Wonderful commentary, as always—and I always learn something new. I hadn’t realized, for one, that impressionists avoided using black or gray. I will now always be on the lookout for that. I appreciated your comments on and choice of Sisley painting. I have seen only a few Sisley’s, but even from that, I don’t really understand why he is and was so downgraded. His paintings, or at least the few I’ve seen, aren’t flamboyant in any way, but as in this one, they beautifully capture peaceable moments. Also of interest, in that vein, is the downgrading of certain subject matters, landscape, genre even lower, and still life. Even though I’ve read explanations, I don’t see why there must be a ranking or competition in type of subject matter, as it seems to me that any subject matter can yield great and lasting art.
That's a nice Sisley. His treatment of the water reminds me of Monet around the same date. Here's an example from Monet, also at the Met. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/437135 The technique is called broken color because the artist doesn't blend the brushstrokes at all, capturing the effect of light and color with visible brushwork.
The ranking of subject matter is something that goes back to the 17th century which is when all if the academies of art were created. What they called "history paintings," historical, mythological and religious subjects, were large scale works with lots of figures and action for palaces, churches, and government buildings. They were thought to demonstrate the artist's skills with anatomy, perspective, light and shadow, as well as knowledge of the history, myth, religion, etc. This prejudice continued until the later 19th century when art patronage shift to the upper middle class.
Oh, yes, that Monet is a beauty! And I see now that the effect I like in both is “broken color,” a new term for me, and another technique to look for when looking at art. Yes, I have read about the prizing of history paintings, and also (if I have this right?), the ability to paint nudes. There, too, again if I am recalling correctly what I have read, women artists were disadvantaged because, for a long time, they were not allowed to do so, so worked in other subject matters, such as still life.
That's correct. The 18th century artist Angelica Kauffman learned to represent the human body by studying ancient and Renaissance nude sculptures and plaster casts in museums because she was determined to be a history painter. As a result scurrilous poems and rumors were circulated - suggesting that her interest in the male sculptures wasn't artistic.
Wonderful commentary, as always—and I always learn something new. I hadn’t realized, for one, that impressionists avoided using black or gray. I will now always be on the lookout for that. I appreciated your comments on and choice of Sisley painting. I have seen only a few Sisley’s, but even from that, I don’t really understand why he is and was so downgraded. His paintings, or at least the few I’ve seen, aren’t flamboyant in any way, but as in this one, they beautifully capture peaceable moments. Also of interest, in that vein, is the downgrading of certain subject matters, landscape, genre even lower, and still life. Even though I’ve read explanations, I don’t see why there must be a ranking or competition in type of subject matter, as it seems to me that any subject matter can yield great and lasting art.
Here, BTW, is a Sisley I have seen in person that I really like: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/437680
That's a nice Sisley. His treatment of the water reminds me of Monet around the same date. Here's an example from Monet, also at the Met. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/437135 The technique is called broken color because the artist doesn't blend the brushstrokes at all, capturing the effect of light and color with visible brushwork.
The ranking of subject matter is something that goes back to the 17th century which is when all if the academies of art were created. What they called "history paintings," historical, mythological and religious subjects, were large scale works with lots of figures and action for palaces, churches, and government buildings. They were thought to demonstrate the artist's skills with anatomy, perspective, light and shadow, as well as knowledge of the history, myth, religion, etc. This prejudice continued until the later 19th century when art patronage shift to the upper middle class.
Oh, yes, that Monet is a beauty! And I see now that the effect I like in both is “broken color,” a new term for me, and another technique to look for when looking at art. Yes, I have read about the prizing of history paintings, and also (if I have this right?), the ability to paint nudes. There, too, again if I am recalling correctly what I have read, women artists were disadvantaged because, for a long time, they were not allowed to do so, so worked in other subject matters, such as still life.
That's correct. The 18th century artist Angelica Kauffman learned to represent the human body by studying ancient and Renaissance nude sculptures and plaster casts in museums because she was determined to be a history painter. As a result scurrilous poems and rumors were circulated - suggesting that her interest in the male sculptures wasn't artistic.