[Lecture Notes] The Profound Surface
The Profound Surface
"The Rue Montorgeuil Festival of 30 June 1878" Monet
- Impression of the street//no sense of dept, visual phenomena at the time
- Changing description on what the artist is painting --> It is not the street
- Castagbart 1879
○ sensation produced by the landscape "Impressionist"
- Herbert (pg 473)
○ "phenomenological reduction" translate to the is a world/source out there of sensory info, flowing out is a phenonomcy
§ The things you sense (World --> phenomenon --> Viewer)
§ We do not experience the world, we experience the phenomenon, no anthological (things that actually exist) claim about the world, we don't know anything by phenomenon
§ How we know & what we know based on the phenomenon
§ The 2nd school of Impressionism
- It doesn't give up people but impression that he had of the street, phenomenon/impression that is offered to the senses
- Viewer: "He was there. He sees it" >> interaction of phenomenon & viewer//viewer & the artist
- This Viewer <>Impression Intereaction is Most Important
"The Loge" Renoir 1874
- Class conflict? But its pretty, bright colors, surface, not a dept painting
What is not an Impression?
"View from the Versailles Palace" Martin 1688
- View outside Versailles, World --> Impression --> Viewer
- Flat canvas//FLAT but it wants to be a dept/linear perspective
○ Wide panorama, kings view = expanse of the nation, see as dept to see France
○ Deemphasize the viewer, he is making the scene as the king//for the king, artist defaces himself to put himself into the shoes of the king
§ Its my kingdom/deemphasize himself to be the king, anything that see the pictures = King's view of the street, centered on the king
§ King becomes what we all focus on, we need to step on his shoes --> viewer is replaceable because we all take the king's place to see the view
§ The viewer doesn't matter, to what extent to the world impressing itself onto the canvas & to what extent does the impression represent the actual world
○ Man w/ group of women & group of men in the shadow
§ Do you need to know the detail? --> don't need but artist is just recording what he sees, made some modification but he is doing nothing but recording what is really there
§ I am telling the truth
"The Holy Trinity" Masaccio 1425
- Mounted to the church, impression that you are standing on top of something, architectural niche
- Barrel vault, receding point --> point to area infinitely far away, vanishing point is behind his feet --> illusion of it being an architectural image, eyes auto go there
○ Anybody can stand in it & it becomes their view, same experience
- Damisch (pg456): not content of the picture, relation between pronouns/shifter, anybody can step up to position & the pronouns change
○ Starts w/ an I (anyone) --> this distance becomes yours (it becomes your world, language --> how much the picture tells us about the world over there
- Academy Art: never interested in the viewer but more about what it hells is about the world
Academy Art
- 2 sets of hierarchy:
○ Subject Matter:
§ History painting (depiction of scenes of classical history, classical myth, Christian bible stories, in the present, we can learn from the past). They are true!
□ Given truth, Christ is christ, its history
□ "Alexander's Entry into Babylon" Brun 1661
® Idealism of Academic art
® Large picture, identify great military leadership, allegory between Alex & Louis, gives us some truth about the world
□ "Adoration of the Magi" Poussin 1633
® History painting: Joesph & Mary
® Debate: something was happening the back of the picture: camels
◊ There were no camels mentioned in the bibles & they are ugly
◊ Why are they in it?
□ "Franche-Comte Conquered a 2nd time in 1674" Brun 1678
® It is real because it was meant to explain something (even if its through allegory)
○ Portraiture
§ The painting = the same as the person
○ Genre
○ Still Life & Landscape
- Style
○ Composition
§ Careful organization
○ Drawing
○ Chiaroscuro
Impressionist:
- In relation to the system of art, inverting the hierarchy of academic art
- Genre Scenes:
"The Bridge at Bougival" Monet 1869 (in comparison to "Landscape w/ Rest on the Flight into Egypt" 1666")
○ Tree in the middle of the picture, no serving the framing device, Not laid out (dept, perception) --> they are just laid out one right after another, no sense of space
§ He doesn't speak closely
○ Does it go across a river? --> don't really see the bridge but see flat surface of the bridge, how steep is it?
○ No relation between color
○ Visible brushstroke, lots of brushstroke (surface) --> there is no different between near & far, this is as close as this (color is different, treatment is different to create spacial difference) --> No difference
"The Rue Montorgeuil Festival of 30 June 1878" Monet
- Impression of the street//no sense of dept, visual phenomena at the time
- Changing description on what the artist is painting --> It is not the street
- Castagbart 1879
○ sensation produced by the landscape "Impressionist"
- Herbert (pg 473)
○ "phenomenological reduction" translate to the is a world/source out there of sensory info, flowing out is a phenonomcy
§ The things you sense (World --> phenomenon --> Viewer)
§ We do not experience the world, we experience the phenomenon, no anthological (things that actually exist) claim about the world, we don't know anything by phenomenon
§ How we know & what we know based on the phenomenon
§ The 2nd school of Impressionism
- It doesn't give up people but impression that he had of the street, phenomenon/impression that is offered to the senses
- Viewer: "He was there. He sees it" >> interaction of phenomenon & viewer//viewer & the artist
- This Viewer <>Impression Intereaction is Most Important
"The Loge" Renoir 1874
- Class conflict? But its pretty, bright colors, surface, not a dept painting
What is not an Impression?
"View from the Versailles Palace" Martin 1688
- View outside Versailles, World --> Impression --> Viewer
- Flat canvas//FLAT but it wants to be a dept/linear perspective
○ Wide panorama, kings view = expanse of the nation, see as dept to see France
○ Deemphasize the viewer, he is making the scene as the king//for the king, artist defaces himself to put himself into the shoes of the king
§ Its my kingdom/deemphasize himself to be the king, anything that see the pictures = King's view of the street, centered on the king
§ King becomes what we all focus on, we need to step on his shoes --> viewer is replaceable because we all take the king's place to see the view
§ The viewer doesn't matter, to what extent to the world impressing itself onto the canvas & to what extent does the impression represent the actual world
○ Man w/ group of women & group of men in the shadow
§ Do you need to know the detail? --> don't need but artist is just recording what he sees, made some modification but he is doing nothing but recording what is really there
§ I am telling the truth
"The Holy Trinity" Masaccio 1425
- Mounted to the church, impression that you are standing on top of something, architectural niche
- Barrel vault, receding point --> point to area infinitely far away, vanishing point is behind his feet --> illusion of it being an architectural image, eyes auto go there
○ Anybody can stand in it & it becomes their view, same experience
- Damisch (pg456): not content of the picture, relation between pronouns/shifter, anybody can step up to position & the pronouns change
○ Starts w/ an I (anyone) --> this distance becomes yours (it becomes your world, language --> how much the picture tells us about the world over there
- Academy Art: never interested in the viewer but more about what it hells is about the world
Academy Art
- 2 sets of hierarchy:
○ Subject Matter:
§ History painting (depiction of scenes of classical history, classical myth, Christian bible stories, in the present, we can learn from the past). They are true!
□ Given truth, Christ is christ, its history
□ "Alexander's Entry into Babylon" Brun 1661
® Idealism of Academic art
® Large picture, identify great military leadership, allegory between Alex & Louis, gives us some truth about the world
□ "Adoration of the Magi" Poussin 1633
® History painting: Joesph & Mary
® Debate: something was happening the back of the picture: camels
◊ There were no camels mentioned in the bibles & they are ugly
◊ Why are they in it?
□ "Franche-Comte Conquered a 2nd time in 1674" Brun 1678
® It is real because it was meant to explain something (even if its through allegory)
○ Portraiture
§ The painting = the same as the person
○ Genre
○ Still Life & Landscape
- Style
○ Composition
§ Careful organization
○ Drawing
○ Chiaroscuro
Impressionist:
- In relation to the system of art, inverting the hierarchy of academic art
- Genre Scenes:
"The Bridge at Bougival" Monet 1869 (in comparison to "Landscape w/ Rest on the Flight into Egypt" 1666")
○ Tree in the middle of the picture, no serving the framing device, Not laid out (dept, perception) --> they are just laid out one right after another, no sense of space
§ He doesn't speak closely
○ Does it go across a river? --> don't really see the bridge but see flat surface of the bridge, how steep is it?
○ No relation between color
○ Visible brushstroke, lots of brushstroke (surface) --> there is no different between near & far, this is as close as this (color is different, treatment is different to create spacial difference) --> No difference