MORE TO COME

I'll write another entry soon.  I'm working on scholarships, sorry for the delay.

Classical vs. Modern: Comparing William Bouguereau's 1884 Les Deux Baigneuses (The Two Bathers) with Antonio Mancini's 1887 Resting

I viewed both the Bouguereau and the Mancini paintings last year when I visited Chicago for the 2010 College Academy of Arts conference (CAA).  They can be found at the Art Institute of Chicago.

I want to clarify my reason for not discussing the history that corresponds with the paintings I'm discussing.  SmART Observations isn't exactly an art history blog.  I'm hoping to give my readers the tools and the confidence to approach abstract and conceptual works so they are capable of drawing their own conclusions without having to extract facts from a depth of historical knowledge.  However, if you are interested in art history, I encourage you to go to your local library and peruse Gardner's Art Through the Ages to give yourself a general timeline and brief historical outlook on art.  Art through the Ages is to art history students as Grey's Anatomy is to Med students.  It's the Bible...but abridged.  

             

As we saw in the Turner painting, shapes and color determine the way in which we respond to a work of art despite it's subject matter.  Remember the emotive power of his landscape?  In this comparison of Bouguereau's Bathers and Mancini's Resting, I'm hoping to get a little bit more technical.  I believe that these two paintings shed light on the main differences between classical and modern style and painterly technique, which I'll explain in depth later.

In the Bouguereau (pronounced boo-ga-row), the bathers are painted with such polished brushstrokes, that the viewer forgets that this is a painting at all.  It truly does looks more like a print.  Even up close, despite the "cracks of time," the artist's brushstrokes are virtually invisible.  So clean.  So smooth.  So beautifully, intricately painted that even the slightest indication of the artist's hand would affect the style of the entire work.  This is what we (in the biz) refer to as an artist's painterly technique.  Every artist has their own, and it is a determining factor when experts authenticate a painting or try to identify an anonymous artist.  ALWAYS EXAMINE THE TYPE OF BRUSHSTROKE USED IN THE PAINTING YOU'RE LOOKING AT!  Take a look at this close up:  

That delicate application is what many 19th century artists strove for.  Why?  Because that statuesque perfection referenced classical art.  What's classical art?  Art of the ancient world-->Greece and Rome.  Why did artists care about classical art?  Artists have cared about classical art since classicism ended.  Remember a little time period called the High Renaissance?  Much of the Renaissance is derived from classical sculpture.  It was thought by many to be the standard of perfection--everything was geometrically calculated, every brushstroke and color was deliberate.  The classical philosophers (Aristotle and Plato) were seen as pedagogical heros. The generations following wanted to mimic or pay homage to this time of great achievement.  Even the word "Renaissance" means "rebirth."

I used this painting and this artist to represent many 19th century artists who painted in a similar way including Jacques-Louis David, Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (pronounced "ankle" without the "kle"), or Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson. 

Bouguereau adapts the classical style into his own perfect construction.  His bathers were meant to be titillating for their male audience (more on feminism and art later) while maintaining it's allegiance to it's heritage.  Bouguereau's painting is relevant to the time he lived in, yet stylistically follows the lineage of which it came.   You can almost imagine Bouguereau's women as marble statues.  Static, inert, motionless.  Perfectly constructed representations of the ideal woman.   But what do we do when we have attained the same level of perfection over and over again?

We break tradition and GO CRAZY BABY!  But it happens slowly.

Check out a detail of the Mancini.  

What's the difference between Bouguereau's painterly technique and Mancini's?  The facture obviously.  Contrary to Bouguereau, Mancini uses a thick application of paint with traces of his brush and knife carved into his thick impasto (depth of paint).  He uses a rough, apparent, and conspicuous application of paint.  Cool, but so what?  What effect does this have on the viewer?  


It constantly reminds you that you're looking at a painting, not an illusion of reality.  The Mancini painting is a screen with paint on it, not a transparent window (like the Bouguereau).  It recognizes the objecthood of the painting and emphasizes its materiality.  THIS IS MODERNISM.  Baby.  It's an amazing realization and a critical one for understanding modern art.  This idea will continue into the 20th century.  In addition to its transformative and enlightening powers, a painting is also simply a painting-- a thing, an object, a commodity, a used, dirty canvas.    

Remember that the Mancini painting was done within three years of the Bouguereau.  Throughout the 19th century there was a classicist/modernist rivalry much like that of the jet/shark west side story conflict.  Actually it's more like the Capulet/Monteque rivalry because modernism and classicism really are star-crossed lovers in the end.  But it really doesn't matter which analogy I  use because the West Side Story is an adaptation of Romeo a... I digress, back to art. 

Mancini's whimsical, semi-impressionistic brushstroke suggests a fleeting moment that will soon become the norm.   Whereas Bouguereau attempts to create an image of geometrically perfect, motionless women, caught in a moment in time, Mancini's picture references the ephemeral (temporary) moment. The idea of time is a major motif (theme) for many artists after the invention of photography in 1839.

Side note: You can see the modernity beginning in the previously discussed Turner painting as well.  His discovery of oil paint's fluidity (to the point where the paint itself is almost the subject) were essential steps toward 20th century abstract painting where figurative subjects and form are dispensed with altogether.  


Next time I'll discuss some further differences in subject matter in modern art. Thanks for reading


N.B.F.

J.M.W.Turner- Snow Storm: Hannibal and His Army Crossing the Alps. 1812. Oil on canvas. Tate Gallery, London

I viewed this magnificent painting in 2009 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art during a visit to New York.


I know what you must be thinking right now: "What 21 year old spends the day at the Met when they visit New York?" and "I thought this guy was gonna talk about blank canvases and urinal sculptures and shit!" I am.  Stay tuned.  I believe however, it is just as, if not more important to speak about the primordial soup of modernism.  


Due to pop cultural representations of what defines "modern," many of you may believe that modernism began sometime in the 1960's or 70's with the introduction of retro interior designs such as the "Egg Chair" (by Arne Jacobsen).  Sleek, sexy, cool: this is the meaning of modern for many, if not the majority of people.  This definition is true to some extent.  Arne Jacobsen's curvilinear, futuristic egg chair is indeed a part of modernism.  But it's not the beginning by any means.  In fact, there is a long developmental history behind the word modern and some would say it started around the time that the painting above was created.  What you're looking at is  J.M.W. Turner's Snow Storm: Hannibal and His Army Crossing the Alps, done in 1812.  Some may say that this is a modern work of art.


PREPOSTROUS!!!  What could possibly be modern about something that looks so romantic, historic, boring and OLD?


Look again.  Remove the figures in the bottom of the canvas (if you even saw them there in the first place).  Focus on the sky and the ominous effect Turner creates with his colors and shapes.  THAT CLOUD!!  That cloud.  Oh the cloud of doooommmmm!  So foreboding, so threatening, so Evil (with a capital E).  The circular swooshing motion (repeated in other Turner paintings) makes the cloud resemble a title wave.  It's as if this black form has mutated into some sort of angel of death, surveying its victims before it swoops down to collect the lives of Hannibal's men.


Now we get to the grit.  What visual indications does Turner provide (besides the title) that informs the viewer that this image depicts Hannibal and his men?  What compositional elements (the way the image is constructed, where things are placed, background/foreground etc.) draws the viewer's eye to the figures in the bottom left-hand foreground?  The answer to both questions:  Not many.  IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER WHAT AN ARTIST LEAVES OUT OF THEIR WORK AS WELL AS WHAT HE/SHE INCLUDES.


Indication of Hannibal's identity is almost nonexistant.  Nothing draws our attention to the figures in the foreground.  Instead our attention is focused on the landscape, and the crazy, odd, interesting forms Turner creates in his sky.  

Therefore, I believe Turner intended the viewer to experience this threat of death vicariously through these figures--empathy baby ;o)  The artist does not intend the viewer to necessarily gain a historical lesson from this painting, but an emotional one.  In fact, odds are, if one were to be an eye-witness to Hannibal crossing the Alps, their account probably wouldn't resemble this image.  The point of the painting is not to provide the viewer with an accurate representation of history, but rather to 1) conjure emotions and memories inside the viewer of when they felt threatened or scared  2) remind the viewer of the grandiose beauty and magnificence and awe-inspiring power of nature 3) (the modernist would say) experiment with the idea of how shapes and colors impact the human psyche without necessarily referencing or relying on a narrative (a story) or figure (identifiable person place or thing).  

It is interesting to consider the time as well.   The art world in 1812 hadn't yet come to accept paintings with a highly abstracted images.  If Turner removed the landscape and figures and titled the painting Fear the chances of it being embraced by the contemporary art world are bleak.  Highly unlikely.  This is why I consider Turner to be one of the fathers of Modernism. I believe he foretold the creation of abstraction a century before it entered into the mainstream consciousness.  When you look at Turner's paintings, it's as if he so desperately wants to crack open the world of abstraction, but he hesitates.    


Much like a covert operation, the title Snow Storm: Hannibal and His Army Crossing the Alps, grounds the painting and makes it take place in real time and space.  But is this a realistic representation of history?  We know that Hannibal did indeed cross the alps but what use does this image have in our knowledge of that historical fact?  Not much.  This painting plays on it's viewer's emotions, not their ability to recognize historic themes.  I could write on but my fingers are getting tired, and our future subjects will cover the points I want to make.  Please keep Turner's painting in mind as we continue.  


N.B.F.

Greetings

I graduated last summer with a bachelor's in art history from Portland State University.  Technically I am an art historian, but I've never been paid to study art.  I prefer to think of myself as an art enthusiast--someone who sincerely believes in the transformative, even edifying effect that art has on its viewers.  I don't think that many people outside of the semi-underground art world are aware of the major artists/art works in contemporary culture.  I want to inform them.


The point of this blog is not to teach art history, but to shed light on the obscure, make clear of the complexity, and renew the obsolescence of modern and contemporary art.


My one piece of advice for those reading is to seek out and explore your local art scene.  Every community has one.  How is your local art unique to other forms of art you see?  Does it adequately represent the local culture?  Do you know of any famous artists who have come from your home town?  If so, do you think that living there had any effect on their subsequent work? Treat your local museum or gallery as if it were your own private collection and use this blog as a resource to construct your own criticisms and ideas.


There are no wrong answers in art.  Everyone has valid observations to contribute.  I'm interested in what those of you who have had no artistic experience have to say about the works I'll be discussing.  I'd like for SmART Observations to be an interactive experience for anyone willing to participate.  In essence, I seek outside ideas.


POST if I say something inaccurate; POST if you love the work; POST if you hate the work; POST a personal story related to the work; POST questions; POST your emotions and thoughts; POST POST POST POST POST POST.


Some rules:
1) I will never speak about paintings I have never encountered in person.
2) I will not pretend to speak about time periods or styles that I know very little about (I'll mostly be focusing on modern and contemporary works of art).
3) I will use language to describe and analyze the paintings in a way that everyone can understand.


Cool guys, I'm excited to get started!  Tomorrow I'll discuss our first artwork.  I know you're just antsy with anticipation :o)


Thanks for reading, 


-N.B.F.