IMG_2800A Claude Monet. 1840-1926. Paris. Sun setting over the Seine at Lavacourt, effect of winter Sun setting on the Seine at Lavacourt, winter effect. Paris, Petit Palais (Museum of Fine of the City of Paris)

IMG_2800A Claude Monet. 1840-1926. Paris. Sun setting over the Seine at Lavacourt, effect of winter Sun setting on the Seine at Lavacourt, winter effect. Paris, Petit Palais (Museum of Fine of the City of Paris)
Claude Monet. 1840-1926. Paris.
Sun setting over the Seine at Lavacourt, effect of winter
Sun setting on the Seine at Lavacourt, winter effect.
Paris, Petit Palais (Museum of Fine of the City of Paris)

THE BREAK-IMPRESSIONIST

Impressionism was not easily accepted in France. The techniques of the impressionists, the sketch and the tachism, confronting habits earlier.
The sketch has always existed. It allowed to conclude a contract with the sponsors by giving them an idea of the table, and the way that the painter was planning to deal with the topic. The sketch was a need to have the right to be present at the Academy. But the sponsors require it, in the end, a finished work, the drawing is rigorous, finished, accurate. A painter was not received at the Academy on a sketch. He could only justify his candidacy.
Impressionism was the opposite of this classic aesthetics in the making of the sketch and the tachism a system.
A point of view, a classic impressionist painting is not completed.
The impressionists, systématisaient the Art of the Blur.
Among the techniques developed during the 19th century, the Sketch has been one of the best expressions of the Art of the Blur.
The Art of the Blur has been practiced genius by Leonardo da Vinci. The "Sfumato" is, in the frame of a painting is very figurative and perfectly finished, like the mona lisa, the Virgin on the rock, or St. John the Baptist, a rough draft of the art of the blur.
The Sketch has been in the history of painting, a project, a preparatory study, which allowed the artist to ensure the coherence and balance of his finished picture. In this case, the more often, the blur is only an approximation, a rough draft, the witness of an art that is incomplete which needs to be completed.
But many artists in the past centuries, have perfectly understood that the sketch could, sometimes, exceptionally, be a finished work.
That is to say, a work in which a large majority of spectators, experts or not, felt really that NOTHING was to be added. This is not a mathematical definition, but it is the best.
The sketch is not a finished work when she creates a singular atmosphere, particularly evocative, filled with a poetry of its own, unique. When it appears evident that more precision in the drawing would close the doors to the imagination, the mystery, and would destroy a subtle balance between dream and reality.
The drawing too precise may in fact close the doors to the imagination, so that the blur that characterizes the sketch can open them. Photographers know all too well : The blur can be just a blur, but it could also be an invitation to feel the mystery and to participate to a puzzle. The spectator is invited to furnish his imagination with the blur that is offered to him.
But it is an alchemy of which only the great artists, may, exceptionally, enter the secret.
The grand master of this technique, and the one who, earlier, has pushed it further, was William Turner (1775-1851).
Delacroix was also a little after Turner, one of the great precursors of art of the sketch, and like him of the Modern Art. For example, in the "death of Sadarnapale" but also in many other tables. But Delacroix is also an example of the limitations of this technique. All techniques meet, at one time or anothere, their limitations.
The Art of the sketch is incredibly difficult, because it is not enough to draw schematically a topic to make a beautiful artwork. Even the photography of our days, it is not enough to draw and paint blur to create a work of art.
The blur can be only an approximation, sloppy, eventually the market value is only up to the signing of a big name, especially in a market whose goals are not artistic. The market has only one purpose : to sell the most expensive possible, even this is worth nothing, especially that which is worth nothing. As the profit is greater.

Breaking impressionist is important because it highlights, after the firstfruits romantic, the birth of a new aesthetic, and a new freedom for artists. An aesthetic and a freedom of individualistic, hitherto unknown in Europe: that of Modern Art. It is a double breaking: both technical and ideological. Impressionism, technically, turning her back to the well designed. "The drawing is the probity of art," said Ingres. He was right. But there are still several reasons to reason, and, especially, the emotion artistic shared. The invention impressionist of tachism is scandalous, evil, for the Academy, which represents the classical art: well drawn and well painted. Well painted it is to say well done : the touch of the brush should not see. Ideologically Impressionism is an art that is anti-academic. The French Academy, paris, was the continues of the Art Monarchical State, that of Louis XIII and Louis XIV, but not only : The First Republic, the so-called revolutionary, was artistically the summit of Neo-Classicism with Jean Louis David. The French painting has never been so cultivated Roman Antiquity and the classicism that under the Revolution, and its direct sequel of the First Empire.
It is only after 1815 and the military defeat of the French republican and imperial, as Europe begins to enter the new time. Of the new times that announced the Romantic French, but also european, including Germanic. Of time of freedom for artists.
Why ?
Because no ideology, no religion, sacred or profane, no anti-religion, does not reign supreme over Europe. The Europe of the 19th lives in a century of waiting, competition, and transition from an ideological one. Artistically, this century will be extraordinarily creative and wonderful Sense, in a spirit of renewal, but without denying the past.
The French Academy, after 1815, still wanted to perpetuate the "Great Painting", the techniques of the drawing faultless, and to the themes that were reflective of cultural entrenchment of France and of Europe in the Ancient Christian and Greco-Roman.
The Impressionists challenged this classical view of art : More specific drawing, the more no theme other than the urban or rural landscape. A few portraits and a few nudes with Renoir. A painting without any concern historical, philosophical, moral, religious. A painting of the passing moment. The Impressionists do not cultivate the great myths of human civilizations. The Impressionists are unaware of the great questions of humankind from the paleolithic era : where do we come From, and where are we going ? Any contemporary modernity, his fascination for the present and the future, its indifference to the past, is already present in the Impressionists. It is in this sense that they are "Modern" and even "Contemporary". Except the Ugly and the Absurd, the Non-Contemporary Art this is for later : the second half of the 20th century.
The Modern Impressionist is not an aesthetic controversy of the clean slate. This is not an anti-esthétick. This is why it appeals to people from its origin, and still today. The impressionist painting does not question the main pillars of european aesthetics for millennia : the Beautiful and the Meaning. Impressionism is certainly an ideology, that of the happiness of the present moment, point. But without pretension to govern the world. The Impressionists did not take to the Light (or Freedom) that will illuminate the whole earth. And make lots of profits on this occasion. No, not yet, you have artists from the people who paint according to their feelings and to their pleasure. They are outside of all schools, arenas, lodges, academies, and other state institutions or private. And it is the reason of their rapid popular success that can be compared to the obvious failings of the contemporary art official to the public.

We must not indeed exaggerate the resistance to impressionism and, especially, not to be confused, as it is done too often, these resistors with the situation of the contemporary art official, which is established in the european museums from the 1950s and following. At the origin of impressionism are popular painters breaking with the aesthetic official advocated by the Academy of painting in Paris which controlled including access to the annual Show. This resistance, and from a certain critical, was shot very quickly with Salons of refused, as early as 1863, the last salon of the refused having occurred in 1886. In reality, the resistance of the painters of the Academy was broken as early as 1881. The impressionist artists French have known the fame of their living, and were immediately out of school in the whole of Europe. Also among the elites and among the population.
Absolutely the opposite of impressionism in its early days, contemporary art is an art quite official, falsely revolutionary, but entirely academic, as imposed by the elites, ideological, and political western that have built for him of particular museums designed by famous architects of the time. The contemporary painting is actually an art in total rupture with the prior art by its consecration of the ugly and the absurd. But this break up has no popular origin, it is a "revolution" totally organized from on high by a few "enlightened" with power, and a lot of money. The contemporary art has been, from its origin, in the United States between the two world wars, and in Europe from the second world war art in the service of the powers, and not at all a popular art and resistant. But they are the peoples who have abandoned and continue to abandon the halls of contemporary art. This has never been the case for the impressionists. Manet has been famous since the refusés of 1863.
A comparison between the situation of the impressionists with that of the artists of the art of the streets born in the 1960s, would be much more relevant. If it does not, it is once more the demonstration that art is one of the key sites of ideological manipulation and political peoples. This has been the case in Europe of catholic art in the medieval period, the orthodox art, the aesthetic choices of the protestants, of course of baroque art and classical art communist, national-socialist, and contemporary art. The only period in which european art has been multi-faceted and has invented outside of the ideologies and political circles in power, it is precisely the period of modern art from 1850 to 1950. Because at this time there were competing ideologies and that none of them had entirely of the power to impose the art that suited him. And if our ��poque is experiencing a painting that lives outside formal frameworks, or even break with them, it is in the private art, commercial art and street art is that it is necessary to search. Not in the collection permanent of the museum of contemporary art.

THE IMPRESSIONIST BREAK

The Impressionism was not easily accepted in France. The Impressionist techniques, the sketch and the tachism were contrary to previous clothes. The sketch has always existed. It allowed to conclude a contract with sponsors. The sketch gave them an overview of the table, and how the painter was planning to address the issue. The sketch was necessary to have the right to appear at the Academy. But the sponsors ask a finished work, the rigorous drawing, finished, accurate. We were not admitted to the Academy on a sketch. He could only justify his candidacy
The Impressionism was taking against the foot of this classic aesthetics by making the sketch and tachism has system.
From a classical point of view year impressionist painting is not completed.
The Impressionists, systematized the Art of Blur.

Among the techniques developed during the 19th century, the skit was one of the best expressions of the Art of Blur.
The Art of Blur has been practiced ingeniously by Leonardo da Vinci. The "Sfumato" is in the context of a very figurative and perfectly finished painting, like the Mona Lisa, the Virgin on the rock, or John the Baptist, a draft of art of blur..
The sketch was in the history of painting, a project, a preparatory study, which allowed the artist to ensure the coherence and balance of the finished table. In this case, usually, the blur is only an approximation, a preform, a draft, witnessed year incomplete art which needs to be completed.
But many artists, over the centuries, have understood perfectly that the sketch was sometimes, exceptionally, be a finished work.
That is to say a work, of which a large majority of spectators, experts or not, imperiously felt that NOTHING was to be added to it. This is not a mathematical definition, but this is the best.
The sketch is a finished work, only when it is creative, from a singular atmosphere, particularly suggestive, carrying a single poetry. When he appears, with evidence, that more precision in drawing, closed the doors to the imagination, of the mystery, and destroy a subtle balance between dream and reality.
The tto, a precise drawing can, in fact, close the doors to the imagination. While the blur characteristic of the sketch, can open these doors. The photographers also know well: The blur can be simply fuzzy, but it can also be an invitation to feel a mystery and to participate in an enigma. The viewer is invited to furnish the blur proposed to him, through his imagination.
But it is an alchemy that only great artists have exceptionally found the secret.
The great master of this technique that the earliest, pushed him, foremost, was William Turner (1775-1851).
Delacroix was also a little after Turner, one of the major juventa-of-the-art of the sketch and like him of Modern Art. For example in the "death of Sadarnapale" but also in many other paintings. Purpose Delacroix is also an example of the limitations of this technique. All techniques meet, at one time or another, their limits.
The Art of The skit is terribly difficult, because it is not enough to draw schematically a subject to make a beautiful work. It is not enough to draw and paint blur, or photographing blur, to create a work of art.
The Blur can only be an approximation, botched, whose market value stands only in the signature of a great name, and especially to a market, whose goals are in no way artistic. The market has only one goal: to sell the most expensive possible, even what is worthless, especially what is worthless. Because the profit is bigger.

The impressionistic rupture is important because it highlights, after the romantic beginnings, the birth of a new aesthetic, and a new freedom for the artists. Year aesthetic and year freedom, individualistic, unknown until then in Europe: that of Modern Art. This is a double break: both technical and ideological. Impressionism, technically, turns sti back on the well drawn. "Drawing is the probity of art," said Ingres. He was right. But there are always many reasons for the reason, and especially for shared artistic emotion. The impressionist invention of Tachism is scandalous, diabolical, for the Academy of Paris, which represents classical art: well drawn and well painted. Well painted and well finished: the touch of the brush should not be seen. Ideologically Impressionism is an anti-academic art of The French Academy, Paris, was the continuation of the State Monarchical Art, that of Louis XIII and Louis XIV, but not only: The First Republic, called Revolutionary, was artistically the summit of Neo-Classicism with John Louis David. French painting has never cultivated Roman antiquity and classicism as much as under the Revolution, and its direct continuation, the First Empire.
Only after 1815 and the military defeat of republican and imperial France, did Europe begin to enter new times. New times announced by the French Romantics, but also European, especially Germanic. Time of freedom for artists.
Why ?
Because no ideology, no religion, sacred gold profane, no anti-religion, reigns supreme over Europe. Europe of the 19th lives in a century of waiting, ‘ competition and ideological transition. Artistically this century will be extraordinarily creator of Beautiful and Meaning, in a renewal spirit, purpose without denying the past.
The French Academy, after 1815, still wanted to perpetuate "the Great Painting", to the irreproachable drawing techniques, and to the themes that testified to the cultural rooting of France and Europe in the Christian and Greco-Roman Antiquity .
The Impressionists question this classic vision of art: Completed the precise drawing, no other theme than the rural or urban landscape. Some portraits and some nudes with Renoir. A painting without any historical, philosophical, moral, religious concern. A painting of the moment that passes. The Impressionists do not cultivate the great myths of human civilizations. The Impressionists ignores the great questions of the humanity since the Paleolithic: Where do we come from, and where are we going? All contemporary modernity, its fascination for the present and the future, its indifference to the past, is already present among the Impressionists. It is in this sense that they are "Modern" and even already "Contemporary". Except the Ugly and the Absurd, the contemporary non-art, is for later: the second half of the 20th century.
The impressionist Modernity is not a polemical aesthetic of the "clean-slate Table" (clean slate) . This is not an anti-aesthetic. That is why Impressionism pleases peoples since its origin, and still today. Impressionist painting does not question the main foundations of European aesthetics for millennia: the Beautiful and the Meaning. Impressionism is certainly year entirely new ideology, that of the happiness of the present time point. Purpose without pretension to rule the world. The Impressionists do not think of the Light (or Liberty) that will illuminate the whole earth. And make a lot of profits on this occasion. No, not yet, they are artists from the people, who paint according to their feelings and their good pleasure. They are located outside all schools, cenacles, lodges, academies, and other state or private institutions. And this is the reason for their rapid popular success that we can compared to the obvious failure of official contemporary art with the public.

Indeed, the resistance to Impressionism should not be exaggerated and, above all, it should not be confused, as is too often the case, with the situation of official contemporarthere art which has been imposed in European museums from the years 1950 and onwards. At the origin of Impressionism are popular painters who broke with the official aesthetics of the Paris Academy of Painting, which controlled access to the annual Show. This resistance, and that of a certain criticism, was bypassed very quickly with the salons of the refused, since 1863, the last salon of the refused having taken place in 1886. In reality the resistance of the painters of the Academy was broken as soon as 1881. French impressionist artists were famous during their lifetime and immediately influenced all European painting. Among both elites and populations.
Absolutely the opposite of early Impressionism, contemporary art is an entirely official, falsely revolutionary, purpose totally academic art imposed by Western ideological and political elites who have built for them special museums designed by the greatest architects of the time. Contemporary painting is indeed an art in complete rupture with the prior art by its consecration of milk and absurd. But this break has no popular origin, it is a "revolution" totally organized from above by a handful of "enlightened" people with power and a lot of money. Contemporary art has been afterwards the beginning, in the United States between the two wars, then in Europe after the second world war the year art in the service of the powers, and in no way a popular and durable item On the other hand, it is the peoples who have deserted and continues to desert the rooms of contemporary art Which has never been the case for the Impressionists. Manet was famous at the refusés of 1863.
A comparison between the situation of the impressionists and that of the artists of the street art, born in the race of the 1960s, would be much more relevant. If we do not do it, it is once again the demonstration that art is one of the high places of the ideological and political manipulation of peoples. This was the case in Europe of medievalCatholic art, Orthodox art, aesthetic choices of Protestants, of course Baroque and Classical art, Communist art, National Socialist art and of the contemporary art. The only period when European art has been multiform and invented outside the ideologies and political circles in power is precisely the period of modern art from 1850 to 1950. Because at that time there existed competing ideologies and none of them had the power to impose the art that she wanted. And if our time actually knows a painting that lives outside official frameworks, or even breaks with them, it is rather in private art, commercial art and street art that we must look for it. Not in the permanent collections of Contemporary Art museums.

the
By jean louis mazieres on 2017-03-08 11:41:42
tags

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *