STUDENT POST: Impressionists: The Black Sheep of the Artistic Family? Or Pioneers for the Modern Age?

by: Adele Mallow-Spears, undergraduate art history student

When looking at Claude Monet’s Impression Sunset with its soft lines, vivid colors and rather innocuous subject matter would you think that it would be a catalyst for a rather rebellious and controversial art movement in Paris? Before learning about the history of art before and during this period, I would not have guessed this either. In fact, like most people nowadays, I saw this painting and thought it amazing that such a blurry image could command such an obscenely high price today! Well, as with many things in life, nothing is really as simple as it seems on the surface. My aim for this post is to have you contemplating whether the Impressionists were truly the rebellious “black sheep” of the artistic family? Or were they pioneering the way for later modern art styles and modern ideal in general?

Monet, Manet, Renoir and other artists started meeting at a café in Paris. The discussion of the goals of their art and art in general came up several times apparently. From these discussions the artists realized how they were of a like mind, they wanted to attempt to capture moments of life in the world around them. The idea of trying to convey a moment or event as it was occurring seemed very exciting and sparked a passion. Impressionists like Degas still produced most of their work with a studio, but many others, like Monet, preferred to work outdoors. To make this more interesting is when artists, like Manet, also chose to use angles, shadowing and subject matter not commonly accepted.

I am sure you are wondering what I mean by that. Well, the French Academy of Art, along with its affiliates, had rather strict guidelines about what techniques, styles and subject matter stood as acceptable.

The Academy, a place where budding artists could train, held a lot of influence of the artistic community in France as well as the other communities throughout Europe. France and Italy still stood as the artistic Meccas of Europe. The art shows of the time, called Salons, were often by invitation and the Academy often held sway over the invitation list. With that in mind, I will attempt to summarize their ideals to give you a better idea of why the Impressionists caused such controversy. For one thing, the Academy revered the classical styles and techniques, as well as seeing a great importance in using perspective (creating depth and a vanishing point). To avoid boring you with my attempts to describe these, I will show you the School of Athens by Raphael (1510-1511):

The foreground, middle ground and background with vanishing point are very obvious in this painting. Also, the well-defined forms, flowing lines, and the bright hues, as well as lighting, illustrate the classical style excellently in my opinion. Also, this painting stood in excellence with the Academy due to it being a historical painting. Genre paintings (scenes of people in everyday life in a particular area) and portraits (paintings of one or more people at the center and posed) were considered to be acceptable subjects. However, landscape (outdoor scenes that did not include people) and still lifes (posed paintings of inanimate objects) didn’t even warrant their attention most of time. These paintings were rarely accepted into the Salons.

With all of this in mind, you can imagine how the Academy felt about a painting such as Monet’s Impression, Sunset, which could be defined as a landscape but with blurred, indistinct lines and bright contrasting colors. To answer that question, I will simply say that a critic harshly named Monet, Manet and others of like style/mind “Impressionist” due to this painting. To make this even better, at a Salon set up by Napoleon for all the rejected art works, Manet displayed his Luncheon on the Grass. The conservative critics and Academy members were completely shocked that he dared to use such odd angles, odd shadowing and risqué subject matter. Now, nudes were not uncommon in art by any stretch, but having the women be the only nudes among conservatively dressed men and the picnic strewn about the grass makes the observer feel like they had just walked in on something very private. Needless to say, this only added fuel to the fire. Despite being criticized, belittled and sometimes outright ignored by many of their peers and the public, this didn’t stop the Impressionists from pursue art in a way that made sense and held meaning for them.

Being willing to take risks, keep on one’s chosen path despite roadblocks, and endure criticism the entire time stands as one of the best examples of modern thinking. Modern thinking in the sense that what becomes important is the individual experience, individual perception and the pursuit for self-actualization. For one of the first times in history, some artists were not creating art with a patron or the art market in mind. No, the works created were ultimately for the artist themselves and the progression of art. With the beginning of the foundation having been laid for a broader perspective on what constitutes fine art, the future artists definitely benefitted from the Impressionist’s rebellious spirit.

Sources: "Whisler's Velvet Revolution," slate.com; Impressionism

Clueless about Monet?

Cher: She's a full on Monet.
Tai: What's a monet?
Cher: It's like a painting, see? From far away it's okay, but up close it's a big ol' mess.

While this is a pithy dialogue excerpt from a great 90s movie, it is also a good starting point to discuss an Impressionist painting. For most people, Claude Monet (1840-1926) is the most recognizable name associated with French Impressionism, an outgrowth of the Realist movement. (Future posts will be dedicated to Realism, and also how Impressionism is also realism.) Here is his painting that led a critic to coin the term "Impressionism." It debuted in 1874 at what is now recognized as the first Impressionist exhibit:

Claude Monet, Impression: Sunrise, 1873, oil on canvas, 19 5/8 x 25 1/2 inches.
Musee Marmottan, Paris.

As Cher notices, from a distance it is easy for us to see Impression: Sunrise as a three-dimensional view of Port Le Havre. However, a closer inspection of the canvas shows how Monet left his brushstrokes unblended so they rest, quite visibly, on top of the canvas surface:


Impression: Sunrise was shocking and crude to the 19th century eye. This is more apparent when looking at the highly-finished Academic canvases like this one, which debuted to critical acclaim at the Salon of 1874:

William Bouguereau, Nymphs and a Satyr, 1874, oil on canvas,
9'3/8" x 5'10 7/8".
Sterling and Francis Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, MA.

Bouguereau's classical subject, large size, inclusion of nudes, and the naturalistic style were all the hallmarks of the conservative Academy's tastes. In contrast, Impression: Sunrise defiantly rejected the Academy's expectations. The canvas is relatively small (19 1/8 x 25 1/2 inches), and landscapes were viewed as impromper subjects for ambitious painters.

Most insulting to critics were Monet's brushstrokes because they weren't paint pretending to be flesh or water, but just boldly declaring their material as paint. Monet uses paint to suggest the changing light and and atmosphere at sunrise, and anyone who has seen the moment when a sun bursts on the horizon knows how quickly the phenomenon happens. As the viewer, we get the sense that the artist is working very quickly to capture that specific moment; notice how the speed of the artist's hand is indicated by the direction of the brushstrokes, and the distance in between the individual strokes. Suddenly, the brushstroke becomes a vehicle to capture not just the physical appearance of a scene but also the artist's gut response to visual sensation. In that regard, Monet's brushstroke is complex because it is both objective and subjective.

The total effect when viewing Impression: Sunrise is that we expect a three-dimensional representation of a real place, but the brushstroke prevents our eye from sinking into illusionistic three-dimensional space. In other words, we want to see a "real" view but the blatant marks on the top of the canvas deny any recessive space. This effect is what art historians and critics call "visual tension." The brushstroke is our entry into the painting, and also what prevents us from seeing anything but a flat surface. For some critics and historians, a defining characteristic of modernism in any artistic medium (poetry, sculpture, etc.) will be evidence of the creation of process, and the self-referentiality of the medium. The visual paradox of an Impressionist painting lies in visual and mental tension: knowing that it is a finished product vs. the sketch-like appearnce; the desire to see Impression: Sunrise as a three-dimensional view but being acutely aware of the two-dimensional nature of the canvas.

However, we know this because of our retrospective perch in 2009. At the time, 19th century writers couldn't handle Monet's style. Critic Louis Leroy dismissed it as "wallpaper in its embryonic state." To critics, it looked like an oil sketch but Monet indicates the finished status by signing and dating the lower left corner. It was perceived by Leroy as a slap in the face to 400 years of artistic development that stressed modeling, line, and perspective.

Finally, Bouguereau's Nymphs and a Satyr offers a safe, objective view of the subject. To 19th century critics and Salon-goers, the artist's intelligence is implied through this restraint and objectivity. By comparison, Monet's Impression: Sunrise is a sensual plunge into atmosphere, light, color, and tactility. The durability (lasting appeal) of Impression: Sunrise hinges on Monet's ability to let the 21st century see what he saw, to feel what he felt as he painted the Port of Le Havre.