Week Five

                If we were to judge by the works of Caillebotte that we have been looking at, we could say the "modern" cityscape replaces the Parisian's need for nature.  The new city was admirable and a marvel. It deserved recognition, and the architecture was worth looking at and painting. In the works we looked at, citizens went for strolls in the city, on the street, looked down from a building -- they did not have people out for walks in the woods or enjoying a lakeside. Caillebotte did paint some situations outside the realm of city life, be it out in a lake or garden or inside a home.  But the city provided so much potential for man to create and dominate. The modernization of Paris was a conscious decision to represent the capabilities of man.  A lot of it was dependent on only one man, making it even more awe-inspiring. The idea of man wandering about Paris was supposed to infer that the man can do anything, accomplish what he wants and experience life. The new modern city meant that life and living was supposed to be easier. Caillebotte painted cityscapes that effectively described the awesomeness of the new Paris.

                But then, Caillebotte used human subjects that resented the opposite reaction from mankind.  Paris advancements seemed to stunt his characters. This new place was beyond what Caillebotte's men were capable of.  It had surpassed their aspirations; there was nothing left to hope for, and their dreams became pointless and therefore unattainable. In Pont de l'Europe, the city and architecture fills up a lot of the space and creates a vast depth.  The city is so much beyond what Caillebotte's figures could imagine accomplishing. A man leans against the largest, darkest architecture Caillbotte included, apparently intimidated into depression or at least sulkiness. You cannot help but imagine him sighing, resigned to the daunting nature of the city. Or maybe the sigh is from longing for something more.  Either way, the artist decided city life was too much for this man to handle with a cheerful attitude.

                Not only are his characters' dreams dashed, but Caillebotte stunted their social aspirations as well. Frequently, the figures in his paintings are in close proximity, appearing as though they should be interacting with each other, but he does not actually give them the desired connections and relationships. For example, in Paris Street: a Rainy Day, there is a man and a woman sharing an umbrella walking toward the viewer as a man is walking toward them.  The couple are not looking at the man approaching them or even willing to face his direction. Not only that, but, despite obviously being connected, the couple is not really interacting with themselves.  The man has his arm out for the woman, so they are definitely together, and they might be looking at the same thing off to the left, and they are sharing an umbrella, but there is still space between them.  They are not talking with each other, and it does not look as though they are out to enjoy the day together.  In fact, the man seems to be ahead of the woman and pointedly looking away from her.  Possibly, Caillebotte imagined this man wanted to use this walk as a chance to distance himself from the woman.  Happy couples out for a stroll tend to walk a lot closer to each other, especially when sharing an umbrella.

                Both of these works use colder colors. Generally, the paintings we looked at use grayer colors or a more monotonous color scheme than those of the Impressionists. Purposefully or not, Caillebotte integrated depression in these compositions, which is not surprising when we realize that his family was dying off as he was painting them. It is quite possible that he and his family perhaps death with their losses by isolating themselves.  Life probably felt lonelier and lonelier as time went on. This was a possible contributor to the loneliness and isolation exposed in his cityscapes.

                Placing his works into historical context and ignoring his personal life, I would assume that Caillebotte was just depicted what he observed in real city life. At the time, Impressionists were interested in painting what their eyes saw instead of the ideas or subjects our brains interpret, and Realists were insisting on showing everyday situations instead of the idealized. It only makes sense that Caillebotte would paint depressed people in the city because he saw depressed people in the city.  Maybe he did, and maybe he did not. I cannot say for sure. But, unlike the Impressionists he was associated with, Caillebotte's works were planned out ahead of time, showing he thought of his compositions as more than an observation.  He valued his subjects and his subject matter. The city impressed him. The people depressed him.

Week Four

If I have my Monet and my Manet straight, Monet's depiction of 1878's 30th of June festival, to me at least, seems as though it wants to give the sense of a big picture while Manet's focuses on a smaller idea. Monet's Rue Montergueil with Flags describes the overall enjoyment of the city.  The view includes ore that a street or a cluster of townsfolk. There's building after building and throngs of celebratory citizens in streets that go on forever. The victory is here and there is nothing more but peace, civility, and rejoicing. Paris is one happy city.

Manet's Rue Mosnier brings attention to one little street with few folk going along down the street. There is quite a bit of depth present. The party seems really far away and the cripple has to hobble his way to get there as people drive past him in carriages. In this version, the victory is still in the distance. In this version, the streets are decorated as much as in Monet's paintings, but the celebration is not happening where you can see it. Manet's street serves to lead the subjects and the viewers to the celebration; it is not the celebration itself. Monet's shows where the party is. All the depth Monet creates in Rue Montergueil is for showing how extensive the celebration is, not how far away it is. While the victory is being celebrated fully for Monet who is ready to accept upcoming peace, Manet portrays the victory as still in the distance.  France is almost there, it is even visible just around the corner, but they still have to hobble along with the crippled veteran for a ways.  They aren't done yet. Manet's view is not nearly as positive as Monet's. Even Manet's streets are not as colorful and saturated - the bricks and coble walking women are really washed out and the colors are cold. Looking at the Monet, we can see more warmth and richness in colors with darks and shadows and higher levels of saturation.

With Monet's depictions, the viewer can more easily understand the images at a distance and as the big picture. He continues on in his previous style, focusing on showing the effects of colors and lights that happen to make an appealing image. You can tell what it is in Manet's painting from a ways away and up close. Your eye can wander from figure to figure and individually interpret what you are seeing with Manet's painting. The composition is not as driven by what he observed with color and lights as by the subject. The viewer does not sit and wonder the how or why of the brushstrokes as much as what is going on with the subjects. The figures are suggesting that there is something wrong. Having a crippled veteran struggling down the street by himself is not suggestive of happiness or reaching wonderful goals. The sidewalk and streets and pedestrians are walking along a line that crosses with the line of the cripples hips.  They are opposing each other. To me, this is Manet heavily suggesting France remembers how they should not be ignoring or fighting the impoverished. Monet's paintings are more interesting and controversial with techniques and style than subject, and even then, a lot of the controversy and newness of his impressionist style has lost some of its edge from being freshly innovative. Monet's Rue Montergueil is clearly not at all interested in making a statement. It is an observation. There are multitudes of people participating, no one is depicted as looking left out or dejected, and it is a victory celebration in full swing. The image would suggest to its contemporary Frenchmen a joyous future, while Manet was sure to create a reminder about what all the recent fighting was about.

Week Three

Currently, I’m sitting in a florescent lit room with plenty of windows so I can appreciate the buzzing of the light bulbs and the general grayness of outside. It is kind of depressing – especially since the last few days were so nice.  And now I have been staring at On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt b y Monet, so now I feel like going on a sunny walk, having a picnic, or, at the very least, not doing homework.  Thanks Monet. Kind of ruined my day with your sunny painting. You make me want to relax, take a holiday. Jerk.

The first thing that stops me about this painting to make me want a vacation is the cropping.  That sounds like a stretch, but cropped images make me feel like the image is an experience I am viewing. You do not see everything all at once in reality, and, in real life, things do not align themselves so that they fit within a neat little box or frame or window or whatever. When I see a cropped image, my immediate response is to feel as though I am taking the time to stop, relax, and calmly look out a window. Window equals relaxing. We can see the tree and the buildings and the water and the sky all go to beyond our vision. The painting seems to be a little window that you could just pop through to fully experience the calm little setting.

Secondly, the colors and tones send me off to a summery day. Darn you Monet.  The saturation, temperature and color selection (greens, blues, yellows) give the effect of warm, natural sunlight and pleasant weather. The view is outside on a nice, spring or summer early afternoon. Maybe we are having a picnic. Or a super quaint little tea party. Being outside in nice weather equals relaxing.

To add to this, there is the light. Monet, being interested in recreating the visual effects of light, uses shading and highlights much differently than previous western painters and all them academics. It’s mostly darkness in the foreground, and it is lighter in the distance. Well, the colors are not “lighter” which would sort of give an atmospheric sense of perspective.  Both foreground and background are fairly saturated, so instead of giving an incredible sense of depth, I just feel like we the viewers are placed in the shade, while the stuff beyond our tree is more lit. Shade equals relaxing.

Then there is the solid blue sky. Bright blue sky equals relaxing. And it is not a sweltering, cloudless sky. I think I can see a few wispy clouds hiding behind the trees. Calm floating clouds equals relaxing. Monet also devotes quite a bit of the space in the painting to create a reflection. The water , reflecting the same saturated, warm colors,  doesn’t seem to be disturbed at all. Still waters equals relaxing. Actually, water in general equals relaxing, unless it is cold and raging.

Meanwhile, the angle of our view suggests that we are near-ish to the ground.  We see mostly up and out so we must be down low, sitting or lying down. Not standing equals relaxing (especially when we are in the shade on a sunny day).

And what’s right in the middle of this composition? Leaves. Nature. Nature is relaxing. That is what is important in this painting: a big tree covering up the village or town, and sitting under the tree. The composition does not allow the viewer to be involved with that other stuff. Not important. Neither is homework.

This painting takes the viewer, who if they were in an academic painting mindset would not have been looking for a chance to stop and relax, and forces them to enjoy the little experience the painter had on the bank of the Seine. It makes the viewer’s life seem undesirable. If an academic painter, or historians like ourselves, looked at this painting and then proceeded to not feel like they ought to be out enjoying summery weather instead of analyzing a painting, then they must not have looked at it for very long. Although if you are looking at the painting right now and alternating it with my blogs background, your emotions may get somewhat confused.

Week Two

Looking back to when the bourgeoisie first came into being, I see the Rococo style emerge. The upper classes were looking for light and fluffy pictures focusing on nature and happy, frivolous characters. That is what the bourgeoisie wanted to look at, and that is what they were willing to pay for – flowery fantasies. Courbet’s works used some depressing colors and subject matter. There was no nature or frolicking in it. By purchasing works ignoring reality and the rest of society, the wealthy were clearly expressing their desire to fantasize. Courbet and realism did not fit into that desire at all; it shoved reality into faces and forced the viewers to snap out of those fantasies. Looking back to Romantic works, where any emotion was welcome as long as it was a strong one, we can see Realism is several steps in a different direction.  Realism was not escapist, and it did not evoke visceral reactions. For the bourgeoisie, Realism worked through the pit of their stomachs, up to their mind and conscious, probably slowly building up feelings of guilt and/or disgust. People paying for those paintings didn’t want to see images that made them depressed or guilty. They wanted the flowery fantasies or to feel strong emotions. Courbet’s “Burial at Ornans” does not promote happy feelings, and neither does the manual labor in “The Stonebreakers.”

With socialism making its arguments and gaining popularity with writers, those with voice in mid-nineteenth century France wanted everyone to identify with the poor and the working class. The wanted the future to be run by them, not the wealthy. Any image that focused on the working or poor felt like a threat to the bourgeoisie.  A large image of manual laborers such as stonebreakers was like putting up a giant sign on a rich person’s home saying in big, bold letters, “You’re not important even thou you’re the one that pays us.  These other guys are.” That would seem fairly insulting to the rich and sheltered who were used to exquisite pandering.  If a person wanted to look at poor people, doing poor people things, then they would just watch poor people.  But by producing images that exhibited other lifestyles, artists could be seen as forcing viewers to acknowledge what they have clearly been trying to ignore.  I hate it when I am ignoring something and someone tries to push it in my face. I would be offended if I were a wealthy viewer back then.

Or, if you ignore the focus on the lower class, ignore the subject matter and potential messages, the composition would still be confusing and off-putting at the time. Nowadays, we are ready to look at any image and accept that it is art and meaningful and on purpose if that is what we’re told to believe.  Back then, they had more definitive standards, and Courbet was breaking them. The size and position of those stone-breakers do not make sense according to previous standards.  They were not holding some secret message slyly hidden and delivered in an established style.  The stonebreakers are a complete departure from previous compositions.  You stare at working men’s backsides, and, beyond that, the view is cut off by a cliff or stone wall.  There is no interest in depth or a far off haziness.  The viewer is kept within the confines of what a stone worker with blinders on would see.  You are forced to pay attention to the right-now of the workers.  There is no pretty landscape in the distance, only the labor of today.  The upper crust in denial would not like that view.

The burial, though it has the depth and extended view, is filled with faces lacking a unified mood, and does not provide a satisfactory main subject for the eye to focus on.  There is the white mass on the left broken by children’s faces that look as disinterested and confused as the viewer might feel when happening upon an image of a commonplace funeral in a fancy salon.  Then there are the red cloaked clergymen, who have the only saturated color in the painting, against the black and white contrasts of the man in front of them.  He kneels, as if to say, “Oh, look! A hole! There’s a hole right here. Look everyone, I have found a hole!”  If your attention is not caught by any of those characters, then you may be staring at the hole itself. Oh, look.  A hole.  And if the none of those options do not captivate you, then you are probably staring at the dog, who also is confused or disinterested.  Generally, if the bourgeoisie were out and about, looking at paintings, trying to have a good time in the Salon, they most likely wanted the composition to tell them where to look.  They would want their eyes guided to something interesting and pleasant.  The figures Courbet depicted obviously don’t care what the viewer decides to look at.  The viewer is not at all significant.