#4. The pilitical side of Impressionism.

    The Rue Montorgueil by Claude Monet and The Rue Mosnier with Flags by Edouard Manet have same theme and same view in the French festival of June 30th, 1878. Even though both of these paintings have same theme, they have just few similarities. Both of artist wanted to capture this moment at that time, so they made rough brushstrokes for quickly capturing that moment. Also, France flag was symbol in that festival, so both put the flags in the paintings. I guess that both of artists observed and drawn this painting from a window in the building. 
    The Rue Montorgueil by Claude Monet looks energetic. Lots of flags are waving as violently and a large crowned in the whole street. I feel like flag's waving have more vitality instead of crown in the painting. Monet's light and short brushstrokes made tension and vitality. Also, he used some intensive colors that makes more active and energetic. I guess that he had a good observation and skill for capturing a scene with tension and  vitality. Photo could have missed instant vitality but Monet could capture that moment with continuous fluid. When we first look at this painting, we do not notice about how he depicted. But when you look carefully, we notice that Monet used illusory conjunction technique. Even though there is not that much details, Monet draw a great painting.
    The Rue Mosnier with Flags by Edouard Manet looks relaxed than Monet's one. Because less flags are waving as weakly and few peoples are walking in the street. Manet used bright colors just like sun light so the painting looks more warm and bright. I guess that by using bright colors, France flags stand out than other figures. But somehow, in the foreground, a man who looks like a amputee veteran stand out as well. Through this man, Manet he wanted to express his experiences that many people scarified during the french revolution. In the middle of this painting, the street looks so empty and lonely, just like it represented that man's mind and feeling. Contrastively, on the right side, a elegant gentlemen is walking down the street. Through these figures, we could know that what reality is. People who scarified themselves in the fight are forgotten but rich and privileged group of people live happy life and control the social systems. Unlike Monet captured what is going on in the street as literally, Manet captured what is going on the social system in the country. Also, Manet's avant-gardism supports the aspects of both political radicalism and aesthetic radicalism. By increasing separability of radical art and politics, become part of the subject just like this painting.
      Even though both paintings have same theme and captured same day, two different artists made two perfectly different paintings. Monet just captured the celebrate moment in the street with vitality and tension. And Manet described the street with political issue in the festival of 30th June, 1878. Because both Monet and Manet have different technique and thinking, they could make two different great and beautiful art works.

#3. Impressionism

I would like to talk about A Sunday Afternoon On The Island Of LA Grande Jatte  by Georges Seurat. This painting is one of typical art works by Georges Seurat who is founder of Neo-Impressionism. The painting represents a sunny Sunday afternoon and many people spend time together in the park. Seurat followed analysis of light from Impressionism however he dissatisfied with instinctive and intuitive attitude of production is excessively tied to light and he wanted to invest strict theory and science. He introduced Pointillism, which is returns color to primary colors and composition with small strokes of color, it keeps unity and color principle of Impressionism to systematization. In this painting, the park, on the island of the Grande Jatte, is just west of Paris was easy of access by train. There are about 50 people that have variety of social class types and jobs and wearing a fashionable clothes. For men, a suit and black hat with cane stick that looks like gentlemen. For women, looks like that two piece suit with big volume in the hip side and carry a parasol style is really popular at that time. People are just taking a walk, looking other people, taking a boat, or fishing. Trees made roof and shade, also on the upper left side, there is cloud which is just like fine soft hair. The space in the painting is made out of linear perspective from Renaissance so people become smaller regularly when it goes to the back. In the middle of the painting, a little girl who is wearing a bright white dress with as the central figure, warm colors and clear hue are balanced in vertically and horizontally in composition. Also, in the painting, figures are placed in elaborate and detailed composition. All the figures are followed vitruvian Man so head proportion is 1/7 than body. Therefore, all the people, who has generalized body and face, are not expressing any feeling and there is no interchange between them.Seurat wanted to describe modern people from city as most modern people also record as great classic style. As result, secured stabilization as solidity and simplify but his figures look stiffen and unnatural. Therefore, this artwork is leisure hours in city images as Impressionism and a images which is described modern social class's neglect and affectation as realism. According to the textbook, In theory, these juxtaposed small strokes of color would merge in the viewer's eye to produce the impression of other colors. When perceived from a certain distance they would appear more luminous and intense than the same colors seen separately, while on close observation Seurat's strokes and colors would remain distinct and separate, creating an almost abstract arrangement of color and shape. In this painting, Seurat used 11 colors and he rather than mixed all the colors but put as a dot with purest hue. So when we look at this painting from a distance, it looks beautiful. Pointillism artist thought that eyes should same as camera lens and Seurat put his principles into practice. Science theory of light has problem which is express the object with monochromatic. Seurat thought that object reveals through the variety color contrast. So he made up forms as countless dots with complementary colors. This form shows that small strokes of colors would merge in the viewer's eyes. Seurat worried about color's composition and combination which is reveal the world. Also he thought that when dissolve the elements of color and then restructure, it could close to a law of nature. Therefore, I guess that this painting shows not Seurat's subjectivity but a theory about the world. Seurat believed that he could make more clear and persuasive expression through this technique. The goal of Pointillism is reproduce a experience more vividly. Seurat also used advanced materials, so it makes experimentation high. For example, he extracted yellow color from zinc so he expressed intense sunlight on the grass. I guess that it gave deep impression at that time. We are not sure that white dots makes more bright screen or special science knowledge would necessary.  However, I guess that the reason why viewer attractive to his painting is not only scientific things, but also marvelous that process the softly shake countless dots are change to attractive mess of image.   

#2. Realism and the Early Avant-Garde

Gustave Courbet was one of the avant-garde or Realist artists. Courbet established realism and buried France art’s romanticism with ‘A Burial at Ornans’ in 1849. It was exhibited at the Salon and it is a life-size scale painting about 10 by 21 feet. At that time, this painting gave shock and made dispute because of the size of the painting and theme. In the Salon, this painting placed in one of the whole walls. Also, the theme of this painting is a burial scene of unknown who lived in countryside and there was no narrative or mention for this painting. Characters in the painting are also different than other paintings. Characters have individual features and it expressed through portrait, also people wearing weird clothes which is from countryside.

In addition, there is no composition from meaning of tradition. In this painting, there is no main character but many people weep in various states of grief. Therefore, Courbet did not emphasize anything through colors. In the painting, Courbet used the contrast between light and shade. Dark green and cloudy gray color gave stern mood, also strong and intense expressive technique could feel natural elements and it gave sense of density and weighty. Also, usually we could see the line with movement of motion and depth of space. However, in this painting, it is hard to find every normal thing. All the people stare different directions and stand in line, so it looks flat just like cut and paste pictures.

This kind of Courbet’s approach was one of radical innovation. In this painting, he did not follow the process of idealization but depicted ordinary theme. For express this theme, he used huge canvas which is usually used for history paintings that have elegant and dignity.

Even though, clergy helped to this funeral, this painting is not gave a religious feeling. This is because, relative with form of canvas. Traditionally, death or burial scene used vertical composition. Vertical composition has a message that soul could go to heaven through it. However, Courbet’s burial had no interest in soul of death. He only emphasized social solidarity in the ground through the community for burial with long horizontality composition.

There are about 50 people in the painting and Courbet depicted a scene of burial. In the left side of the painting, people who wearing a black clothes with white fabric are holding a coffin. In the center, the grave-digger kneels by the hole in the ground, also to the left lots of people were following for the funeral. According to the Stokstad, Courbet’s depiction has none of the idealization of traditional history painting; instead, it shows all the awkward, blundering numbness of a real funeral, with an emphasis on its brutal, physical reality.

In the painting, there is no center or surroundings, so it makes equality screen with same value. Therefore, it makes democratic things with revolution in 1848. Courbet said that the basic of realism is reject ideal thing and this can be release individual also it achieved democratic. Therefore, basically, realism is democratic art.