Research Paper On Claude Monet
The school of Impressionism, which continues to attract adherents among artists, coalesced around a number of French artists who took light, open air and interpretive color as their guide. This school was itself an outgrowth of Realism as practiced by painters like Courbet and Corot, who sought to depict everyday settings and people in their art in opposition to existing conventions that dictated an idealization of the world within narrowly defined subjects for painting. Undoubtedly the best known in this exhibit, the works of the French painter Claude Monet, have been popularized to a near saturation point the world over in recent years. Framed here by his predecessor Turner and his contemporary Whistler, this show allows for a welcome contrast and context for his sometimes overly decorative paintings. Despite some recognizable parallels of style, Monet was probably not familiar with
…show more content…
Turner’s work until he was well along in developing his own impressionistic voice. Whether Monet was fully conscious of it or not, his evolution seems to crystallize artistic innovation that had been underway for decades before he presented the world with his Impression, Sunrise in 1874, the oil painting from which the movement ostensibly derives its name and which is included in this exhibit.
There is an honest innocence in much of Monet’s work that is often both its strength and its weakness. Monet very deliberately sought subjects that were amorphous by nature, such as the cityscapes shrouded in London smog, and while this lends his painting a dreamy quality that has an irresistible appeal, one feels at times that he has excluded less obvious subjects in which to find beauty. A good deal has been made by the organizers of this exhibit of the role of industrial pollution and smog on the Impressionist style of painting by figures such as Monet and Whistler, Although there is clearly some foundation for this thesis—particularly in light of the toxic conditions produced in London of that period—it seems to trivialize somewhat the deeper influences in their
work.
Although Monet may have been among the most accomplished and celebrated in this school, others such as Whistler developed lesser-known works that nevertheless have commensurate artistic value and often a greater seriousness. Whistler was himself a contradictory figure. Born in Lowell, Massachusetts, in 1834, he spent many of his formative years abroad in Russia and England. He returned to the US and entered West Point Military Academy, after which he left America for good at the age of 21. Struggling for acceptance between France and Britain, Whistler eventually ran afoul of Turner’s foremost champion. A respected art critic and commentator in his time, John Ruskin characterized Whistler’s painting in 1877 as “flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.” The review led to a notorious trial in which Whistler won the right of artists to interpret the world as they wished—but at great cost to his reputation. For this reviewer, some of the most captivating works at the AGO are from Whistler’s Nocturne series of oil paintings, which evoke some of the mystery and drama of Turner’s watercolors, particularly the accompanying work Nocturne: Blue and Gold: Old Battersea Bridge, 1872-5. These simple pieces offer an affecting synthesis of romance and melancholy that is remarkable for its time and must have thrown open doors to a new world of expression in painting. Whistler in many ways represents a continuation of the work begun by Turner and yet epitomized “aestheticism”—a movement identified with the promotion of “art for art’s sake” and an indifference to social life. Of course, the world had changed and the revolutions of the mid-nineteenth century had altered relations within European society. In the 1860s and 1870s, Whistler left behind, for better or worse, the early influence of Courbet. He came to subscribe to the notion that it was in the natural order that only an elite could fully understand beauty. Still, it is not clear how convinced Whistler was of such positions—he seemed to vary according to his particular purpose
Turner’s work until he was well along in developing his own impressionistic voice. Whether Monet was fully conscious of it or not, his evolution seems to crystallize artistic innovation that had been underway for decades before he presented the world with his Impression, Sunrise in 1874, the oil painting from which the movement ostensibly derives its name and which is included in this exhibit.
There is an honest innocence in much of Monet’s work that is often both its strength and its weakness. Monet very deliberately sought subjects that were amorphous by nature, such as the cityscapes shrouded in London smog, and while this lends his painting a dreamy quality that has an irresistible appeal, one feels at times that he has excluded less obvious subjects in which to find beauty. A good deal has been made by the organizers of this exhibit of the role of industrial pollution and smog on the Impressionist style of painting by figures such as Monet and Whistler, Although there is clearly some foundation for this thesis—particularly in light of the toxic conditions produced in London of that period—it seems to trivialize somewhat the deeper influences in their
work.
Although Monet may have been among the most accomplished and celebrated in this school, others such as Whistler developed lesser-known works that nevertheless have commensurate artistic value and often a greater seriousness. Whistler was himself a contradictory figure. Born in Lowell, Massachusetts, in 1834, he spent many of his formative years abroad in Russia and England. He returned to the US and entered West Point Military Academy, after which he left America for good at the age of 21. Struggling for acceptance between France and Britain, Whistler eventually ran afoul of Turner’s foremost champion. A respected art critic and commentator in his time, John Ruskin characterized Whistler’s painting in 1877 as “flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.” The review led to a notorious trial in which Whistler won the right of artists to interpret the world as they wished—but at great cost to his reputation. For this reviewer, some of the most captivating works at the AGO are from Whistler’s Nocturne series of oil paintings, which evoke some of the mystery and drama of Turner’s watercolors, particularly the accompanying work Nocturne: Blue and Gold: Old Battersea Bridge, 1872-5. These simple pieces offer an affecting synthesis of romance and melancholy that is remarkable for its time and must have thrown open doors to a new world of expression in painting. Whistler in many ways represents a continuation of the work begun by Turner and yet epitomized “aestheticism”—a movement identified with the promotion of “art for art’s sake” and an indifference to social life. Of course, the world had changed and the revolutions of the mid-nineteenth century had altered relations within European society. In the 1860s and 1870s, Whistler left behind, for better or worse, the early influence of Courbet. He came to subscribe to the notion that it was in the natural order that only an elite could fully understand beauty. Still, it is not clear how convinced Whistler was of such positions—he seemed to vary according to his particular purpose