Positive Impacts on the Art Scenes and the True Effects of Natural Light - Essay Example

CRITIQUE OF THE MENT, “THE IMPRESSIONIST PAINTERS ARE STILL MODERN” Introduction The history of impressionist painters s back to the late 19th century. The impressionist painters derived their name because their critics saw them as artists who changed the accepted concepts to light and color. They changed and established their own individual manner in which they used in depicting their modern world. However, this attracted many critics who asserted that the painters were copping what is already there by the use of color and light. Impressionist painters established themselves when they began using natural methods in lighting their artistic works as they also viewed the world with freshness. Official salon refused their paintings. Their common goals enabled them to band together in order to exhibit in the photographer’s Paris studio. Their initial exhibition in 1874 encompassed Impression: sunrise by Claude Monet. The exhibition attracted critics that dismissed them as artists of impressions. The opponents argued that the groups of artist were incapable of producing well and properly finished and composed painting (Britt 1999). This paper will criticize the impressionist painters by arguing that they are not modern painters. The paper will argue by outlining some of the works of impressionist painters that go against the above statement. Critique of the statement Impressionist painters are involved in painting landscape, as well as outdoor scene paintings. They work for a short period and stops when the light changes and return on the subsequent day when lights are similar. During the early 19th century, French painters confronted landscape directly just like English painters in some of the smaller oil paintings; they used more conventional and accepted colors. The innovation in packaging colors in flexible and portable tubes and making a range of colors available have eased the work of impressionist artists. The range of colors varies as some are less fugitive and others being less poisonous. Despite the importance of these latest developments to improve the artistic work and their practical consideration, it has not yielded much because it is the impressionist goals and criteria of working which alienates the mass or public. They have not produced anything new that can impress the public, but instead they alienate the public. This makes them maintain their tradition other than moving to modernity. A good example of such work is Monets Hayastacks (Nord 2000). Impressionist painters are painting rapidly at the expense of drawing and painting with the aim of capturing the dynamic effects of lighting on the canvas. They use brush strokes same as “dabs” of paint and a high colors which is used in coloring shadows have attracted criticism. They are viewed as deviating from the uniform because they are painting the surface. The accepted standards are that shadows are painted with thin layers. Similarly, impressionist painters are criticized because they paint on white or on tinted grounds that are seen to be adding colors to existing painting (Herbert 1982). Although few perceptive collectors and the color merchants who supply the impressionist painters with colors are faster in buying their products, many of them undergo financial constraints because they dont attract much attention and other people to buy. The financial constraints they undergo started at the time they were searching for new techniques when they began to fracture many people and the established academic rules of art. This made them create enmity of both the art critics and patrons in the same way (Britt 1999). In todays world, such occurrence is seen as strange but many collectors stipulated that commissioned paintings be given coat of colored varnish to make them fit with older paintings in their collections. One of the painters, Constable, received criticism for using greens that he saw around his landscape. The use of color in the inappropriate manner is making the impressionist painters receive criticism because they use them in areas where they are not needed. They sometimes copy it from their environment, therefore, dont match the anticipated theme. Because of this, impressionist artists are not considered modern because they are stuck in the traditional. Some painters are referred as impressionists, but their goals were not known. For instance, Edgar Degas (1834-1917) and Georges Seurant (1859-1891) had aims that were not congruent. They had academic training that they valued. Similarly, Pierre-Auguste Renoir reacted against the “formlessness” of Monet after travelling widely in Italy. Paul Cezanne (1839-1906) who exhibited with impressionist came to criticize them because they lacked intellectual rigor. He also criticized them for lack of color order or because he chose to structure has landscape with directional brushstrokes (Herbert 1982). All these criticisms against impressionist artists indicates that they are not modern since their work lacks the basics that an artistic work should have. Moreover, the impressionist painters are no longer considered modern. The modern forms of paintings are very attractive to the eye and catching. The impressionist painters are using traditional ways of painting compared with modern painters who are supplementing their works with the use of technology. Comparing the impressionist painters and contemporary painters makes an individual or any audience go dislike the impressionist painters. One can also criticize the impressionist painters by imagining to be visiting them in one of the exhibitions in the later 1880s; one would then wonder how the paintings are shown in comparison to contemporary paintings in art exhibitions or art collectors home. In other instances, impressionists received criticism that alienated them from being branded modern artist because of the techniques and tools they used in their works. They went against the set standard and criteria for artistic work, hence calling for critics. For example, impressionists used palette knives, paints from newly invented metal tubes and thick bristled brushes which were a violation of the set standards that Louvres Grand Salon had set (Britt 1999). For an impressionist or any other artist to receive recognition, he or she must work within the expected and agreed standards. Going against the standard rules and using sophisticated materials is against the norms. Because of this practice, the impressionist artistic cannot be called modern artist. They disobeyed the accepted standards which the artist is required to follow. Similarly, the inability of the impressionists to play within the accepted traditional ideas annoyed the salon judges making their works considered highly unsuitable for public viewing. Their works were considered as “mental derangement” because they came up with new ways of drawing that deviated from the traditional norms (Hauser 1999). Although there was nothing wrong with coming up with new ideas as it would bring modernity into the artistic work, their works were not pegged on the agreed standards of doing things making the critics term them as "unsuitable for public viewing". The labeling did not go well with the impressionist as it had effects on their work as well As future cooperation with other traditional artists. Their work did not meet the criteria of modernity as claimed. One of the famous critics of impressionist artist is Louis Leroy who summarized their feelings as “hostile to good artistic manner, devotion, form and respect to the masters”. In many occasions, critics point out that the impressionist artists developed a different belief in the arts that are not the accepted. For instance, the impressionist artists had a belief that the arts should be associated with the real world and a reflection of modern life (Fried 2002). The traditional artists did not welcome the idea, hence criticized the early impressionists. Despite the calls and criticism they received on their beliefs, today’s arts are characterized by real world and life. The real world and life beliefs have come to form the contemporary standards and logical approach to artistic work. Through this perspective, the impressionist artists are justified that they bare example of modern artistic arts. The impressionists also received criticism because they deviated from the accepted themes which all the art works were based. For instance, in the early days of the 19th century, or during the early period of European art history, it was restricted and considered taboo to break from the precedent when any artist portray scenes that were not connected to mythological subjects, history or the bible. The attempt by the impressionists to focus on the themes other than those listed above made them receive criticism as they came up with new things and themes characterized with modernity. Some of the impressionist artists who went against the norm includes Henry Fantin-Latour (1839-1904), Frederic Bazille (1841-1870) and Berthe Morisot (1841-1895). These impressionist artists focused more on leisure and entertainment themes, hence rattling those who remained devoted to the salon (Bomford, Kirby, Leighton & Roy 1990). From this instance, it is evidenced that contemporary artists are focusing or re-inventing on the themes of impressionist artists. Although they received criticism during that time, their works and themes have come to be embraced by modern and contemporary artists. It is an indication that impressionist artists are modern as portrayed by their works. In everyday life, individuals who try to do things in new ways or deviate from the normal routines or subjects are always branded and called traitors and other names. When impressionist artists began focusing on different themes against the known, they were criticized. They focused on themes in relation to seascapes, theatre activities, regattas and picnics in the park. Those paintings received criticism that was enough for the impressionists. After trying that and succeeding, the impressionists believed that there was no European artist who had tried to paint light and succeeded. Therefore, it acted as a motivation since they wanted to break from the tradition by establishing new painting era. They started by experimenting how best they could express the lighting effects and appear real when done on canvas. They combined the effects of light on the interpretation of the world and felt the way they would describe their painted subjects. They had to work outdoors close to their subjects. This enabled them to capture the effects of the light on various parts of the body. However, the new perspective of artistic work attracted new criticism as it was a breach of the traditional habit. According to the tradition, most artists would spend most of their time outside making sketches and then retiring to their studio in completing their actual painting (Frascina & Harris 1992). The impressionist artists focused on a different way of drawing that challenged the traditions hence receiving criticism. Despite the criticism that the impressionists encountered when they were trying to define contemporary artistic work, their work soon became embraced, and they were no longer regarded as revolutionists. Their art work became a breath of fresh air when they started experiencing success and recognition, which has for a long time been a dream. Before then, they were regarded as bad seeds that had nothing to offer. They came to be appreciated when they were attributed to have positive impacts on the art scenes. Their new techniques and ideas demonstrated to the world in a brightly colored subject, bold that was an indication of the true effects of natural light. They became popularly known with "freshness" which other artist adopted as a theory before their work spread to the rest of the world. The impressionist artists determination, perseverance and dedication tom the way of thinking and developing their artistic work made them turn the art of painting and have an immense impact on art history that will forever remain. Conclusion The impressionists artist deserves criticism and should not be considered as the modern form of artists. The criticism emanates from their inability to follow the tradition and the accepted standards of the arts. For instance, impressionist artists could not draw, and their colors were vulgar. They also had a strange composition, hence could not be considered modern. More so, their short slapdash brushstrokes made their paintings illegible. They also took longer time to finish their canvases that made their viewers wonder. Additionally, the impressionist artists broke the rules laid down by the French academy of fine arts; the conservative school which trained in the arts and taste since its establishments in 1648. They focused on urban and country life other than a religious, historical and mythological themes which were considered at that time. Despite all the criticism that they received, they paved the way for contemporary artists. References Britt, D 1999, Art: Impressionism to Post Impressionism, Thames and Hudson, London. Nord, P 2000, Impressionism and Politics, Routledge, London. Bomford, D.. Kirby. J.. Leighton. J. & Roy. A 1990, Art in the Making: Impressionism, National Gallery Publications, London. Frascina, F. & Harris. J 1992, Art in Modern Culture: An Anthology of Critical Texts, Phaidon, Oxford. Fried, M 2002, Menzel’s Realism: Art and Embodiment in 19th Century Berlin, Yale University Press, London. Hauser, A 1999. The Social History of Art (Volume 4).3rd ed, Routledge, London. Herbert, RL 1982, French Cities in the Nineteenth Century: ‘Industry in the changing landscape from Daubigny to Monet’, Hutchinson, London. Read More