Caillebotte

One thing that I would like to say before I begin is that I've never heard of Caillebotte before, but I have to say that I'm now a fan of his! His paintings are wonderful! :) I love impressionism!

When it comes to the concept of modernity in Caillebotte's work I think that his art is leaning more towards critiquing modern life, but only because of the use of isolationism in his paintings. However I do think that he celebrated modern life in his paintings as well, just not as much. I can see this in his painting Fruit Displayed on a Stand. Between the vibrant colors and the abundance of the fruit it seems like he is celebrating the availability of fresh food, commerce, and trade. It's a very different painting in comparison to the other ones that I've seen. It's bright and lively, and makes it seem as if not everything is wrong in the world.

But back to the critiquing, I would have to say that Caillebotte's painting, A Traffic Island, Boulevard Haussmann is a prime example of it. In the painting he isn't celebrating the use of the space. Instead of showing it as a busy area, full of life and accomplishment, he shows it as a big and mostly empty space with a few people here and there, either going about their own business or just kind of standing around. I'm speaking of course about the 2 men standing on opposite ends of the traffic island, are they traffic officers? Because if they are they don't seem to have much of a purpose that day. Which is also odd because they are the people in the image with the highest contrast in comparison to the background, you'd think that they would be the most important part about the painting and yet they're not doing anything.

The bright background on the painting also makes it feel as if the traffic island would be a very hot place to be. There are practically no shadows in the area, so it gives off a rather unpleasant feeling, and because of that I wouldn't want to walk across it. Even though the colors are beautiful it's very stuffy. If Caillebotte was critiquing the area, I wonder if that's what he was going for. If he wanted to make the space not as grand as it actually is, and point out all of the flaws it has when it's not filled with people.

Manet and Monet

Edouard Manet, the Rue Mosnier with Flags 1878 oil on canvas

Manet's The Rue Monsier with Flags was painted in 1878 during the festival on the 30^th of June. Manet's version of the festival shows a much quieter picture then what Monet had painted that same day. In Manet's painting we see a small street brightly lit by the sun. The buildings along the street reflect the light while tricolor flags dot along them. Unlike Monet's there are only a few scattered people along the street.

In the very foreground you can see a crippled, 1 legged, war veteran in a blue coat, using crutches to walk down the street. Manet included him in this calm, and almost somber scene, as a reminder of the past, and what was sacrificed so that there even could be a celebration at all. The veteran is juxtaposed against the background, he even has a small black outline around him to help with this. (Manet was known to juxtapose extreme light and darks in his paintings.) Another example of juxtaposition in this painting is the carriage on the right side of the street.. The darkness of the carriage pops it off of the blinding white street.

One thing that makes this painting balanced is the shadowed background, in comparison to the blinding white foreground. Even though the background is covered in shadows, it's very subtle, and you can still distinguish what everything is. Where the street turns, where the people are, the large tree...etc.

.

Claude Monet the Rue of Montorgueil, Festival of 30^th June 1878 oil on canvas

Monet's the Rue of Montorgueil, Festival of 30^th June 1878 was painted on the same day as Manet's however in a very different location, with a different message. While Manet's painting is a reminder of the past, Monet's painting is looking towards a bright future, and celebrating it.

Both sides of this painting are covered in rows and rows of flags, and the street below is completely filled with people, these two elements combined create an incredibly energetic scene. This scene is also from a higher perspective than Manet's. Because of that there is a much larger sense of scale in the painting.

One interesting thing about this painting is the light and dark balance in it. Both horizontally and vertically. The lower half of the painting is much darker, and the upper half of the painting is filled with a bright blue sky. While the right half of the painting is covered with dark shadows, while the left half of the painting is a bright yellow.

Both of these paintings are considered “avant-garde” in terms of style and political views. Monet's painting ignores the war that just happens while focusing on the future. While Manet's painting makes sure to bright the past into light, and to remind the people of what happened.

Impressionism

For this formal analysis I have chosen to write about is James boot McNeill Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold, The Falling Rocket on page 1,000. Impressionism is probably one of my favorite art styles (and artistic periods) so I had a hard time on deciding what painting to write about. But I've never seen any of Whistler's art before, so I figured that I would write about something new and fascinating to me.

Whistler's Nocturne was painted in 1875, is 22 ¾ x 18 3/8 in, and its medium is oil on panel. The first thing to notice about Whistler's painting is how dark the whole thing is. Aside from small bits of very bright yellow, red, and green fireworks there is very little color or light in the painting. The painting is very muted and has an almost haunting feel to it.

The different variants of blacks in the painting range from green to blue in color. On the left side of the painting the viewer can see a very large black shape taking up most of the length of the canvas. However near the bottom of this shape is a break, where one of the brightest shapes is located in the painting. This light shape is symmetrical (horizontally) and suggest where the lake starts and ends. The viewer can also tell where the lake starts because there is a line of horizontal brushstrokes all the way across the canvas. Though a lot of it is hard to see because the dark color of the strokes, blend in with the area above the lake. However there are a lot of very noticeable, long, vertical brushstrokes in the background, to help separate the different areas in the painting.

In the foreground you can see that several ghostly (transparent) figures of women are sitting on the curved lake bank watching the fireworks. Whistler loved to do abstract imagery in his paintings, but I wonder if these semi transparent figures look the way they do because of the smoke from the fireworks? Could the haze actually just be a lot of smoke causing the figures to look strange along the bank? There even just appears to be the shadow of a figure reflecting onto the bank and on the water in the lower right corner of the painting.

Nocturne, even though it is a very dark painting, has a good sense of scale and depth to it, for two reasons. One reason being that the painting is in a vertical format and that the figures in the foreground are so close to the bottom of the painting it focuses the viewer's attention on the very large landscape filled with shadows, smoke, and fireworks. The other reason being that, the viewer is not quite sure what objects are advancing or retreating in the painting. It gives a sense of mystery and I think it's up to the viewer to decide what exactly is in the background .

The limited color in Nocturne provides a strong contrast in the painting. With the wavy groups of light, gold, dots from the fireworks falling out of the sky towards the lake, surrounded by much darker areas. Some of these golden dots even get larger in the size the closer they get to the foreground in the painting. These gold dots work well with the vertical format of the painting because the viewer can see that they are falling from a pretty good distance. The viewer can also see that in contrast to the golden dots there is also smoke rising up towards the top of the painting around the falling dots.

Along with the golden bits of light, there is also a small grouping of much larger red, green and yellow lights at the very top of the painting. I think that these are supposed to be other fireworks off in the distance, but I'm not entirely sure. What I can say though is that Whistler illuminated them so that they look as if their insides are glowing, though they're not producing any light around them.

The Stonebreakers

Gustave Courbet's painting, The Stonebreakers was considered offensive to the bourgeoisie for several reasons. Some of reasons that I can think of are a mix between political and technical things. When looking at Stonebreakers you can see that Courbet used rough paint strokes in the painting, I mostly see these strokes in the background, on the various rocks and objects scattered about. I don't really see the rough brush strokes on the figures though. They seem rather clean and realistic looking. Though I can still see why the bourgeoisie would be upset at the rough brush strokes here and there because of how academic paintings were devoid of noticeable brush strokes.

Another thing to point out would be the size of the figures and how far into the foreground they are. Because of how big the figures are there is very little landscape in the background and Courbet isn't portraying a lot of depth/space in this painting. Though, I personally think that despite the limited background in the painting Courbet was able to portray a good deal of space and depth within the painting. The size of the 2 people in the painting also upset the bourgeoisie because, in the past lower class people were displayed in much smaller sizes, where the landscapes took up most of the paintings.

The subject matter was also offensive to the bourgeoisie because it was of modern, lower class, stonebreakers, who the bourgeoisie thought were not important enough to paint a picture of. The two stonebreakers that you see in the painting are working away by a road. The older man is kneeling down and bending over some rocks with a hammer, while a younger man is trying to carry a very heavy basket of broken stones. Both of these figures are in torn clothing, and you can tell that they are working very hard and struggling with what they are doing.

The figures in Courbet's painting are also not turned to look at the viewer, and even have their faces covered in shadow, which disturbed and upset the bourgeoisie because of the recent unrest of the working class, and because Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto had been published a year earlier. Not being able to see their faces reminded them of the countless working class rising up against them. And not being able to tell what the figures were thinking, was very disturbing and frightening to the higher class bourgeoisie. (It was also considered an untraditional way of portraying people in paintings. There was supposed to be some sort of connection in the painting to the viewer.)

The size of the painting also upset the bourgeoisie because, in the past larger paintings were reserved for historical events with great importance. And since Stonebreakers is showing an untraditional, lowly, subject matter, of the working class, the bourgeoisie considered it offensive towards traditional and historical art.