Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
I know zip about Monet except that he was "supposed" to be
an Impressionist. Well, if that is how the Gurus of Art deem him,
so be it. But to me he is no Impressionist. I actually like some
work. Now I know what Impressionism is because music also has its
Impressionists: Debussy, Ravel, etc. The idea is that one trys to
an "atmosphere" without attention to detail or structure. True
Impressionism uses beautiful chord structures, big, fat, lush
which can aurally "go" anywhere because they include almost every
the scale. There is little feeling of Tonic with Impressionistic
No sense of Form or structure. Monet does not fit this
Therefore, to me, he is no Impressionist. I don't know who is,
ain't! His form is very good, the feeling of width and depth and
structure are quite apparent. This is not Impressionism. I don't
what to call it but I would say he painted so that "light" was
feature of his creations. Even his darker works have a structural
light and shadow totally unlike Impressionism. Perhaps he is
Impressionistic because of the period in which he painted. As the
implies, impressions are not accurate. They are holistic, not
structural. So I don't know were the great "they" come off
Impressionistic. I even went to a few sites tonight to try to
Impressionistic paintings by him. Obviously I failed.
. I would like to know where the "impressions" are if you know.
What I see in his painting is line and
form and above all the interplay of light and shapes to "define "
suggest or impress or imply) temperature and emotion.
I'm not trying to dictate anything but I do appreciate
Monet; I do not find impressions in his works. They are clear,
concise yet emotional.
It is interesting that both music and art came to a point
in the last
century where the leading eggheads felt "everything" that could
had been done. Obviously they were grossly mistaken else we would
had no new artistic endeavors for the last 150 years. I do not
idea that the photograph obviated the painting. No way! A
a stagnant moment in time. It can be beautiful, obviously, but it
never approach the beauty of form, depth, line and light that
does. Photos are limited by field and focal width. When one's
6 feet from a tree one's photo will only include a fixed height,
and depth; when one paints the same scene he can include much,
than any photographer can even dream of. I do not go along with
that photography freed artists from the need to accurately
people, places and things. This idea that miasmic hints or
of the tangibles of life are art is ludicrous. Such blurry,
scurrilous impressions may evoke emotions but so does every kid
grammar school and every laborer who wields a 6-inch paint brush
the siding of a suburban ranch house. These are not artists. They
called decorators, interior or exterior, but artists? No way.
reality of vision and mind must be mastered completely as far as
depth of field and texture are concerned. Then an artist puts his
emotions into the modification of reality to create vicarious
in his audience.
Ah, well, what do I know, eh? The long and short of it is
that I like
Monet but cannot abide his rank as an Impressionist.