Post comments | Print this article |

Dear Joan,

Food for thought. But then those gobs of wild rebellious “Impressionist” colours did not come about out of the blue (no pun intended). Whether we “like” what they painted and how is a matter for a friendly discussion over a café-long at Les Deux Magots. We know history poorly and read even less about it, and yet, how we criticize. We react as if the Impressionists were a bunch of adolescent know-it-alls who simply told their elders where to get off. To the contrary, the rebellious impressionists were well-trained painters. Either students of or graduates of the Académie. They had honed their technical skills and knew the spelling and grammar of the visual language they had taken on as their own. They also were aware of the recognition processes involved in their making or un-making in the art world of the day. Basically, they knew what they were rebelling against.

As for their park scenes and at times light subject matter (for the day) there’s was a counterpoint to the laissez-faire attitude and Imperialism of the times. They focused on their individual abilities to do as they saw fit despite the constant rejections they faced. Their rebellion was not scattered, as so much of our “modern” social commentary is. There’s was not an adolescent push to save the world. Their work did not result in un-trained self-centered dabbling. They went beyond themselves, despite opposition, to observe life around them. They then commented on what they saw - without imposing it.

Before we as painters or sculptors can be at the forefront of presenting to the world “what is”, we must first know what exists beyond our “selves”. We must present what we have encountered without tainting it with subjective imposition. We must recognize that viewers of artwork are not stupid or insipid as so much of today’s “artistic rants imply”. Rather than consider ourselves god’s gift to the masses or as visionaries, what we visually say would be more relevant if we didn’t scream or spit it out as so many “rebels without a cause” do. (2 year old tantrums aren’t that cute coming from a spouter sporting a 7 day old beard). Finally, before mouthing off, visual artists should know something about both sides of a coin. We must also acknowledge history as it was - and not how we would have liked it to be. We must learn from it and try to avoid the self-righteous revisionism so prevalent today. All of this we must acknowledge, over and above technically learning what a “Filbert” can actually do. We too can rebel, but the cause should have credibility and relevance to the whole.

Not enough knowledge and too much navel gazing does not a good painter or sculptor make. Loud visual noise is already rampant amongst us. So before dissing the Impressionists, (easy to do, they’re dead), we “contemporaries” have a long way “back” to go, before we can step forward with honesty and integrity. And, sadly, painting pretty flowers may be all the statement that some can make in this rather numb era. That in itself says much about who we are in this first segment of a new century.

Bernard Poulin
just a painter
August 22, 2006

Reading art history shouldn't be limited to historians' views. One ought to read what the artists themselves have to say. Here's Renoir on the subject talking to art dealer Ambroise Vollard:

"I had wrung Impressionism dry, and I finally came to the conclusion that I know neither how to paint nor how to draw. In a word, Impressionism was a blind alley, as far as I was concerned...I finally realized that it was a kind of painting that made you constantly compromise with yourself. Out of doors, there is a greater variety of light than in the studio, where, to all intents and purposes, it is constant; but, for just that reason, light plays too great a part outdoors; you have no time to work out the composition; you can't see what you are doing...If the painter works directly from nature, he ultimately looks for nothing but momentary effect...and soon he gets monotonous." (Abrose Vollard, "Renoir, an Intimate Record," New York, 1930, pp.116, 118-19, 129).

Joan
August 22, 2006
Writer's response to Bernard Poulin

Is Pissarro on your no-no list, too? While he worried about his son Lucien's zeal for modernism, he suffered self-doubts about what he was doing and admitted that to his son: "I am much disturbed by my unpolished and rough execution...I should like to be rid of these jarring notes which make it diffult to see my canvases clearly."

Then there were all the Post-Impressionists, who shared a dissatisfaction with Impressionism's idea of painting the external world and momentary visual effect.

Here's Gauguin on the subject (The Intimate Journal of Paul Gauguin): "Impressionists heed only the eye and neglect the mysterious centers of thought, so falling into merely scientific reasoning. When they speak of their art, what is it? A purely superficial thing, full of affections and only material. In it thought does not exist...It is better to paint from memory, for thus your work will be your own; your sensation, your intelligence, and your soul will triumph over the eye..."

BTW, my rant about Impressionism had less to do with those painters of the 19th century and more to do with those in our century who keep on keeping on with this ism. At least we can agree on that point, no?

Joan
August 22, 2006
Writer's 2nd response to Bernard Poulin

I just finished reading your article (No. 2) on Fine Art Registry and I have one word... BRAVO. I also read your previous article (No. 1) on Fine Art Registry and I have to tell you I look forward to reading all your future articles.

I'm a full time artist and quite frankly my mindset towards any art critic is... art critics be damned. What they typically write about stinks of personal preference that either damns the artist and their work or praises them with a heavy emphasis on their own bravado with a pinch of hidden agenda. I've yet to read an article by an art critic that is objective. Maybe I'm just looking for a critic that can be more impartial and yes objective when writing about an artists work.

I'm also an art collector for many, many years and have never once let an art critic sway my opinion of an artist and their work or whether or not I decide to purchase a piece. I'm not a big supporter of someone who discourages an artist. I think every artist has something to say and/or convey. One may not care for their style but that doesn't make it any less important... in my opinion. The beauty of it is if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it or look at it anymore for that matter. But for God's sake, don't pan it and possibly crush an artist's dream/message/vision.

This is what sets your opinions/articles apart Joan. Don't get me wrong, your a critic no doubt but your articles lean more towards getting artists to "think" about what they do and why they do it with a touch of "you may want to give this a try".

Regards,
LORNA WALLACE

Thanks for your kind words, Lorna. They mean a lot.

Joan
Writer's response to Lorna Wallace