holding him on the bottom seems to be peering back towards the viewer with an empathically look of fret. The rest of the figures seem to carry the same look about them, floating in this bleak space. Even the man on the bottom seems to be barely grounded, but still seems to be holding an immense weight.
The landscape of this oil painting consists of a dark flattened space, with solid ground and a single cloud in the sky. This is another aspect that is specific to Mannerism, and I find highly interesting. It is also very interesting that no cross is visible in this painting, and perhaps the only item relevant to the “natural world” in this piece consists of the clothing worn by these figures. This is highly evolved from earlier artists that would depict space and perspective with high detail, rather open spaces or flat backgrounds. Pontormo leaves the viewer with a quite ambiguous composition in this sense, and rather implies a more “visionary” painting. The way he has expressed these figures as more elongated and stretched out, is typical of the Mannerism style. Rather then being influenced by nature, artists began looking more at past works and sculptures. It is for this reason that Mannerism has been called as “anti-classical”.
Learning about this different aspects and qualities that define a period like Mannerism has been one of the most interesting and fun things for me to learn in this class. Although sometimes it can be frustrating to hear of so many different historians interpretations, it’s important to illustrate the complexity behind pieces of art. I also think the influence of naturalism but not overall depiction of the style, aids to my fondness of Mannerism. I have really enjoyed learning about this style and period with Art.
Jacopo Carcucci, or Pontormo , was an Italian artist during the onset and early years of Mannerism. His paintings depict a different perspective then previous High Renaissance artists, with figures elegantly floating in the air, a characteristic of Mannerism. Pontormo uses bright colors to depict a group of people in a grieving manner, supporting Jesus and encompassing the space around him. These figures seem to be struggling, implying that help is needed to sustain the weight of Jesus. The man holding him on the bottom seems to be peering back towards the viewer with an empathically look of fret. The rest of the figures seem to carry the same look about them, floating in this bleak space. Even the man on the bottom seems to be barely grounded, but still seems to be holding an immense weight.
The landscape of this oil painting consists of a dark flattened space, with solid ground and a single cloud in the sky. This is another aspect that is specific to Mannerism, and I find highly interesting. It is also very interesting that no cross is visible in this painting, and perhaps the only item relevant to the “natural world” in this piece consists of the clothing worn by these figures. This is highly evolved from earlier artists that would depict space and perspective with high detail, rather open spaces or flat backgrounds. Pontormo leaves the viewer with a quite ambiguous composition in this sense, and rather implies a more “visionary” painting. The way he has expressed these figures as more elongated and stretched out, is typical of the Mannerism style. Rather then being influenced by nature, artists began looking more at past works and sculptures. It is for this reason that Mannerism has been called as “anti-classical”.
Learning about this different aspects and qualities that define a period like Mannerism has been one of the most interesting and fun things for me to learn in this class. Although sometimes it can be frustrating to hear of so many different historians interpretations, it’s important to illustrate the complexity behind pieces of art. I also think the influence of naturalism but not overall depiction of the style, aids to my fondness of Mannerism. I have really enjoyed learning about this style and period with Art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
