>Dear ArtsEdNet group,
>Here is an email post I received from my brother. He is so
>articulate in his refusal to believe that Monet was indeed an
>impressionist that I was wondering what the rest of you feel
>about this idea?
>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.