Impressionism – Modernism Takes Hold

Some notes taken from Waldemar Januszczak’s documentary series The Impressionists: Painting & Revolution.

What was it about? What were the goals?

Impressionism was an art movement based on several ideas:

·         It was an act of artistic rebellion, in which artists who had been rejected by the Paris Salon formed their own club, and held their own independent art exhibitions––what art historian Waldemar Januszczak called “eight art shows that changed the world.”

·         Impressionist painting was cheerful and optimistic, celebrating the new modern world: the transformation of Paris, new technology such as railroads, and the rising, liberated middle class. It studied modernity in detail, inspired by realists like Courbet and Manet.

·         Stylistically, Impressionists cared very much for the nature of light and colour and how it was affected by time of day, weather, reflections, and atmospheric conditions. They believed in painting outdoors, ignoring little details and eschewing precise drawing. Instead, they cared about working quickly, capturing the essence of a subject, getting the colours and shapes right with big bold, expressive brushstrokes.

·         They painted on a white background––we take it for granted today, but before the Impressionists, artists preferred working on dark-ground under paintings.

·         They also avoided black paint, instead mixing complimentary colours for darks and greys.

·         Since they tried to finish most works in one sitting, there was no use of transparent glazing, so the works are all opaque.

·         Impressionism also worked with optical mixing, placing colours side-by-side without blending, an idea that would be explored further with Pointillism.

·         Impressionism began to end as the optimism of modern life gave way to anger over growing poverty, lack of worker’s rights, and class struggle. It gave way to the pessimism of expressionist art.

A bit of historical context, and what made it modern?

To understand how Impressionists were revolutionary, you have to understand the salon system and how it worked. A salon was a juried exhibition, and the jurors were the professors of the Academie des Beaux-Arts. They only accepted artwork that fit their taste and sensibilities. Likewise, they only admitted students they liked into the Academie, and only suggested their best students to paint commissions for the state, and then to join their ranks as new professors. Getting a place in the Academie assured one of success and fame, but meant you had to paint exactly what they wanted. It stifled freedom and creativity. As noted earlier, many artists and movements struggled to gain acceptance under this system. The Impressionists failed too, but then they decided to undermine the whole system by holding their own revolutionary shows, helped by the great art dealer Durand-Ruel.

Impressionism couldn’t have existed without new technology:

1.      Paint tubes, that allowed artists to leave the studio, painting outdoors.

2.      New synthetic colours in these tubes, such as: cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, cerulean blue, viridian, and cadmium yellow.

3.      Folding easels, that folded up into a light, convenient box, easy for travel.

4.      Brushes with tin ferrules, for flat brushes and clean, thin lines.

5.      Brushes made from coarse pig’s hair, for scratching around thick globs of paint.

6.      New pastels, made of pigment and chalk, allowed for drawing quickly in colour.

7.      Railways, to transport artists to many different towns and places.

8.      Photography, showed artists how people and animals look when moving, and influenced compositions. Before them, most artists chose a main subject as the focal point, and everything else was secondary. The Impressionists challenged this, at times placing several focal points, putting into question if a work was about the sitter or the background, creating an effect like a camera snapshot, as if you were really there. The Impressionists’ loose, painterly style was also a reaction to photography, which devalued the notion of precise, realistic rendering. Impressionists instead focused on the aspects of picture making that photography lacked – colour and subjectivity.

In addition to new technology, Impressionism was also influenced by the asymmetrical compositions and colours of Japanese printmaking which was very popular in the 19^th century.

The underlying philosophy of the period:

There are several core concepts to great Impressionist painting. They shared the Realist belief you should only paint what you see right in front of you. They felt, like the Barbizon School, you should go out and find your subjects around you. They also felt an artist is like a record keeper of history, and should record real life, whatever’s happening now, so that future generations may gain a greater understanding of the times. Since this was of fundamental importance, little details were insignificant clutter. Impressionists believed in creating beauty, but found it in the basic forms and colours of light.

How was it represented in other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Impressionism was popular in a number of other arts. Impressionist cinema came into fashion from 1919-1929 with Abel Gance, Epstein, Dulac, Delluc, and others. In music, Debussy and Ravel are considered the greatest Impressionist composers. Their music favoured shorter works with bigger chords (5 and 6 part harmonies, not just 3), major 7^th chords, and whole tone scales.

In literature, Impressionism refers to works that describe, rather than interpret, the little things going around the characters and the thoughts in their heads, much like stream-of-consciousness. Writers include Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Virginia Woolf, D.H. Lawrence, and Joseph Conrad.

What made it great?

Any art teacher will agree that colour is the most evocative element in painting. It might not be the most important to the structure of a composition, but we have all kinds of mental associations with different colours, and we react automatically with joy to certain colour combinations. The Impressionists knew this and studied these effects in detail. As a result, they became some of the most popular artists who ever lived, their works being some of the most expensive, memorable, and well-loved in history. There’s a reason why so many pens, napkins, calendars, and coffee mugs use Impressionist art as decoration. Impressionists are favourites among crowds of people with no art training, from all over the globe. This also explains why it’s still in demand and there are so many Impressionist artists still working today.

Critics of Impressionism come in two forms. There were the 19^th century academics who complained of the lack of finish, precision, skill that made it inferior, to their eyes. Then, there are the Modernist critics of today who look back at this time and see quaint, traditional family scenes, and idealized cityscapes, creating false narratives of nostalgia and even promoting male oppression of women, etc. All of these critics attack Impressionism on an intellectual level; they tell you to ignore your lying eyes, and listen to their theories. Luckily, most people would rather look and enjoy the relaxing, beautiful pictures than listen to some half-baked theories about art.

What ruined it?

Some people will tell you that Impressionism ended as other experiments in art became fashionable – the constructivist approach of Cezanne, the vivid, expressive colours of Gauguin and Van Gogh, the wild lines of Toulouse Lautrec. It’s true that Impressionism fell out of fashion, and a wave of pessimism at modernity, as art historian Januszczak described it, may have turned audiences against it, for a time. But, impressionism keeps coming back, again and again. It’s the default way to paint and to teach painting all over the world. It’s considered the best practice for training as an artist.

What’s with the haystacks?

Monet is credited with painting haystacks as a popular subject for impressionist study. It was one of his favourite subjects at Giverny, and he would set up several easels in a row, painting the same haystacks over time as the light changed. The farmers, however didn’t like his work, and would actually remove the haystacks early just to spite him. Monet wasn’t the first to paint haystacks, either. Millet painted them fifteen years earlier, granted they were the backdrop for his gleaners and farmhands.

Some leading figures:

Camille Pisarro (1830-1903)

Edouard Manet (1832-1883)

Edgar Degas (1834-1917)

Alfred Sisley (1839-1899)

Auguste Rodin (1840-1917) (sculptor)

Oscar-Claude Monet (1840-1926)

Frederic Bazille (1841-1870)

Berthe Morisot (1841-1895)

Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841-1919)

Gustave Caillebotte (1848-1894)

Leading American Impressionists:

Winslow Homer (1836-1910)

Mary Cassatt (1844-1926)

William Merritt Chase (1849-1916)

John Singer Sargent (1856-1925)

Childe Hassam (1859-1935)

Frederic Remington (1861-1909)

Other Famous Impressionists:

Giovanni Boldini (Italian, 1842-1931)

Anders Zorn (Swedish, 1860-1920)

Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida (Spanish, 1863-1923)

Nicolai Fechin (Russian-American, 1881-1955)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

Realism – Modernism’s First Big Step

Notes taken from Beth Gersh-Nesic, Ben Politt, and Dr.’s Beth Harris and Steven Zucker of Khan Academy.

What was it about? What were the goals?

A simple way to think of the Realists is to see it as another step towards Modernism. Realists, mostly French painters who worked at the same time as Pre-Raphaelites, still used academic training, styles and techniques, while shifting interests away from the classics, and toward modern life and society. This was a time of rapid transformation as the industrial revolution changed technology, cities, and previous ways of life. Realist artists wanted to examine and critique these changes in their art. Gustave Courbet, the de-facto leader of this group, wanted to make “history paintings” about real life––what was happening now. He felt, if he couldn’t see it, he shouldn’t paint it.

A word about modernism:

“In the Stone Age, artists expressed themselves with crude pictures on the walls of their caves. Then there was a period of transition that lasted roughly 10,000 years. Then came Modern Art. Now we can express ourselves again. If you want to know the details, you can go to art school and spend thousands of dollars, but this is basically what they'll teach you. I've boiled it down.” – Brad Holland

A bit of historical context

So, what changed during the industrial revolution? Basically, everything. This was one of the first times in history when population and wealth grew consistently, year to year, at unprecedented levels. One of the earliest and largest businesses to industrialize was textile manufacturing. Gas was used for heating homes and for street lights, starting around 1812 in London, and lasting until around 1890 when electric lights began to replace them. Lights at night allowed factories to run longer and created a new nightlife in cities. Modern sanitation made cities cleaner. New railways, roads, and canals made travelling faster, safer, and cheaper. People began taking weekend trips out into the country, just for fun.

Paris, a centre of artistic development, had transformed as well, with ambitious new projects that tore down old buildings to create broad new boulevards. The city reinvented itself in a modern style with multi-class buildings, where the rich lived on the first floors, and the poor up at the top. This allowed for more social mixing and mobility.

The underlying philosophy of the period:

If you can’t see it, you shouldn’t paint it. Don’t dwell on the distant past because you weren’t there, so you can’t possibly know what really happened. Focus on the present and what’s happening now. You’re living in important, exciting times. You need to record it so others can understand what life was like when your present becomes the past––and painting is the best way to do it, because so many of the changes are visual. Also, don’t be fooled into only presenting “important people”. Every life matters equally, so everyone is important, not just the rich and famous. Use your art to draw attention to people who need it, not simply those who want it. Art critic Baudelaire also recommended that artists be a flâneur, or stroller, joining the city crowds, but quietly observing, so he could better understand and paint them.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Realism is a major movement in literature, philosophy, the theatre, and cinema. Realist writers include Balzac, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Henrik Ibsen, and Emile Zola. English writers include George Eliot, Henry Fielding, and American realists include Mark Twain, Jack London, Stephen Crane, and John Steinbeck.

What made it great?

Far and away, the clearest star of the Realists was Edouard Manet, for his ability to get into the heads of his subjects and present complex, conflicting emotions with longing and pain that you can only guess at, no matter how long you look. Manet painted people who speak to you with their eyes. His revolutionary subjects and style have led some critics to call him the first modern artist. Beyond this, many realist painters learned and imitated the Romantics in landscape, using the light of the sun to evoke feelings and add drama. Having said that, some of the work these artists produced is a bit mediocre, just like with any art movement.

Why was it so short-lived?

Much of what one might consider “realist” art of this movement is limited to 1845-1870. It’s a short amount of time. I would say the biggest factors in this were the small number of artists who fit the criteria, few students of note to continue the style and aesthetic onto a second generation, and a rising tide of new, fashionable styles that swept away interest for a time. Of course, there are many artists today who create highly realistic art that could be considered “realist” in treatment of subject. But, they don’t get much recognition, and it’s hard to draw a connection from the contemporary art world to a tradition that died over 100 years ago.

Was it really more realistic than other periods?

Yes and no, so it’s not the best name for the movement. The two main facets of realism were in the brushwork itself and the realist, objective construction of compositions, showing things as they would look in real life, with no attempt at idealization. If you look back you can find precursors to realism, for example many golden-age Dutch masters, as well as the anti-Rococo painter Chardin, who seems to have been a major influence on Millet and others. If you look back at the Pre-Raphaelites, their colours and subjects may have been otherworldly, but their attention to detail, perspective, and proportions were highly realistic. Waterhouse even subdued his colours to increase the realism of his works. What’s more, as many so-called “realists” got older, their works became less and less photorealistic as the influence and appreciation for impressionism grew. Many “realist” paintings feel unfinished and rough, and not what one might consider realistic.

Some leading figures:

Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot (1796-1875)

Honoré-Victorin Daumier (1808-1879)

Jean-François Millet (1814-1875) (Barbizon School)

Gustave Courbet (1819-1877)

Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867) (poet & art critic)

Rosa Bonheur (1822-1899)

Édouard Manet (1832-1883)
Jules Bastien-Lepage (1848-1884)
Ivana Kobilca (Slovenian, 1861-1926)

Philip Alexius de Laszlo (Hungarian, 1869-1937)

American Realists (Ashcan School):

Robert Henri (1865-1929)

George Benjamin Luks (1866-1933)

William Glackens (1870-1938)

John Sloan (1871-1951)

Everitt Shin (1876-1953)

George Bellows (1882-1925)

Edward Hopper (1882-1967)

Peredvizhniki (Russian Realists):

Ivan Shishkin (1832-1898)

Vasily Perov (1833-1882)

Ilja Repin (1844-1930)

Vladimir Makovsky (1846-1920)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

The Stone Breakers, by Gustave Courbet, 1848

In this painting, two men break rocks to clear a path for a road. Nothing here is idealized. One worker looks too old for the job, while the other is only a boy. Their clothing is torn and ragged. The low-angle perspective shows only the men working in the foreground, with just a touch of sky and landscape high off to the right, making the men feel isolated and trapped. Their poses suggest exhaustion and pain. There’s nothing heroic about them. The brushwork is rough and uneven, like the stones themselves. Where most painters would focus on the faces and hands of the figures, Courbet treats them the same as everything else. They lack the monumentality of Ford Maddox Brown’s Work, but feel more “real”.

A Burial at Ornans, by Gustave Courbet, 1849-50

This painting shows a funeral of an ordinary man in Ornans––Courbet’s great uncle, although he didn’t add the name in the title. Courbet painted it large-scale and listed it as a history painting––something unheard of at the time. Most people would have considered it a genre painting since it depicted everyday life, but Courbet wanted to present this as an important part in history.

Other than the immense size, three other facts stand out that add to its realism. First of all, the man in front in the middle is a common grave digger, and Courbet paints him with a level of importance and dignity, signifying the importance of labourers. Second, there’s no real focal point in this work. Your eyes wander along like you would in real life. You see a variety of faces and expressions, some mourning, but some simply distracted or pensive––people who might not have known the deceased, or cared. There’s even a dog that seems to have wandered its way into the foreground, oblivious to what’s going on, and symbolizing nothing. Three groups of figures are treated equally here, the clergy on the left, the town officials and leaders in the middle, and a group of women on the right. There’s little interaction among them. Each figure seems alone in his or her thoughts.

Finally, there are no angels above or mystical lights from heaven. There’s nothing to suggest heaven actually exists. Courbet painted only what he saw, nothing more.

Ploughing in the Nivernais, by Rosa Bonhuer, 1849

This work may seem a bit boring until you learn some of the history surrounding it. In 1848, France went through yet another revolution, with yet another king being deposed in favour of yet another Napoleon. Politically, France was not doing well, but this painting seeks to show a different story. This simple picture of a farmer ploughing a field with his cows shows the strength of the French spirit along with its rich, fertile land. It calls for courage and calm in hard times.

The Gleaners, by Jean-François Millet, 1857

This painting depicts three poor beggar women who are gleaning, or picking through the field, looking for bits of corn to take home and cook for their families. They carry what little they can find in their skirts, which are tied up to serve as sacks for the grain. In the distant background, one can see the main crop, with large piles of grain and many workers engaged in similar activity, gathering it. But they have plenty of food while these three women have little. While the scene is harsh, Millet’s treatment is kind and gentle. He paints the women with soft round shapes, muted colours, all in similar pose to unify them. They are treated here with respect and solemnity, as Millet addresses this issue of poverty. At the same time, he hides their faces, emphasizing their anonymity – ignored by everyone in society.

L’Angelus, by Jean-François Millet, 1857-59

This work shows a farming couple stop their work as they hear the church bell ringing in the distance, so they stop to say a prayer, the Angelus, in honour of the annunciation of Mary. The work is sentimental, showing an example of moral life. The couple works hard every day, even to sundown, but they stop to pray. They know their place in the universe, and so on. The couple looks iconic and monumental. They’re back-lit so you can’t really see their faces, making them represent every man and woman who lives this simple, honest farming life.

Music in the Tuileries Gardens, by Edouard Manet, 1862

This painting shows a concert in a garden near the Louvre, which was held twice weekly, and attracted the rich and wealthy of Napoleon III’s Second Empire. Manet included several famous people here, the artists Bazille and Fantin-Latour, the writer Champfleury, and the composer Offenbach. Manet also included himself as a flâneur, standing on the far left, in the grey slacks. We, the viewers, are where the musicians should be, which is why so many of the sitters are gazing at us.

The work was mocked when shown, partly for Manet’s loose brushwork, that looked unfinished. Manet deliberately left some places unfinished to represent the way our eyes focus on one thing and disregard others. But, mostly people were shocked at the idea of such a large, monumental painting devoted to such an unimportant scene of modern life. This work was shown the same year Whistler exhibited the portrait of his mother, so the idea of devoting large works to ordinary people and things was still new. And, while the Pre-Raphaelites and Romantics had painted ordinary scenes before, it was rarely at this size, and they were always filled with symbolism. But, there’s no symbolism present here. It’s just a concert in the woods, nothing more.

The Railway, Gare Saint-Lazare, by Edouard Manet, 1872-3

This simple, straightforward painting is actually quite mysterious. We see a young woman sitting by an iron railing, a young girl standing next to her, her back turned to us as she watches a train go by. All we see is its steam. We have no idea who the two people are, but the woman has paused in her reading, and looks up at us, with a mix of curiosity and possible annoyance. Critics have debated what the point was to this picture, which shows Manet’s own studio off in the background to the left. Are the two figures trapped in a modern cage, or are they happily enjoying the new modern life? What do you think?

A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, by Edouard Manet, 1882

This painting shows a barmaid at her counter, in a large, boisterous theatre. There are acrobats above in the background, and couples flirting everywhere. You see them reflected in a large mirror placed behind her. The mirror is tilted so that you can see her back reflected to the right, and you even see your own reflection, as a young Parisian man, speaking to her. Like with The Railway, this work presents a mystery as we don’t know what the young woman is thinking. Her eyes look sad and thoughtful. She looks hesitant, knowing that her job will attract many men looking to flirt with her. While the counter top pushes her farther from us, we see in the reflection that we’re actually quite near her. This painting illustrates the kind of tension that people felt when in these situations – does the man just want a drink or something more? Will he make promises and is he telling the truth? She looks like she’s been hurt before and nervous about starting again.

  

(Hopeless) Romantic Art

Some notes taken from Dr. Noelle Paulson, Christine Zappella, and Khan Academy.

“Romantic artists start with the belief that human imperfection is caused by imperfect societies. Unfortunately, this often leads them to believe they can improve people by smuggling improvements into society through the Trojan Horse of art.” – Brad Holland

What was it about? What were the goals?

Romanticism was an artistic and intellectual movement that started in the second half of the 18^th century and continued all through the 19^th. It was a reaction against the Age of Enlightenment, in defence of the passions and emotions which enlightenment philosophers rejected. Caspar David Friedrich said, “the artist’s feeling is his law.” Rousseau said, "To feel is to exist. And, our feelings come, most incontestably, before our thoughts."

Romanticism wasn’t simply about love or devotion. They explored all emotions: excitement, awe, anger, fear, horror. It’s all part of the human experience. Romantic artists felt that emotions were just as important to humanity as logic, and that to ignore one’s emotions was to live a lie. So, they looked for the emotional impact of everything they painted. They sometimes painted classical and Biblical themes, but also about modern life and problems. Romantics lamented the changing landscape, as the industrial revolution transformed it with factories and urban slums. Romantic artists rejected Classical art (in general), finding inspiration and nostalgia in medieval European stories. They also explored supernatural ideas and spirituality – believing there was more to the universe than what we could see through science. One other thing they rejected was the hero worship of neo-classical art. Gone are the morally upright role models. Instead, most of the figures in romantic paintings face insurmountable problems and mysteries, with no clear answers. The artist Gericault even focused on portraits of the insane.

About the name:

It’s funny that romantic comes from Rome, and yet romantic art was anti-classical (rejecting Greek and Roman art). In the 18^th century, romantic was used to mean natural, having to do with beautiful landscapes and sunsets. So, romantic art wasn’t Roman. It’s just another bad label for an art movement.

A bit of historical context:

In Europe, the romantic period, 1780-1880, was a time of turmoil, poverty, revolution, and injustice. Romantics hoped to change the world with their art, to guide people in a better direction––this is what Brad Holland was joking about.

The Hudson River School:

This was America’s companion to European romanticism. These artists painted beautiful landscapes along the Hudson River in New York. They studied the beauty and mystery of American nature.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Romantic literature got its start with British poetry, with writers like William Blake, Wordsworth, Lord Byron, and John Keats writing some of the greatest works in English literature. Gothic novels were also popular, such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The best known romantic authors today are Jane Austen, Sir Walter Scott, Charles Dickens, Edgar Allen Poe, William Hawthorne, and Herman Melville.

Romantic music is also considered some of the best of all time, with works by Brahms, Dvorak, Chopin, and others still being played today, all around the world.

Due to nostalgia for medieval Europe, architects began a Gothic Revival. Famous examples include the Palace of Westminster (containing the houses of parliament) in London, the houses of parliament in Budapest, and the church of St. Ludmila in Prague.

What made it great?

Romantic artists were incredibly skilled. Their vision and imaginations were vivid and exciting. They were ambitious, making huge, iconic masterpieces that are some of the most well-known and loved in art history.

Some leading figures:

Henry Fuseli (Swiss-English, 1741-1825)

Francisco de Goya (Spanish, 1746-1828)

William Blake (English, 1757-1827)

Pierre-Paul Prud’hon (French, 1758-1823)

Caspar David Friedrich (German, 1774-1840)

Joseph Mallord William Turner (English, 1775-1851)

John Constable (English, 1776-1837)

Jean Louis Theodore Gericault (French, 1791-1824)

Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot (French, 1796-1875)

Ferdinand Victor Eugène Delacroix (French, 1798-1863)

Jean-Léon Gérôme (French, 1824-1904)

George Inness (American, 1825-1894)

William Adolphe Bouguereau (French, 1825-1905)

Thomas Moran (1837-1926)

Ferdinand Keller (German, 1842-1922)

Edmund Kanoldt (German, 1845-1904)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

The Nightmare, by Henry Fuseli, 1781

This painting shows a monster (sometimes called an imp, incubus, or mara) that sits on his victim’s stomach as she sleeps, causing her to have a nightmare, and suffocating her. The demonic horse may be a part of her dream or a friend to the mara. This painting has no moral lesson. Its goal is to frighten you with wonder at the dark mysteries of life.

The Abbey in the Oak Wood, by Caspar David Friedrich, 1809-10.

This painting shows a funeral procession, as a line of monks carry a coffin into a ruined abbey for burial, at twilight. It’s the dead of winter and the few trees surrounding the ruin are tall, stumpy, gnarled, and bare. The mood is quiet and sombre. There’s an uncomfortable tension created by the dark forest beneath and the cold grey sky above, with its sickly yellow highlight. The tree branches seem to point up like arthritic fingers. Everything looks incredibly old, and the painting illustrates the vastness of time, and our tiny place in the universe. Human time is represented by the ruined abbey and the funeral. Natural time is shown with the old, tortured trees. And cosmic time is shown by the crescent moon, barely visible in the centre right sky. It’s the only positive element in the work, as it reminds us of cycles and rebirth. This painting exemplifies how Romantics viewed nature and landscapes – not as simple pretty trees, but as metaphors for life and universal mysteries. It’s not just a funeral in the woods in winter. It asks larger questions about where we come from, where we’re heading, what exists beyond death, etc.

The Third of May, 1808, by Francisco de Goya, 1814

In this painting, part of a series, Goya protests the war crimes of Napoleon in Spain. France and Spain had signed an alliance, allowing Napoleon to send his army through to war with Portugal. But, it was a trick, and Napoleon quickly used his army to depose the king and install his brother, Joseph Bonaparte, as the new king of Spain. When the people of Madrid rebelled, they were massacred. This image shows Spanish patriots being shot by a French firing squad, at night. A lantern casts an intense, spiritual light on the main figure, a martyr who takes on a Christ-like pose with his hands above his head. His hands even bear stigmata marks, like Jesus did.

This painting was one of the first to portray war as terrible, not glorious or noble. There’s no honour in these killings, no fair fight. It’s a mass execution, a war crime, and the closeness of the faceless killers to their victims emphasizes the brutality of their actions. This work represents Goya’s own opinion, not that of the state or church, and all this explains why some people consider this “the first modern painting”. Additionally, instead of the Neoclassical approach, this work is more painterly and gestural: figures are loosely painted and unfinished, almost blurry, giving a sense of motion and night-time vision.

The Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog, by Caspar David Friedrich, 1818

This painting shows a man who has hiked up one of the Elbe sandstone mountains (between Germany and the Czech republic) and views the land around him. The foggy landscape represents a metaphor of the mysterious world in which we, and the man in the painting, live. We can contemplate that mystery, but who knows if the fog will ever lift?

The Raft of the Medusa, by Jean Louis Theodore Gericault, 1818-19

This painting illustrates a terrible tragedy and political scandal. The Medusa was a French ship taking settlers to Senegal. It ran aground at sea and sank, and there weren’t enough life-boats (same situation as the Titanic). The captain and all the other wealthy passengers took the life boats, and promised to tow the other passengers on a raft built by one of the carpenters, using wreckage from the ship. But, the captain soon saw that they couldn’t tow such a large raft so he cut the rope, leaving over 150 people to drift away. These people quickly resorted to murder and cannibalism and only fifteen survived over thirteen gruesome days.

Gericault put a lot of research into this painting. He interviewed the survivors, he had carpenters recreate the raft in his studio, he modelled clay figures to organize his composition (which captures the same feel as Ruben’s works), and even brought in body parts from a morgue to study dead and decaying flesh. The people on the raft show a level of detail reminiscent of the renaissance and Greek statues, but it’s still more painterly and gestural than Neoclassical works, and gone is any sense of moral lesson or virtue. This painting shows humanity in its worst, most desperate state. It shows the struggle between man and nature to survive. It also shows the failure of the recently restored monarchy, since the ship’s captain was appointed by the new King Louis XVIII. Politically, the painting served as a metaphor for France, and many Frenchmen felt they were all on the raft of the Medusa, having witnessed the failure of their revolution and empire.

Saturn Devouring One of His Sons, by Francisco de Goya, 1822-3

This painting tells the story of Saturn, god of time, eating one of his sons to try to avoid a prophecy – that one of his sons would one day kill him and take over as king of the Gods. Goya painted this to decorate his own home, and it makes a political statement – the ruler abusing and destroying his own children to remain in power. Goya saw this happen countless time in Spain, from the King to Napoleon, and so on. If you look at Saturn’s face, you’ll see the desperation and pain in his eyes – he knows what he’s doing is wrong, he knows it’s a terrible situation and he hates it too, it’s the fear that makes him do it. Goya saw many parallels to this in politics, the question being, how long can we let this continue?

The Death of Sardanapalus, by Eugène Delacroix, 1827

This painting is based on a play written by Lord Byron, in which Sardanapalus was an Assyrian king. He devoted his life to a decadent lifestyle of parties and orgies, and he had a large harem. This angered his people and they rebelled, joining forces with rival city states, and laying siege to him, at his city of Ninevah. Rather than let his enemies take his women, he had them all killed and burned with him in a large funeral pyre, filled with all his most precious treasure. As with most Romantic takes on history, there’s no evidence Sardanapalus really existed.

Liberty Leading the People, by Eugène Delacroix, 1830.

This painting celebrates the second revolution that took place in 1830, and the “three glorious days” when rebels barricaded streets in Paris, and overthrew the Bourbon king Charles X. The bare-chested woman waving the flag represents the spirit of France. This celebration was premature. Charles X was deposed, but a new “citizen king” named Louis-Philippe took power until he was also deposed in 1848, leading to yet another coup and empire under Napoleon III. All this goes to show how frustrating politics was in France. So much fighting and death and revolution to put down an old order and create a democratic republic, only to have it ruined again and again.

Cubism & Picasso

“This was a movement started by Picasso and Braque to distinguish their work from what Cezanne had already done, but failed to give a name to. In Modern Art, naming your art movement is a must. Cubism is still the most important art movement for the same reason that John D. is still the most important Rockefeller. All the other art movements are like downtown Rockefellers, and you can forget about them unless you expect to encounter an art category on ‘Jeopardy’.” – Brad Holland

What was it about? What were the goals?

In Cubist artwork, objects are analyzed, broken up and reassembled in an abstracted form—instead of depicting objects from a single viewpoint, the artist depicts the subject from a multitude of viewpoints (and points in time) to represent the subject in a greater context. It’s a form of puzzle making that’s supposed to tell you “the whole story” while at the same time suggesting, you might not really know this subject as well as you thought. Don’t judge by appearances.

Not all Cubists had the same goals. Kupka and Delaunay painted purely abstract, non-representational images, meant to express metaphysical ideas. This subgroup was labeled Orphism.

A bit of historical context:

This movement began around 1907 in Paris with Picasso and Braque, who developed the idea. The name came from a critic who made fun of what he called “cubic oddities.” Fun fact, the first cubist exhibition in 1911 showed neither of these artists’ works, instead showing off that of their followers. This was due to the core members signing a contract with the art dealer Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler. He promised them an annual salary, for the right to buy all their artworks and sell them through his gallery. So, they became known as the Kahnweiler Cubists, while the rest were called the Salle 41 Cubists.

Cubism made a big splash in the art world, inspiring and influencing a host of movements that came right after: Futurism, Suprematism, Constructivism, Dadaism, Art Deco, and De Stijl. Ideas borrowed include simultaneity––fusing the past, present and future, multiple perspectives, combining various materials including found objects, and simplifying forms to their basic geometric shapes.

In the Forest, by Paul Cezanne, 1898

A primary influence of Cubism was Paul Cézanne, who had many exhibitions in Paris in that time, up to and after his death in 1906. He once said, “. . .treat nature by means of the cylinder, the sphere, the cone, everything brought into proper perspective so that each side of an object or a plane is directed towards a central point.” Another big influence was Gauguin who, although dead, was also represented in some big art shows in Paris at that time. This spurred Picasso’s interest in tribal art and African masks.

Another influence was Da Vinci, who wrote about the golden ratio (used to make ideal compositions). Certain Cubists, like Metzinger and Gleizes, felt this ratio was so important they called themselves the Section d’Or.

Cubism wasn’t exactly political, but it was politicized. Conservatives complained in 1912 that public funds were being used to put up a Cubists art exhibit (with over 200 works and a “cubist house” installation) at the Grand Palais in Paris.

Concept Design for the Cubist House, by Raymond Duchamp-Villon, 1912

The artists were defended by socialists in the government. The debate led Gleizes and Metzinger to write Du Cubisme that year, a book defending their movement.

Cubism went out of fashion in the 1920’s as Surrealism developed, but it keeps popping up in our visual culture. It’s been used frequently in advertising, and even in film composition.

The underlying philosophy of the period:

Good question. Everyone knows about Picasso, but there were a number of other artists who dabbled in cubism, like Marcel Duchamp, Le Corbusier, and others, who wanted to define it for themselves. So, the definition depends on who you talk to, or whose manifesto you read. One core idea of the movement was that you don’t know the world as well as you think you do. You should look closer.

Some ideas about cubism relate a lot to other movements of the time, such as that art was much more than simply decoration. Metzinger wrote that decoration was “antithesis of the picture. The true picture bears its raison d'être within itself. It can be moved from a church to a drawing-room, from a museum to a study. Essentially independent, necessarily complete, it need not immediately satisfy the mind: on the contrary, it should lead it, little by little, towards the fictitious depths in which the coordinative light resides. It does not harmonize with this or that ensemble; it harmonizes with things in general, with the universe: it is an organism...”

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Cubism branched out into literature and architecture. The most famous Cubist architects were Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier, who later distinguished his style of Cubism by labelling it Purism. In Purism, objects weren’t broken up into little pieces, but merely simplified to their basic outlines.

Vertical Still Life, by Le Corbusier, 1922

The result appears Cubist, but is much easier to read. You can tell what the objects are. These designers used simple, geometric shapes, industrial materials, and lots of glass to make playful, odd, and often towering new buildings that defy description. Cubist ideas mixed with Futurism, De Stijl, and Purism around this time, which is why we typically think of these buildings as simply Modern.

The Assembly Building in Chandigarh, India, by Le Corbusier, 1950’s

Centre Le Corbusier in Zürich-Seefeld, by Le Corbusier, 1967

The most famous Cubist writers were Gertrude Stein and Pierre Reverdy. They used repeated words and phrases as building blocks to write poems and even novels. While it might sound silly or nonsensical, like Dada or Surrealism, it’s supposed to be based on a strict structure, and with a deeper intended meaning.

Was it great?

It was big – really big. Cubism took off all around the world, and inspired many, many people and new movements. Was it great? Some of it, sure, this was a great experiment, with successes and failures, innovative ideas and copycats. I think Picasso, among other things was a genius cartoonist. Much of what he made can be viewed as abstract cartoons, and in that, he was one of the best that ever lived.

What’s up with Picasso? Was he overrated? Misogynist? A narcissist? Does it matter?

It’s hard to say exactly why Picasso is so famous today, because there are many reasons. It’s not simply hype, but he did get lots of it. It’s not simply shock value, although his work was shocking. One answer is he was prolific. He made over 50,000 artworks in his life, including 1,885 paintings, and 1,228 sculptures. Pablo had to create. Even when he was young and poor, he’d paint over the same canvas two or three times, no matter how good the previous works were. He’d work mostly at night, while no one would bother him.

He was versatile, working in many different styles at once––he wasn’t simply Cubist. He also had an incredible imagination, working almost entirely from memory. He never hired models, only painting people he knew, mostly his wives and mistresses. And this brings us to misogyny...

Two factors played into the young Picasso’s views on women. First, as a teen in Barcelona, he and his friends spent time with prostitutes. Second, his best friend, Carlos, was impotent and fell in love with a model. When she rejected him, he shot himself (he almost shot her too, but she got away). This affected Picasso deeply, triggering his blue period of painting. It may have also reinforced Picasso’s apparent mistrust in women, which caused him to jump from one relation to another.

Olga in an Armchair, 1918

Picasso’s first wife was Olga Khokhlova, a Ukrainian ballet dancer. After nine years, Picasso befriended a 17 year-old girl, Marie, whom he would eventually have an affair with, and get pregnant (when she was 26).

The Red Armchair, 1931

Olga wanted to divorce, but Picasso refused to divide his property in half, as required by law, so she stayed married to him till her death in 1955. Marie described posing for Picasso as some of the greatest moments of her life. He was charming, excited, and made her feel special. Even afer he left her, she spoke fondly of him. Four years after Picasso died, Marie committed suicide.

Meanwhile... as soon as Marie got pregnant, Picasso fell for another woman, a young photographer named Dora Maar.

Bust of a Woman, 1938

When the two women confronted him at his studio, and asked him to choose, he said they should fight it out among themselves, and they did! They started wrestling for him. Picasso called it one of his choicest memories. It didn’t matter, Picasso kept seeing both women until Dora eventually had a nervous breakdown and left him. For what it’s worth, Picasso paid for both women’s living expenses.

After seven years with Dora, Picasso fell for another young artist named Françoise Gilot.

Woman’s Head, 1946

She was 21 and he was 61. They moved to the south of France, and lived together for ten years, having two children, although they couldn’t marry. Things grew tense when Picasso’s former mistresses came to visit and Olga even moved nearby. Gilot had enough, and was the first woman to leave Picasso. When they broke up, he instructed every art dealer he knew to never sell Gilot’s paintings, ruining her career. And, according to Wikipedia, he allegedly abused her and Dora physically. Years later, Gilot wrote a best-selling book about Picasso, which he tried to get banned, and angering him so much he threatened to cut their children out of his will (he actually never made a will, causing all his relatives to battle over his estate).

After leaving Gilot, he married Jacqueline Roque (she was 26 and recently divorced, and he was 72).

Crouching Woman, 1954

She played hard to get, and so Picasso gave her a rose a day for six months before they started dating. They married, and stayed together till the end of his life. Moving into a new home, they stopped seeing friends and even his former children. Jacqueline protected him from distractions so he could devote the end of his life to his art, drawing right up to the moment he died in bed. But, it was more than that, Jacqueline was jealous of his other mistresses and families, refusing to let them attend his funeral. One grandson was so upset about this he drank a bottle of bleach and died. And, in 1986, Jacqueline also committed suicide, shooting herself.

One of the harshest critiques comes from his own granddaughter, Marina, who wrote, “He needed blood to sign each of his paintings: my father’s blood, my brother’s, my mother’s, my grandmother’s and mine. He needed the blood of those who loved him––people who thought they loved a human being, whereas they really loved Picasso.”

So, what does all this tell us about Picasso, and his art? For Picasso, painting wasn’t simply about image making but about loving and exploring his fascination with the women in his life. He was literally putting them on a pedestal. It was devotional, but also a recipe for disaster, for two reasons. Picasso wasn’t seeing these women for who they really were. He was idealizing them, so when they did or said something that upset him, it was a shock––what, this girl isn’t perfect? I’ll find another. Gilot remarked, “Throughout this long relationship, ten or eleven years, I remained just as much of a mystery to him as I was on the first day.”

And then, no matter how great a “muse” you find, you can’t just paint it over and over the rest of your life. You get bored, you always want to paint something different. I’ve painted a favorite view two or three times, but then I always say, okay, never again, it’s time to move on. You can’t do that to the people in your life. For Picasso’s women it came as a terrible shock––you loved me so much yesterday, I was on a pedestal, how can you have forgotten so quickly?

And what did all these women see in him? One friend said he had these powerful eyes that saw right through you. 

Portrait of Picasso, by Salvador Dali, 1930

But, you can’t really answer this without knowing the man. Some people are very critical of Picasso now. Comedian Hannah Gadsby sees him as the art world’s Donald Trump, quoting Picasso as saying, “Each time I leave a woman, I should burn her. Destroy the woman, you destroy the past she represents.” That sounds pretty bad, but it’s worth noting he didn’t do that, he financially supported all these women (at least until Jacqueline put an end to it), and was most likely joking.

He was also a human rights activist, painting anti-war artworks that were used in fundraisers in support of democracy and freedom. Picasso was a womanizer with an eye for younger women, and at least one claims he hit her. But, almost everyone around him loved him, and wanted to be with him. All these family members committed suicide after he died because they couldn't stand to live without him. That’s not his fault, is it? Who knows, maybe to some extent it is, it certainly feels cultish, but you still wonder, to what extent is it fair to blame the man for being so charismatic and fascinating?

Some leading figures:

Frantisek Kupka (1871-1957) founded Orphism

Francis Picabia (1879-1953)

Henri Le Fauconnier (1881-1946)

Albert Gleizes (1881-1953)

Fernand Leger (1881-1955)

Pablo Picasso (1881-1973)

Georges Braque (1882-1963)

Jean Metzinger (1883-1956)

Bohumil Kubišta (1884-1918)

Robert Delaunay (1885-1941)

Tamara de Lempicka (1898-1980)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

'Les Demoiselles d’Avignon', by Picasso, 1907

'Girl with a Mandolin', by Picasso, 1910

'The Portuguese', by Georges Braque, 1911

'Bottle of Vieux Marc, Glass, Guitar, and Newspaper', by Pablo Picasso, 1913

'Josette', by Juan Gris, 1916

'The Accordion Player', by Gino Severini, 1919

'Three Jazz Musicians', by Pablo Picasso, 1921