Dada and Surrealism

Dada and Surrealism both had large influences on the art world. Although very different in content and values, they both affected the art world at their times. Surrealism was in the early 1900’s and brought up sexuality, big breams, and social changes it was very creative an imaginative work. I found a lot of the surrealist art a little disturbing, but some of the ideas they brought up were quite interesting. It made people more open to more abstract and more aware of cultural values.

Dada art really brought in a lot of challenges to art. He challenged what art was at the time. He made everyday objects into pieces of art. But was it really art? He made people think about what art really was. He brought up questions that made people think what an artist needs to do to make something art, and if ideas can be considered art. The piece Fountain by Marcel Duchamp which was made in the 1960’s is a really good example of how much Dada art challenged society.

The Fountain piece is just a urinal, so a readymade object that many people own and many people can get at any time. It is turned on its side, so it no longer can serve as a working urinal, and he wrote on it R. Mutt. He was making fun of a pluming company, and having a good time with his art. But considering that he did not fashion this art with his own hands, and the context/meaning of his art was not typical he was rejected from the art show.

Just with this one piece Duchamp really challenged people with the idea of what art was. He brought up the issue of art being a readymade object, and really brought out the idea if art can really be made with just thought or the idea of something constitutes as art. He argued that it didn’t matter who made it, the artist chose it and created new meaning for the object he made an idea into art. He really just wanted people to think about art in a new light, he wanted people to see how this object being a urinal, is really not a urinal at all.

Personally, I agree with him. I think, you can make art from ideas and I think it is ok to use readymade objects to get across concepts or ideas, but I don’t think someone should take credit for making the readymade objects. 

So some of Duchamp’s artwork may have pushed and may still push the boundaries of art, I think for that very reason it should be at least given a chance, especially when there is an idea, or concept behind it. The idea and concept is what makes or breaks many pieces of art. And many concepts behind Duchamp’s art were valid, and entertaining, and should have been and should be considered art.

Callenotte and Seurat

Callebotte’s paintings are similar and different to impressionist paintings. Callebotte’s painting, Pairs Street; Rainy Day   compared the impressionist Georges Seurat's painting,  A Sunday on La Grande Jatte really shows some of the similarities and differences. You can see some similar features with the subject matter, and location, as well as differences. But there are very obvious differences in the colors and texture of the paintings.  

The subject matter for both these paintings is outdoors, which is very much an impressionist thing to do. There are many outdoor settings for that time period. But Callebotte’s painting is also in a very city-like area, there is no grass, flowers or trees. It is just bricks and buildings. While Seurat’s painting is outdoors, with many aspects of nature in the painting. You can see grass, trees, water, and some flowers. 

The subject matter of these paintings can be considered similar and different. They both have multiple people in the painting, but Callebotte’s there is a significantly lower number walking the streets, and Seurat’s has many sitting and standing on a grass field in a park. Callebotte’s painting shows modernism, with the clothing of the few people in this painting. Specifically you can see the modern clothing on then man and woman who are walking toward the viewer. You can also see the light post behind the couple, which is very modern. Seurat’s painting also shows modernism, but perhaps a bit more than Callebotte’s. You can see many more people in the painting, all dressed in modern/stylish clothing of the time, along with dogs, and sail boats.

There is a very large difference in color between Callebotte’s and Seurat’s paintings. Callebotte used many dark and fairly bland colors. He did not have a large selection of colors in this painting. It was mostly a dash of red and green, than completely made of tone of black and white. A big distinguishing trait of impressionism is their scientific exploration and use of colors in their paintings, which you only see a bit of in his. You can see he many played around with it a bit, perhaps with the shadows and reflections on the wet ground. But Seurat really showed abundance color in his painting. You see how he really played with colors, putting shadow on different colors, using many shades, and colors from all over the wheel. He used color in a very impressionistic way.

Lastly, there is a large difference in texture of these two paintings. Impressionist paintings typically are not very clean, refined and detailed. But Callebotte’s painting has very defined brush strokes. You can really see the details in most parts of this painting. The couple at the front of the paintings, you can see eyes, lips, noise, ears, and details of clothing all very easily. There are not movement orientated brush strokes or accentuated brush strokes. But in Seurat’s painting you can see the lack of detail, the faces only have slight colorations in spots that allow you to know face, some actually are completely blank. You also can not see specific buttons and lines that you can see in Callebotte’s painting. There is obvious emphasized noise in the brush stroke in Seurat’s painting. 

Although Callebotte’s painting were made in Impressionist time period, there are too many differences for me to say he was an  impressionist. But I do love his work!

Monet and Manet

Claide Monet’s The Rue Montorgueil  and Edouard Manet’s  The Rue Mosnier with Flags  are both paintings that portray the French festival of 1878. The both of are streets, and have flags, yet they are vastly different in many other aspects. 

The street each of the paintings has is what I notice is the first difference, although they are both looking at a long stretch of street, they fill it much differently. Monet’s painted the street completely full of people. You can feel the movement of the people bustling about. They are very blurred with loose brush strokes that really draw out the feeling of their movement. Manet’s painting has almost a completely clear street. You can see a man walking with one leg and crutches, and few very unclear people to the side, and a few small carts. Other then that, there is an empty street.

Another difference is the flags each painter put into their paintings, Monet’s piece has many, many flags coming off of the buildings on either side of the street. They are densely colored and blurred as it there is a strong wind blowing. But the flags really blur out many of the buildings because there are so many. On the other hand Manet’s painting has much fewer flags. They are on the sides of buildings as well, but they seem to be a much lighter pigment, and they do not blur as much of the buildings. But they too are blurred like there was a strong wind blowing.

Monet’s painting has some dark shades with a mix of browns and off whites. And the red, white and blue flags. Manet’s painting have a much more pastel look to them. He used a lot of blues and off whites with touches of darker colors and greens. I feel it has an overall feel of a much lighter painting than Monet’s painting with the large amount of movement all throughout the painting.

Both these artist are seeing the same festival, yet they are showing it in two different ways. Monet is really showing the celebration aspect of the festival. I see not sign of suffering or any sign of war, whereas Manet really looks at some of the political aspects of the celebration. What I found to stand out the most was the war vet. He is missing a leg, walking alone while many other people around the city are celebrating. Manet really shows some of the affects war actually had on people, and adds alittle big of reality in the painting.

Overall, I really like both of these paintings! I find them both interesting in their own way. Monet I really like for the busyness, movement, and very loose brush stokes, and I really like Manet’s painting because of the unique feeling, and truth that seems to radiate from it. I think both of these painting show different perspectives on the emotions and thoughts about the war and the losses and victories.

The Horse Fair

The Horse Fair painted by Rosa Bonheur is a beautiful painting that really gives off an immense amount of energy and a sense of the men in the painting trying to gain control over their horses. You can see the energy in this painting through the horse’s movement, lack of detail, and the dramatic coloring. You can tell the men in this painting are trying hard to keep the horses under control with the movement they have, and the positions their body’s take show they are trying to gain control over the group of horses.

Some of the horses in this painting are being cooperative with their riders…technically groomsmen, while others are rearing up and rebelling. The angles that the horses make with their necks and legs are all over the board in many different angles. They drag your eyes quickly across the canvas. Ridged edges, sprawling hair of the horse’s manes, and the dirt flying up in the painting all give the feel of extreme movement.  It is very apparent during this moment it was very chaotic, and unorganized. But your eyes get mostly drawn toward the middle of the painting, where a black and a white horse are both rearing up. They are taller than all the other horses, and their position has their back legs crouched down as if they were going to leap and their front legs kicking into the air. There is just energetic feel emerging off them.

The lack of detail on some of the features that were in the midst of moving, such as the rider on the black horse in the center of the painting, really allows the movement to look real and fast. The lack of detail, the quick shading and coloring make this painting look as if it was done in the moment. The coloring in this painting also contributes to the energy coming off of this painting. With the dark shaded areas of the painting, and the highlights really give a dramatic tone to the painting. It makes the movement much more believable, and allows the painting to grab your emotions and wrap them into the energetic and chaotic feel of the painting.  The rustic, de-saturated coloring of the painting adds a very realist feel. The colors look very natural and allow the painting to seem like Bonheur was really there when this all went down. Looking so naturalistic with the coloring, allows all the movements to look very natural too.

The men are clearly trying to gain control and order over the horses, and it is not working out that great for them. It seems there is a battle between the men and horses over who is in control; some of the horses are broke, while the others who are not broke are struggling against the men. You can see the straining muscles of the horses and they rear up, pull forward and try to escape the men’s hold on them. They are throwing their heads against the reigns and pulling away. You can see the men straining to keep hold of the horses. The muscles on their forearms are budging; some are sitting on the horse in a position that will keep them on a horse when it rears, and some of them are trying to calm their horse during all the excitement by gently walking them, and petting them.

Overall there are so many different things going on in this painting, it brings a buzz of activity and movement. The positions of the people and horses are not positions that are held, they are in the moment natural reactions. They don’t slowdown, or pause. This painting is very energetic, and really shows the ‘battle’ that is happening between the horses and the men.

The Gleaners and A Burial at Ornans

The Gleaners by Jean-Francois Millet and A Burial at Ornans by Gustave Courbet are two examples of realism and early Avant-Grade. Both these painting were offensive to the bourgeoisie, and were looked down upon by many people. They both give emotion and a realism that make people uncomfortable.

First of all, the painting is of the poor people of the area. It was not common and was not looked favorably upon to make poor people as the main focus of art, especially painting. Their faces are turned away from the viewer, representing the masses of the poverty stricken people. This painting shows the poverty of the three women, having their face covered, they represents all the people who are poor. It shows them gleaning, picking the small amount of stalk left to make bread. Women who did this were out bending over for hours every day collecting a small amount of stalks. But being at the poverty level they had no choice. This reminds people of how much poverty there is, and brings light to the situation. People didn’t like the realism of this picture, the real portrayal of people in poverty. You can see how far they are from the town or village, and how little they have been able to find for all their work. I think it probably made majority of people feel uncomfortable. Another part of this painting is the three women. They are taking up the majority of the frame.  Which was not acceptable, usually peasants, if they were in a painting at all, they fill a very small portion. Millet dedicated this painting to the poor people of the time, which really was not typical of the time. It was strongly looked down upon.

A Burial at Ornans is also an example of realism and early Avant-Grade. People looked down on this painting as well. It is a life-sized scale of a burial. This scene is not idealized, or made “less sad”. It is a very real painting of a funeral, has a sadness, coldness, and shock of a real funeral. People disliked the raw emotion this painting gives. People really just disliked the truth, and realism of this piece. They said the men were ugly and disgusting. Another thing people did not like about this painting was the white dog. It stands out a lot in the painting, and it was offensive to many people. And considing that the center of the painting, is a huge hole, the next thing you really look at is the dog.

Overall, the pattern I noticed with these two paintings is that people disliked them because they are so realistic. They really shed light on truths that are hard for people to face. Poverty and death, and two hard things for people to face, and when someone is painting poverty and death in such a realistic manner, people are going to dislike it. And probably feel uncomfortable around it.

Final Post

I really enjoyed studying Peter Bruegel and Hieronymus Bosch’s art. I like the visual detail both artists provided, but I really enjoyed studying these artists because of their historical context. I was fascinated by the change in artistic context that was changing at the time. They both had their own individual unique focuses in much of their art.

Bosch’s pieces are very interesting, particularly his painting Garden of Earthly Delights. I found his medieval approach interesting, along with the imaginative creatures he displays. All through the painting you can see houses, or castles that look like they just came out of a Dr. Suess book or movie. You can see ducks and birds larger than humans. The people in the painting are all naked, and partaking in crazy activities such as riding animals that are typically smaller than a human, have body parts that are not all human, and delighting themselves to whatever they please. This painting is filled with a ton of metaphors for sin. I think it is really important that daily human desires and sin were really put into paintings, and artwork because that’s what life really is. I think he was very down to earth with the idea of painting a sinful picture of human life… although his painting is a bit more imaginative than realistic and down to earth.

I also enjoyed studying Peter Bruegel. I really liked visually how his paintings came out. And I also love the fact that he was one of the founding people for inserting, or having landscapes as a main focus of a painting. His painting Return of the Hunters is absolutely beautiful. And although the title is named after the hunters in the picture, your eye immediately looks at the landscape. For me, I hardly even look at the hunters. I am so focused on the amount of detail and exactness that is in the landscape, the houses, mountains tree, small bridges fields and lakes. There is so much detail, I feel like I am almost dragging my eyes away from the landscape to look at the hunters and the houses in the foreground. His painting The Harvesters has a similar affect. The landscape is the main thing that my eyes see. But I also noticed the extreme detain Bruegel put into this painting. They hay has so many individual lines for the grass, and his trees looks so realistic. His eye for detail was what really made him such a great painter.

Overall, Peter Bruegel and Hieronymus Bosch are my favorite artists from this quarter. I could look at their work all day studying the amount of details the both put into their paintings. And the subject matter in Bosch is fascinating as interesting, something I would love to study more. But I am excited to see what we study next quarter!