The Impressionist movement and the artwork of Chris van Dijk

Tags

art criticism, art history, Chris van Dijk, Claudia Moscovici, Impressionism, Romantic Impressionism, The Impressionist movement and the artwork of Chris van Dijk

By Claudia Moscovici

 

More than a style of art, Impressionism is a movement and a unique way of looking at the world that was shocking in its day and continues to have relevance to contemporary artists. Originally, the Impressionists were considered subversive. Manet, Impressionism and Postimpressionism have become analogous with the violation of the official academic standards and thus also with artistic modernity. It is said that Impressionism entailed a rejection of the principles taught by the Ecole des Beaux Arts and esteemed by the academic judges of the official Salon. In fact, the works of the Impressionists were repeatedly rejected from the Salon run by the Academy of Fine Arts established by Colbert under the reign of the Louis XIV, which continued to rule the artworld for two hundred years. Because they were unconventional, the paintings of the Impressionists were relegated by Napolen III to the Salon de Refuses (the Salon of the Rejected) in 1863. Rather than accept defeat, many of the Impressionist artists—most notrably, Monet, Morisot, Pissaro, Sisley and Renoir—coalesced into an informal movement that convened in popular cafes in Montmatre. They created their own exhibit in 1874, called La Societe Anonyme (The Anonymous Society).

Even when they united, however, the Impressionists initially suffered critical derision. The critic Louis Leroy, who coined the term “Impressionists” based on Monet’s painting in the exhibit “Impression: Sunrise”, wrote dismissively: “Impression; I was certain of it. I was just thinking that I was impressed, there had to be some impression in it. And what freedom! What ease of handling! A preliminary drawing for a wallpaper pattern is more highly finished than this seascape.” Writing in the same derogatory vein, the critic Albert Wolf, from Le Figaro, charged that Renoir—today known as the painter of sensuality and women–didn’t know how to paint female nudes, making them look like putrid, decomposing corpses: “Try explaining to Mr. Renoir that a woman’s torso is not a heap of rotting flesh, with green and purple patches, like a corpse in an advanced state of putrefaction.” Most art critics at the time, with the notable exception of the naturalist writer Emile Zola (who championed the art of Manet and the Impressionists), considered Impressionist artwork as unfinished, ugly and poorly executed. Which leads us to ask how and why did the works of the Impressionists strike critics and viewers as so different from other art of the time?

This notion of the subversiveness of Manet and of the Impressionists has been, since Zola, deliberately overplayed to draw a firmer marker that separates old traditions from new art. For not only did Manet and the Impressionists regularly exhibit at the official Salon—with Manet and especially Renoir seeking its approval to the very end of their lives—but also they were influenced, along with the officially sanctioned artists, by the most famous Renaissance artists as well as by the masters of Romanticism and Realism: Delacroix, Corot, and Courbet.

Yet, without a doubt, Manet and the Impressionists did violate some of the important rules of what is called the “Beaux-Arts system.” The Beaux-Arts system was instituted to meet the requirements of the Academy, which were taught at the Ecole des Beaux Arts. These included the following principles:

 

1. A respect of the hierarchy of genres which privileged, in descending order, history paintings, religious themes, portraits and still-lifes. Of course, principles are always somewhat different from public taste and practice. Even during the eighteenth-century, when Chardin’s still-lifes were extremely popular and defended by notable philosophes such as Diderot, the hierarchy of genres instituted during Louis XIV’s reign was being called into question. During the nineteenth century, with the rise in popularity of realism and the representation of every-day subjects and life, it was even more radically altered. Although some well-respected artists, such as Cabanel and Bouguereau, continued to observe its rules, many artists did not. As Théophile Gautier announced in the 1846 Salon, “religious subjects are few; there are significantly less battles; what is called history painting will disappear… The glorification of man and of the beauties of nature, this seems to be the aim of art in the future.”

 

2. Drawing is more important than color. The reason behind this rule was that the drawing of forms was considered more abstract because it was not already found in nature. Thus, it was assumed that it took greater artistic talent to convey forms by drawing their shapes and outlines rather than by blotting, from nature, their colors.

 

3. Drawing from live models in conformance to the study of anatomy, not in order to convey nature as is, but to improve it by rendering it more noble, elegant and beautiful. During the seventeenth century, Neoclassicism perpetuated this improvement of nature, or capturing la belle nature.

 

4. Painting in the studio, as opposed to in the open air, since the studio was a place where the source and intensity of light and, more generally, the whole painting environment could be controlled to suit the aesthetic needs of the artist.

 

5. Paintings had to be elaborately detailed, meticulously executed and, above all, look polished and finished.

 

6. The overarching and unspoken framework behind the Beaux-Arts system was verisimilitude: or representing in painting—through shading, foreshortening, sfumato and the observance of one-point perspective—the three-dimensionality of objects as seen by the eye.

 

The Impressionists’ greatest contribution to art was not so much to change the notion of painting as representing what the eye can see—or the standards of verisimilitude that had been dominant since the Renaissance—but to alter what the eye should see as well as where and how it should see it. Their violation of the rules of the Beaux-Arts system was not revolutionary—in the sense of transgressing its underlying premises or goals—but it was thorough, in the sense of changing almost all of the means of reaching those goals. The Impressionists considered that the best forum to observe and represent nature would be in the open air—which is why their works were called plein air paintings—where the play of light and shadows would be most natural, striking and intense, rather than under the dim and artificial lighting of the studio.

Furthermore, as noted, the art students in the academies conveyed the three-dimensionality of forms by means of the subtle shading which was first perfected by the Renaissance masters. The Impressionists, on the other hand, evoked a sense of three-dimensionality by representing the dramatic contrasts of color which can be observed in vibrant sunlight. In seeking to capture visually the play of light and shadow—and its transformations—the Impressionists used rapid brushstrokes to produce paintings that looked rushed and unfinished as opposed to the well-rounded, glossy and polished forms and subtle shadings respected by the Beaux-Arts system. Similarly, rather than de picting a posed or characteristic angle of the objects painted, Manet and the Impressionists showed objects from uncharacteristic, and often, truncated perspectives. This truncation of subjects and objects, which is especially obvious in the paintings of Renoir and Degas, openly acknowledges the incompleteness of our field of vision and powers of representation.

Impressionism remains highly relevant in a historical sense, as an important artistic movement associated with innovation and modernity. But it is also alive today as a way of looking at the world that influences the vision of contemporary artists. To offer one notable example, the artist, art dealer, and gallery owner Chris van Dijk paints in a style influenced by Impressionism and by the Romantic movement, calling his work “Romantic Impressionism”. In 2002, he opened his own highly successful gallery in Dordogne, a beautiful area in Southwestern France between the Loire Valley and the Pyrenees Mountains. His gallery features some of the most important artists working in the Realist, Romantic and Impressionist styles. Since 2013, Chris has also devoted his time to creating his own paintings, which, true to their Impressionist inspiration, focus on plein air scenes: at the beach, in the forest, or in the picturesque poppy fields of Dordogne. Like the works of Berthe Morisot and Mary Cassatt, the paintings of Chris van Dijk often feature women and children. The scenes look unposed, as if the subjects were caught unawares. Most of the time, they look away from the viewer, engrossed in their daily activities, such as playing in the sand, walking in the woods or picking wildflowers. They seem to be at home in their natural surroundings. Chris van Dijk’s paintings, like the works of the Impressionists, are a celebration of the beauty of nature and life. You can see many more of the artist’s paintings on his website, http://www.galleryfrance.com/chris-van-dijk.html.

 

 

Commemorating childhood: The figurative art of Mark Lovett

Tags

aesthetics, art, art blog, art criticism, art history, artistic photography, Balthus, Berthe Morisot, children in art, Claudia Moscovici, Commemorating childhood: The figurative art of Mark Lovett, contemporary art, contemporary photography, figurative art, fine art, fineartebooks, fineartebooks.com, Galerie Pierre, history of art, Impressionism, Mark Lovett, Mark Lovett paintings, MarklovettStudio, Mary Cassatt, modern art, old masters, painting, paintings by Mark Lovett, photography, postromanticism, postromanticism.com, Romanticism and Postromanticism, The figurative art of Mark Lovett

by Mark Lovett

I find it rather extraordinary that we commemorate through art important historical events, war heroes, authors and political leaders, yet we rarely commemorate in art what is most important to most of us: our family lives and our children. During the 19th and 20th centuries, depicting children in art was usually relegated to female painters (most notably, Mary Cassatt and Berthe Morisot) or depicted with unsettling undertones of sexuality, as is the case in Balthus’s controversial paintings.

The figurative painter Mark Lovett commemorates through his beautiful paintings and photographs what matters most to so many of us: our children. Mark Lovett depicts children,  particularly girls, during the years (between 3 and 12) when they are old enough to appreciate family activities yet young enough to still enjoy the company of their parents. The subject of family and children is inherently personal, so I will mention one personal note, which is part of the reason why I’m so touched by Mark Lovett’s art. I remember with great fondness the many activities my husband and I did with our children, Alex and Sophie, when they were younger: apple orchards, zoo trips, museums, Renaissance fairs, art camps, cub scouts, hiking and vacations in so many beautiful places around the world. The kids, and their joie de vivre, added enormous pleasure and sense of meaning to our lives.

by Mark Lovett

Because this part of childhood and family life lasts roughly ten years, it’s easy to have the false impression that it will never go away. Yet like everything beautiful in life, it’s ephemeral  and it passes. As the children grow up,  you can relive your their early years and the joy they brought to your family in your memory, in your heart and, if you’re fortunate, in great artwork like the one created by Mark Lovett.

by Mark Lovett

Mark is a graduate of the University of Maryland, where he studied figurative and portrait painting at Nelson Shanks’ Studio Incamminati in Pennsylvania and of The Art League School in Alexandria, VA. As  you can probably tell by looking at  his realist paintings, Mark finds inspiration in the old masters. He is particularly influenced by the works of Bouguereau, Sargent, Renoir and Monet. He employs many of their techniques, particularly in depicting his subjects in a realistic fashion. Yet ultimately, like all great painters, he has his own unique style.

by Mark Lovett

Mark’s works depict children in an unsentimental fashion that nonetheless evokes the best experiences many of us have of our family lives. His backgrounds tend to use bold strokes, while his figures themselves–the children–are very finely painted, with a delicate touch that captures their individual features and expressions.

As you can see on his website,http://www.marklovettstudio.com/,Mark has won numerous awards including: 2006 Portrait Society of America Children’s Portrait Competition;  MD Annual Art Show and 2005 Rockville Art League Art Show Winner. His works have been featured in numerous magazines, including Washington Spaces Magazine 2007 and 2006; Who’s Who of Strathmore Worldwide 2007-2008; Preview Magazine Art Expo, NY 2007; Strathmore Applause Magazine cover 2006; Art Business News Magazine 2006 and 2005.  You can view his works primarily in his own studio, MarkLovettStudio, as well as in several galleries in the U.S. and Europe, including the prestigious gallery Galerie Pierre in France (http://about.me/GaleriePierre). Thanks to Mark Lovett’s talent and works, we can commemorate our children’s most fun and memorable years through art, as well as in our lives and fondest memories.

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

http://www.amazon.com/Romanticism-Postromanticism-Claudia-Moscovici/dp/0739116754

Renewing Impressionism: The Paintings of Pierre van Dijk

Tags

aesthetic philosophy, aesthetics, April in Paris, art blog, art criticism, art history, Chris van Dijk, Claudia Moscovici, contemporary art, contemporary Impressionism, Degas, fine art, fineartebooks, fineartebooks.com, Gallerie Pierre, Impressionism, Impressionist art, modern art, Monet, painting, Pierre C.A. van Dijk, post-Impressionism, Postimpressionism, Renewing Impressionism: The Paintings of Pierre van Dijk, Renoir, Romanticism and Postromanticism, The Paintings of Pierre van Dijk, Van Gogh, why is Impressionism popular

April in Paris

The Impressionist movement knows no rival in the history of art. It’s still enormously popular today. We find Impressionist artwork not only in museums and galleries, but also in calendars, reproductions, posters, memo pads. Visually pleasing yet also stimulating–after all, the viewer is far from passive, since his or her eyes creates the visual impression of the painting from afar–Impressionism combines radical innovations with a reassuring resemblance (of the objects painted to their real-life counterparts), or verisimilitude. In other words, it offers the best of both worlds.

It is therefore not surprising that Impressionism has such a wide appeal, not only historically–in terms of the achievements and innovations of the key Impressionist painters–but also in terms of contemporary art. One of the leading contemporary post-Impressionist is Pierre C.A. van Dijk. Popular with viewers and galleries alike, his paintings are exhibited worldwide. As Chris van Dijk, his brother, business manager and the owner of the Gallerie Pierre in Paris states, more than 100,000 people visit Chris van Dijk’s exhibitions a year in exhibits in France, Switzerland, Holland and other countries.

Pierre van Dijk combines Impressionist and post-Impressionist elements. His paintings are often “plein air” paintings, as for the classic Impressionists. The Impressionists considered that the best forum to observe and represent nature would be in the open air—which is why their works were called plein airpaintings–where the play of light and shadows would be most natural, striking and intense, rather than under the dim and artificial lighting of the studio.

The students in the academies and the official Salon conveyed the three-dimensionality of forms by means of the subtle shading which was first perfected by the Renaissance masters. The Impressionists, on the other hand, evoked a sense of three-dimensionality by representing the dramatic contrasts of color which can be best observed in vibrant sunlight. In seeking to capture visually the play of light and shadow—and its transformations—the Impressionists used rapid brushstrokes to produce paintings that looked rushed and unfinished as opposed to the well-rounded, glossy and polished forms and subtle shadings respected by the Beaux-Arts system. Similarly, rather than depicting a posed or characteristic angle of the objects painted, Manet and the Impressionists showed objects from uncharacteristic, and often, truncated perspectives. This truncation of subjects and objects, which is especially obvious in the paintings of Renoir and Degas, openly acknowledges the incompleteness of our field of vision and powers of representation.

Pierre van Dijk‘s paintings show the nuances and hues of color as people, nature and objects are depicted in natural sunlight. His strokes vary and have enormous range: sometimes they’re as delicate as pointilist dots, at other times broad strokes reminiscent of Van Gogh’s post-Impressionism. This range of strokes, so evident in the painting April in Paris (at the top of the page), lends not only verisimilitude to his artwork, but also transmits mood and focus. Notice the broad, blurry strokes of the background and the sharply delineated and much finer brushstrokes of the woman in the foreground.  Pensive, patient, elegant and beautiful, she’s revealed only by a truncated perspective–characteristic of Degas’ paintings–rather than featured centrally like in an official portrait. It’s as if she were caught unaware by the painter’s masterful style in a photograph, or a  movie still-shot. Everything about this painting suggests narrative–even drama–and invites questions: who is she? who is she waiting for? why? what is her mood and what is she thinking about?

In the hands of talented contemporary painters, Impressionism, I believe, will continue to be a very popular art movement. Few styles combine as harmoniously  innovation and accessibility, features which are evident in the beautiful post-Impressionist paintings of Pierre van Dijk. You can view samples of the artist’s work on his website, below.

http://www.artpierre.com/

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

http://www.amazon.com/Romanticism-Postromanticism-Claudia-Moscovici/dp/0739116754

The Fresh Post-Impressionism of Aleksandr Fayvisovich

Tags

Aleksandr Fayvisovich, art criticism, Claudia Moscovici, contemporary art, Impressionism, painting, perspective, post-Impressionism, realism in art, Russian art, the art of Aleksandr Fayvisovich, The Fresh Post-Impressionism of Aleksandr Fayvisovich

Harvard Students

Aleksandr Fayvisovich puts a fresh spin on Post-Impressionist painting. Born and raised in Moscow, he studied at the Moscow State Academic Art College under Victor Slatinsky (who is currently the Dean of Painting at the Moscow Art Institute) and benefitted from the mentoriship of Nikolai K. Solomin, a master of realism. Fayvisovich uses bright strokes of color that our eyes mix from afar, similarly to the Impressionists. Like Renoir, he often paints city scenes: people captured in natural light, unposed, as if caught unaware. In Harvard Students, above, the focal point of the painting is a young woman reading at a cafe on a sunny day. A few broad strokes of vivid green and brown capture her absorption in a book, while the edges of the painting remain blurry, out of focus.

by Aleksandr Fayvisovich

The still life of the violin above, however, is sharply delineated: a study of form. Here Fayvisovich empasizes sharp contours and clean geometric lines rather than color. This painting is also an experiment in perspective, as we see the soft brown reflection of the table and a sliver of dark brown of the violin in the clear glass half-filled with water.

Quiet Island by Aleksandr Fayvisovich

The painting Quiet Island, above, reveals yet another facet of the artist’s talent. Post-Impressionist in style and reminiscent in many respects of Cezanne’s style, in a few broad, rapid strokes of contrasting colors, Fayvisovich takes us back to the beauty and tranquility of nature. This is reflected not only in the serene, light blue water but also in the features of the young woman in the foreground. Wearing no clothes that viewers can see, she appears contemplative, peaceful, one with nature. The absence of gestures, or of movement in general, only reinforces the sense of tranquility of the natural environment.

Wine and Apples by Aleksandr Fayvisovich

Wine and Apples, above, combines several of Fayvisovich’s styles and strengths: the realist study of perspective of the glasses, knives, apples, tray and wine bottle on the table; the pop of bright colors; along with the broad angularity of form, somewhat less realistic in style, of the paper bag in the background.

In his use of bright, contrasting colors in figure painting, Fayvisovich emphasizes expression, emotion, mood and state of being. His still life studies, however–almost minimalist and understated in their color schemes–place emphasis upon shape and perspective.  And his sketches are studies in movement captured in a few fluid lines, similar to Rodin’s drawings. Reflecting versatility and talent, Aleksandr Fayvisovich’s paintings are a Post-Impressionist tour de force. You can view samples of the artist’s work on his website, below.

http://aleksandrfayvisovich.com/

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

http://www.amazon.com/Romanticism-Postromanticism-Claudia-Moscovici/dp/0739116754

Shaking Things Up in the Art World: The Biennale de Paris and the Salon des Refusés

Tags

aesthetic philosophy, aesthetic standards, aesthetics, Alexandre Gurita, Alexandre Gurita's Biennale de Paris, André Malraux, art, art blog, art history, Claudia Moscovici, conceptual art, contemporary art, controversial art, Déjeuner sur l'herbe, Edouard Manet, Emile Zola, fine art, fineartebooks, fineartebooks.com, history of art, Impressionism, la Biennale de Paris, le Biennale de Paris, Le Salon des Refusées, pluralism in art, postmodern art, Romanticism and Postromanticism, Shaking Things Up in the Art World: The Biennale de Paris and the Salon des Refusés, the Biennale of Paris, the Impressionist movement

André Malraux the founder of the Biennale de Paris by Gisèle Freund in 1935. © Agence Nina Beskow

As an inherently subjective field despite (or perhaps because of) its many changing standards, art has been surrounded by controversy (at least) ever since the Impressionists changed the aesthetic standards of the Academy in the nineteenth century. What was at stake then in the heated debates surrounding the official Salon is similar to what is at stake now in the controversy surrounding the Biennale de Paris: an understanding of art, its forums, its distribution and its cultural value. The Biennale de Paris was launched by Raymond Cogniat in 1959 and set up by the writer André Malraux, who was at the time the Minister of Culture. Its role was to showcase creative talent worldwide and to provide a place where artists, critics, gallery owners, and others involved in the fields of art could share their work and exchange ideas. But ever since Alexandre Gurita took over the BDP in 2000, this forum has been plagued by debates that get to the core of the meaning and place of art today: should it be a place or places? Who counts as an artist? What is art? What counts as an artwork? Who should give it value or cultural meaning?

Will the real Biennale de Paris please stand up?

According to Gurita, the controversy surrounding the Biennale de Paris “would make a best-seller”. The BDP originally directed by Malraux was abandoned by the Ministry of Culture in 1985. Between 1985-2000, there were debates and investigations concerning the ways in which to modernize it and how to relaunch it. In 2000, Alexandre Gurita took over this project and changed it radically, from within. Through the notion of  « invisual art »⁽¹⁾, he broke the sacred law that says « art = art objet » which creates an automatic dependency between art and work of art. He asserts that art can express itself otherwise than through art objects and declares : « There is no proof  that art is depending from the art object. For that reason we can assume the contrary ». In a move that the sociologist of art Pierre Bourdieu would have been proud of, he also challenged the hierarchies imposed by all the mediators – art critics, gallery owners, museum curators – between artists and their public. In so doing, he also disposed with the idea that some artistic spaces – like museums of contemporary art or posh galleries – are privileged spaces to exhibit artwork. Some of the French officials and art critics were up in arms, even though many of them had applauded Bourdieu, one of the most highly consecrated philosophers and sociologists of art, for proposing exactly the same ideas. Gurita just put them into practice.

In his ground-breaking book, Distinction, Pierre Bourdieu argued that society uses “symbolic goods, especially those regarded as the attributes of excellence, […as] the ideal weapon in strategies of distinction” that shape various hierarchies, especially class hierarchies. The art world is still filled with such social distinctions, which aren’t only class-based, by the way. As I’ve argued before, most contemporary artists–no matter what class or place they come from–don’t have meaningful access to the public. Aside from a handful of (mostly postmodern) artists, most artists find it impossible to showcase their art in museums of contemporary art or in the most prestigious galleries. In turn, this means that collectors don’t get to see and buy their artwork and that critics don’t view it and discuss it. To change this hierarchical system of distinction, Alexandre Gurita dispensed with the mediators (gallery and museum curators) between the artists and the public. The participants set themselves the dates and the places for their own activities. On its official website, http://biennaledeparis.org  the reinvented Biennale de Paris includes the following tenets, a true Manifesto of a new aesthetic pluralism:

« The Biennale de Paris was launched in 1959 by André Malraux with the purpose of creating a meeting place for those who would define the art of the future. After a hiatus of several years, the Biennale was relaunched in 2000. Since then it has not ceased in its efforts to unravel art from institutions. The Biennale de Paris rejects the use of art objects, which are too alienated by the market. It does not confine itself to a framework that would hinder its present actions or its political, economic and ideological evolution. By acting upon everyday life and its unfolding realities, the Biennale seeks to redefine art by using criteria which rejects the idea of the artist as the sole protagonist in his work. Simply stated, the Biennale de Paris refuses to participate in today’s conventional art world. By mixing genres, exploiting porous frontiers and practicing the redistribution of roles, the Biennale de Paris allows art to appear precisely where it’s not expected. Furthermore, the Biennale de Paris has its own guidelines⁽²⁾.

"Déjeuner sur l'herbe", Catherine et Jacques Pineau, Biennale de Paris 2004

In a personal interview, Gurita told me that he perceives undermining the system of distinction as “an instrument of liberty placed at the service of art. In 2000 my act created an enormous scandal and enraged certain representatives of the system. Others, however, liked the idea that an artist combats an institution.” Not everyone in France greeted this radical overhaul quite as enthusiastically. Government officials initially disowned the Biennale de Paris, claiming that the real Biennale was moved to Lyon. Even art critics–who generally can’t praise enough the cutting-edge and avant-garde art–weren’t too flattering. Did the Biennale escape them? In the Editorial of Beaux-Arts Magazine, for instance, Fabrice Bousteau referred to the project as “the regrettable Biennale de Paris, mixing expos, concerts, performances, conferences, and accomplish with the creators of the whole world in several areas of the city” (May 2007). The critic for France’s elite leftwing newspaper, Libération, adopted the official government position that the Biennale de Paris has been transferred to Lyon: “Since 1991, France itself has its Biennale in Lyon. The latter picks up the slack from the defunct Biennale de Paris, which had its last meeting in 1985.” (Libération, April 2006)

The objective of the new Biennale de Paris is nothing less than changing the idea of art as a unified domain of cultural production and rigid, hierchical distinctions. More than that, it proposes an art “without pieces of art, an art without exhibition, an art without spectatorship, an art without curatorship, authors without authority.” As for when it happens, don’t set your calendars, since that’s also relative. “The Biennale de Paris takes place when it happens. It exists in real time. Each biennial begins when the previous ends. Associated practices evolve over the course of successive editions.” Where does it take place?  “The Biennale de Paris takes place where it happens. Relocating itself, it looks for a reciprocity with the practices locality, in order to ponder over and modify social, economical, political and ideological backgrounds.

The Precedent of Impressionism and the Salon des Refusés

"Déjeuner sur l'herbe", Edouard Manet, Wikipedia Commons, Warlburg.edu

Before you conclude that you’re finding yourself in one of Eugen Ionesco’s absurdist plays, I’d like to remind you that the art world has often been subject to radical redefinition from within. To stick to the theme of French culture, I’ll use the Impressionist movement as an example. The Biennale de Paris is not the only one to be rejected by the establishment. It finds itself in good company, since the Impressionists –  are arguably still the most popular artists in the world–were rejected as well.

If any art collection can be said to have a profound impact upon the history of art and aesthetics, the paintings exhibited at the Salon des Refusés in 1863 would certainly be on a top ten list. This collection of paintings marks both a change of views about what counts as good art and a liberating shift in the institutions that consecrated French art to begin with. Before this crucial moment, the production of good art was heavily regulated. From the seventeenth-century, when Colbert instituted the first Salon that would display the art of the painters of the Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture in the Salon Carré of the Louvre, the Salons and the Academy largely determined artistic standards. Even when the Salon was opened to all artists in 1791, the rules by which they were judged did not become less rigid, even though the number of artists who could display grew substantially as did the public patronage of the arts.

When in 1863 the official Salon rejected 3000 pieces out of the 5000 submitted by artists, with hindsight we can safely say that it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. In a half-mocking, half-appeasing gesture towards the rejected artists, Napoleon III authorized a Salon de Refusés in a space that was distinct from the prestigious Salon sponsored by the Académie.

Like Napoleon I, the Emperor utilized art to express the glory of the French empire. The standards of the official salon were set by the traditional Count Nieuwerkerke, who was the Intendant of the Beaux Arts. He lived in a seventeen room suite in the Louvre and regulated all artistic life at court. By the 1860′s, however, artists and intellectuals–especially in more liberal newspapers– began to object to the rigid standards of the Academy and the Salon. Many of them demanded inclusion in the Salon for a wider range of talented artists.

Napoleon III paid a visit to the Salon and told Nieuwerkerke–perhaps in part to clip his wings–that many of the works rejected were just as good as those accepted. He then ordered that all the works rejected by the Salon be shown in the Palais de L’Industrie in its own show that would be called, condescendingly, the Salon de Refusés. This created the opportunity for new artists such as Manet, Pissaro and Whistler –the generation that had a profound influence upon modern art and especially upon the Impressionist movement–to become more visible in the public eye.

Manet also proved to be a key factor in the dissolution of the Salon de Refusés, however. Once the Emperor saw his Déjeuner sur l’herbe, he was shocked by its undisguised sexuality and agreed with the Academy that the first Salon de Refusés should also be the last. Nonetheless, the controversy stirred a heated debate over the nature of modern art and eventually opened the way for the Salon des Indépendants, galleries, and other institutions that soon rivaled and eventually exceeded the official Salon’s influence upon art. In fact, in a reversal of aesthetic values, less than twenty years after the Salon de Refusés, the artists associated with this controversial exhibit, particularly Manet, would be enshrined as the founders of modern art. Conversely, the official Salon art would fall into disrepute as mechanical, uninventive, formalistic: in short, l’art pompier, a pejorative term used to describe David’s Roman headgear, which resembled the helmets of firefighters (pompiers). As it often happens, the most effective subversive, anti-establishment artists and artistic movements often become–by their sheer cultural impact and visibility–the new establishment in art.

I believe that a similar process is at work in the manner in which Alexandre Gurita is redefining our understanding of the art world today. His pluralistic understanding of art opens up the field of cultural production to diverse artists, locations, modes of giving cultural value, and audiences. Although his project may have been accused by some of nihilism, I’d say that there’s a big philosophical –  actual – difference between pluralism and nihilism. Nihilism represents a flat denial of all values, be they ethical or aesthetic. By way of contrast, pluralism supports the value of a multitude of standards. Although pluralism can be relativistic, it doesn’t have to be. The standards for many aesthetic values can be defended and validated. Personally, as the founder of a more or less traditional movement in art (postromanticism.com) I’ll take artistic pluralism over rigid hierarchy any day.

As I have argued in my previous article, The Conformism of Postmodern Style, I object to the fact that elitist practices in museums of contemporary art and in some galleries impose a certain conformity (which I loosely associate with postmodern art) upon the art world. In so doing, they don’t give diverse artists a real, fair and democratic shake at presenting their works to the public. But, to my mind, envy of those artists who have “made it” or tearing down the entire artistic establishment is not the solution. Opening up the art world from within is. The French have a saying about this: Vive la différence! The art that Alexandre Gurita endorses – invisual art – is as far removed from my more traditional postromantic art movement as you can get. However, to my mind, the real issue is not imposing one standard of what constitutes good or true art, but making it possible for different kinds of artists and artistic styles to be shared with the public in a multitude of venues. This is what the reincarnated Biennale de Paris directed by Gurita aims to do.

In such a newly redefined art world – or art fields, more like it–it’s possible for more traditional artists like the postromantics to coexist and share cultural space and ideas with the more avant-garde postmodernists.  And if anybody in France still accuses Gurita of political correctness, they can blame it on Pierre Bourdieu, who, incidentally – and ironically – won the prestigious Médaille d’or du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). This goes to show that it pays to shake things up and repudiate cultural consecration. You might even get awarded a medal for it!

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

⁽¹⁾ The invisual is visible but not as art. Invisual do not need to be seen to exist.

⁽²⁾ -Orientations : The Biennale de Paris rejects exhibitions and art objects. It refuses to be ”thought by art”. It identifies and defends true alternatives. It calls for “non-standard practices”.

-Strategy : To be liquid. If the ground floor is occupied, occupy the floor below.

-An Invisual Art : No serious proof exists that art is dependent on the art object. We can therefore assume the opposite. The Biennale de Paris promotes invisual practices which do not need to be seen to exist. The invisual is visible but not as art.

-A Non-Artistic Art : The Biennale de Paris defends an art which does not obey the common criteria for art: creative, emotive, aesthetic, spectacular…

-An Art which Operates in Everyday Reality : The Biennale de Paris promotes practices that relegate art to the background in order to conquer everyday reality.

-A Public of Indifference : With the Biennale de Paris there are no more art spectacles. The Biennale addresses what it calls “a public of indifference”: persons who, consciously or accidentally, interact with propositions that can no longer be identified as artistic.

-A Unified Criticism : Organised as a network, the Biennale de Paris constitutes a critical mass composed of hundreds of initiatives, which would otherwise have been isolated and without impact.

Intoxication: Artistic Fame and the Magnetic Persona

Tags

aesthetic philosophy, aesthetics, art, art blog, art criticism, art history, Arthur Danto, artistic fame, artistic magnetism, Claudia Moscovici, conceptual art, contemporary art, Damien Hirst, Damien Hirst's fame, fame, fame and art, fame and Damien Hirst, fame in art, famous art, famous artists, fine art, fineartebooks, fineartebooks.com, Friedrich Nietzsche, history of art, Immanuel Kant, Impressionism, intoxication in art, Intoxication: Artistic Fame and the Magnetic Persona, Leonardo Pereznieto, magnetic persona, Nietzsche, originality in art, Pablo Picasso, Pierre Bourdieu, postmodernism, postromantic art, postromanticism, postromanticism.com, Romanticism and Postromanticism, Salvador Dali, Surrealism, Surrealist art

No matter what they may say, few artists create art  only for themselves. Just as few writers write only for themselves (unless they’re only writing in a journal, and even then, they may do it with an eye for posterity). Most artists aspire to share their art with others. Many want that elusive concept of “fame”. Artistic fame means being valued in their own lifetime as well as leaving a significant trace of their art for posterity. This, of course, implies canonization: making their name–and style(s)–common currency not only for their own times, but for future generations as well.

Immanuel Kant gave us three standards for great art that stands the test of time: 1) originality (the first of its kind in a certain style), 2) exemplarity (others will want to imitate that style) and 3) inimitability (the art is so unique that others won’t really be able to imitate it, just as there are many Impressionist painters but only one Monet or Renoir). If we examine, however, the manner in which art is consecrated in reality, we see at work the processes described by the sociologist of art Pierre Bourdieu. Art is what artists, critics, museum curators and collectors deem it to be. In my estimation, both philosophers are partly right: art is what those in “the field of cultural production,” to use Bourdieu’s term, say it is; however, what they perceive as “art” has a lot to do with Kant’s three criteria for aesthetic value.

Perhaps even more so, art has to do with the magnetic persona of the artist. To offer a notable example, Pablo Picasso not only reinvented his art in radically new style during each of his periods–ranging from the relative realism of his blue period to his Cubism, to his collage art–but also shaped public opinion, juggled and manipulated art dealers and defined international art.  He commanded attention to his art largely thanks to his greater-than-life persona. Similarly, Salvador Dali, though one of the founders of Surrealism and an artist of immense talent, generated publicity for his art via antics that weren’t completely random. For example, to underscore the lobster motif of his art, he gave a talk in New York with his foot in a bucket and a lobster on his head.

In our times, I believe that Damien Hirst is the artist who manages to draw the public most effectively, not only through his sometimes shockingly original and diverse art–the pickled sharks, dissected cows, diamond-studded skulls and collections of diamond-clustered butterflies–but also through the way he presents himself to the media: through his dramatic persona. Artistic magnetism goes beyond mere shock value or even publicity stunts. It’s perhaps best described by Friedrich Nietzsche when he urges every person to live his or her life as a work of art. Few artists–let alone people in general–succeed in doing that. Because, as Nietzsche also states, “For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication.” Artistic fame happens when both the artist and his art are able to intoxicate us.

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

An Abstract Monet: The Post-Impressionist Art of Claudiu Presecan

Tags

aesthetics, An Abstract Monet: The Post-Impressionist Art of Claudiu Prescan, art, art blog, art criticism, art history, Claude Monet, Claudia Moscovici, Claudiu Presecan, contemporary art, contemporary Romanian art, fineartebooks, fineartebooks.com, history of art, Impression Sunrise, Impressionism, Impressionist painting, Monet, painting, post-Impressionism, post-Impressionist, postromanticism.com, Presecan, Romania, Romanian art, Romanian artists, Romanticism and Postromanticism

Claudiu Presecan‘s art looks like a more abstract, contemporary version of Monet’s paintings. Prescan’s latest series,Traces on Water (Urme pe apa) doesn’t just look like an updated Impressionism: it actually conceptualizes the complex (post)Impressionist interplay between the eye’s perception of light and the painter’s representations of water, sky and the beauty of nature. The artist states in his mission statement that his aesthetic revolution takes place by “escaping in Nature” to seek the sensations “that fulfill the soul through the dazzling interplay between water and light.”

As you can tell from the painting above, the lines and contours of Presecan’s paintings are more abstract and suggestive than in traditional Impressionist art. They merely hint at the objects they represent rather than showing them realistically. At the same time, Presecan’s artistic experiments with light are in some respects more philosophical (phenomenological) than materialist, as they were for the Impressionists.  Following in the footsteps of some of the classical philosophers, Presecan depicts water as the essence of nature. Not only is water, like air itself, an element basic to survival, but also it symbolizes the cycles of life. In its fluidity and blue-green color, water represents mystery, depth, calmness and luminosity. You can find out more about Claudiu Presecan’s innovative post-Impressionism–a fertile cross between Impressionism and Abstraction–on his website, http://www.claudiupresecan.com/.

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

 

Kathleen Brodeur: The New Impressionism

Tags

art, art blog, art criticism, Claudia Moscovici, contemporary art, Edson Campos, fine art, fineartebooks, fineartebooks.com, history of art, Impressionism, Kathleen Brodeur, Kathleen Brodeur: The New Impressionism, Luxembourg Gardens, Medicis Fountain, new Impressionism, painted memories, painting, Paris, post-Impressionism, postromantic movement, postromantic painting, postromanticism, postromanticism.com, Romantic art, Romanticism and Postromanticism, tourism and art

Impressionism is probably still the most popular art movement–in museums, galleries and even on greeting cards–in the world today. However, our perceptions of it have reversed. Rather than being seen as shocking and subversive, as it was initially perceived by the Academy and the Salons, it’s now viewed as reassuringly familiar. The American post-Impressionist artist Kathleen Brodeur revitalizes and renews this familiar movement for our times. Kathleen graduated with a degree in Visual Arts from Florida State University. She loves to travel and creates beautiful paintings, which she calls painted memories, which capture of some of the most spectacular and touristic places in the world.

Monet’s Garden by Kathleen Brodeur

Kathleen Brodeur uses  bold, vibrant colors and a palette knife. She creates paintings that sometimes have the delicacy, detail and definition of fine brushstrokes. As you can tell from the painting above, her post-Impressionist style has nuance and versatility: the upper part of the scene is executed with fine brushstrokes, while its mirror reflection shimmers and undulates with the bolder touch of the palette knife.

One of her most recent works, called Medicis Fountain, was inspired by her travels to Paris with her husband and collaborator, the postromantic artist, Edson Campos. This spectacular painting, featured below, seamlessly combines his new Romantic style and her new Impressionism. The original Medicis Fountain is located in the Luxembourg Garden in Paris. Its beauty and well-groomed, ornamental style inspired the two artists to blend their talent as harmoniously as they have united their lives. You can find more information about Kathleen Brodeur’s art on her website, http://kathleenbrodeurfineart.com.

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

Portraiture is Back: The Art of Enrique Flores-Galbis

Tags

aesthetics, art, art blog, art criticism, art history, Claudia Moscovici, contemporary art, Enrique Flores-Galbis, fine art, fineartebooks, fineartebooks.com, Fragonard, history of art, hyper-realism, Impressionism, portraiture, Portraiture is Back: The Art of Enrique Flores-Galbis, postromantic movement, postromanticism, postromanticism.com, Realism, realist art, realist portraits, Romantic painting, Romanticism and Postromanticism, the art of portraiture

Before the Impressionists overturned many of the criteria established by the Academies and the Salons, the art of portraiture was considered to be the most important in the hierarchy of genres. Portraits of kings, queens and aristocrats were valued most, but there were notable exceptions to this trend. The Dutch Renaissance masters and, later, Chardin, made portraits of regular, middle class people (and their servants) not only acceptable, but also considered to be the highest form of art.

In several of my articles on this blog, I express some regret that with the advent of Modernism, postmodernism and, more generally, nonrepresentational art, we’ve lost so many valuable artistic traditions, including the art of realistic portraiture. The Cuban-born American artist Enrique Flores-Galbis helps brings portraiture back to our contemporary times. Trained at the New York University Graduate School under the photorealist, Adelle Weber, Enrique Flores-Galbis also received a Master of Fine Arts from the prestigious Parsons School of Design.

Great portraits can be appreciated by anyone: they’re nearly universal in their accessibility and appeal. Moreover, it takes great talent to execute them right, as Enrique Flores-Galbis clearly does. In Swing, shown below, the artist foregrounds a little girl, traditionally dressed, as if she were back from communion or Church. Her expression is frank and even a little awkward: exactly as it would be if she had posed for a photographer. In the background, we see featured Fragonard’s famous eighteenth-century Rococo painting, The Swing, commissioned by an aristocrat to feature the flirtatious games he played with his mistress. In this way, Flores-Galbis pays homage to the rich tradition of representational art to which his own painting belongs.

The painting Double Figure with Landscape, below, may be a study in forms (as its title suggests), but it’s also much more than that. Its vibrant colors and tender expression capture a mother’s love for her daughter. In managing to  express sweetness without any sentimentality, this painting also evokes–in theme, if not in style–some of Renoir’s paintings of the maternal bond.

As a cat lover, I can’t neglect the painting Cat, below. It has a generic title, but it’s adorably personal in capturing the cat’s expression: eyes fixated on the painter or viewer, ears cocked back, on the defensive. Cats don’t really pose for a camera or for a painter. There’s nothing postcard-ish or staged about this painting: Cat is a unique, endearing and personalized portrait.

You can see more of Enrique Flores-Galbis’s stunning realist portraits on his website, http://www.efgportraits.com/.

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

The Captivating Art of Ernesto Camacho

Tags

art criticism, art history, Auguste Renoir, city scenes, Claudia Moscovici, contemporary painting, Diego Rivera, Edward Hopper, Ernesto Camacho, Impressionism, painting, postromanticism.com, The Captivating Art of Ernesto Camacho, urban art

The art of Ernesto Camacho captivates. It catches your eyes, from afar, in its catchy urban themes—dramatic yet also familiar—in its jazzy feel (if images could be translated into music, his art would be jazz) and in its contrasts of colors that remain somehow harmonious, not jarring:  easy on the eyes. Just take a look for yourself at his website, http://artistsites.org/ernestocamacho/. This is definitely representational art of regular people in Impressionist settings, but definitely not painted in an Impressionist style.

Recall how vividly Renoir loved to depict Parisian scenes of young people dancing, going to cafés, in the park or on the beach. Most of the Salon rules went literally out the window as Impressionism celebrated average, middleclass life, outdoors, in the city, where most people went to have fun. That’s what Ernesto does in his paintings: he captures young people enjoying life, be it at a bar, like in the flirtatious “Two of a Kind,” at the ballet, like in “Odette My Love,” or waiting for the subway, like in the mesmerizing “Christie’s World,” featured above.

There’s a touch of Edward Hopper in these dramatic city scenes, but no alienation, just energy and even optimism found in every day life. The young lady in “Christie’s World” speaks volumes with her luminosity and intelligent glance, casting light upon the entire scene, including the two men sitting on the bench on either side of her: one absorbed in a newspaper, the other fading out.  Ernesto Camacho depicts with talent and flair our world: contemporary, edgy, urban and narrative, since each picture, like each life, tells an eloquent story.

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com