Caillebotte and Impressionism

            During the 19^th century Impressionism developed in art, this kind of art was very different than the standard set by the Academics. Claude Monet was an Impressionist artist, he found interest in the observation of light and color which was reflected in his art. Gustave Caillbotte was an artist that some would argue fits into the Impressionistic style. When one compares Monet’s Rowen Cathedral: The Portal (in sun) to Caillbotte’s Pont de I’Europe, it will become obvious whether or not Callibotte work fits into Impressionism.

            Before Impressionism began, artists were painting for the Academy. The Academy only accepted works that had a smooth finish and interest in perspective. They also required that the painting’s subject matter should be historical, mythological or biblical. Impressionism was a way for artists to revolt against the Academy. Artists started painting plein air, outdoors, which was made possible with the invention of oil paints in metal collapsible tubes. Monet’s painting of the Rowen Cathedral is a perfect example of Impressionism. His painting incorporates the idea of impasto which is a very thick application of paint which leaves the surface rough when finished. Monet utilizes impasto in a way that helps depict the architectural elements of the Cathedral. The painting is done plein air, and shows the urbanization of Paris. Impressionist artist were interested in conveying realism through observation of time of day at different locations in Paris. Monet was known for painting the same location many times to truly capture how sunlight or the lack of sun affects color. His painting depicts the Cathedral in sunlight, his colors are pale as they would be if the sun was shining on the building, and the shadows help convey this too. Monet’s piece appears sketch like, spontaneous and alla prima, meaning he was painting all at once from the beginning. One can see Monet’s loose brush strokes, which is an impressionistic style. Impressionist art usually does not have a narrative behind the subject matter, which is true in Monet’s painting. His subject matter is a moment in time of the Rowen Cathedral. Impressionist artist treat their canvas as a flat object, they do not use perspective to create a sense of depth. In Monet’s painting there is some atmospheric perspective in the depiction of the sky, besides that the canvas is relatively flat.

            Caillebotte’s painting Pont de I’Europe, represent some Impressionistic styles. Pont de I’Europe was painted plein air and depicts the urbanization of Paris. Caillebotte does not utilize impasto; instead he has a smooth finish which the Academy would favor, though there are some loose strokes evident. Caillebotte is also interested in realism and observing the effects of light and color. In his painting there are signs of sunlight coming through the structural wall. The color in his painting helps convey a nice day in Paris. Similar to Monet’s painting, Pont de I’Europe depicts a moment in time. Different from Monet’s piece there is more to the subject matter. The dog in the foreground is, in a way Caillebotte’s commentary on Modern life. At the time, the bourgeois was very fearful of rabies because many poor were dying from owning pets with rabies. There seems to be even more subject matter in the case of the woman and the man that seems to be listening or looking at the woman. Caillebotte creates a sense of depth in his painting. The way the structural wall is depicted at an angle increases the visual depth.

            After comparing Rowen Cathedral: The Portal (in sun) and Pont de I’Europe, I came to the conclusion that Impressionism is evident in Caillebotte’s painting yet there is almost an equal amount of Academic style seen as well. Gustave Caillebotte’s style is between the two different styles, utilizing the elements he likes from both styles. I think that Caillebotte took the truly aesthetic beauty of the Academic while using plein air and realism of Impressionism.

Monet vs Manet

Manet, The Rue Mosnier with Flags

              During the 19^th century France went through trails and tribulations. The French Empire collapses in 1870; Napoleon III is defeated by Otto von Bismarck, Prussian leader. Then as a reaction to a new government the people of France start the largest urban uprising of the 19^th century, this is called the Paris Commune of 1871. The uprising lasts 72 days, from March to May. Many lost their lives during the Franco-Prussian war and the Commune as well as destruction of Haussmannized, remodeled, Paris that began in 1851. After the devastation of war, France begins to rebuild and is mostly recuperated by 1878.  Later as a way to remember and celebrate France creates a national festival on June 30^th, 1878. Claude Monet and Edouard Manet capture their own plein air interpretations of the festival. During the festival Monet creates The Rue Monotorguil, and Manet creates The Rue Mosnier with Flags, when compared the paintings share many similarities and differences.
             Both paintings convey very different moods. Monet’s painting expresses the joy and happiness the French may have been feeling during the festival in 1878. The brushstrokes utilized for the tricolor flags emphasize a joyous feeling. The people are mostly abstracted lines but the way they fill the street brings out liveliness in Monet’s painting. Manet’s painting on the other hand appears less energetic, and there is far less people on this street. Manet is known for painting white and black juxtapositions. In this particular painting the dark carriage and the Veteran’s blue jacket are juxtaposed 

Monet, The Rue Monotorguil

to the stark white sunny street. The starkness of the street lacks happiness and conveys loneliness.  Both paintings have similar but generally different compositions. Monet’s composition depicts the festival from a high window looking down, where as Manet’s appears to be raised and slightly angled down. The paintings share technical radicalism; the brushstrokes are loose and spontaneous, with overlapping applications and paint appears thick in areas. The festival paintings were painted outdoors, and appear to be a short moment of time. In both paintings subject matter is mainly influenced by what the artist is witnessing, which is the Festival of June 30^th, 1878. At this time many artist stopped producing works that had political reference, and started painting French utopia.  Monet’s subject matter reflects a utopia of happy celebration yet still being haunted by past misery. Manet’s subject matter with an emphasis on the Veteran could be influenced by his first hand experience of the Prussian war. Perhaps there is an emphasis on the amputated Veteran to remind society of the sacrifices that were made for their revolution and the reason for celebration.

     The definition of “avant-garde” during this time has been affected by war. Artists shifted away from Saint-Simon ideals of “avant-garde.” Saint-Simon believed that art should motivate society to move forward and change for the better.  This also means that art should reference political issues. Monet’s painting of the festival does not incorporate political radicalism yet it does involve artistic radicalism. In Monet’s painting there are loose brushstrokes, thick paint application, and his painting is spontaneous plein air. Artistic radicalism is when an artist chooses to use techniques that would not necessarily be accepted by Academic standards. The canvas would appear flattened, and usually would have thick application of rough paint. Manet’s painting is artistically radical and politically radical.  The subject matter in Manet’s painting incorporates the ideal of bettering society, reminding viewers of the country’s past tribulations by emphasizing the disabled Veteran.

      The festival on June 30^th, 1878 was captured by 19^th century artists Claude Monet and Edouard Manet. Each painting has its own vibe, style and message. Overall both paintings remember yet hide the tribulations of war.

Monet, The Gare Saint-Lazare Train Station

           During the 19^th century Impressionism began. Many artists are no longer interested in mythological subject matter. Artists are painting the things they see around them. Impressionist artists have a focus on the effects of light and color. At this time artists were spending lots of time outside painting, which they were finally able to do since the invention of collapsible metal paint tubes in 1841.  Another reason impressionists artist were painting outdoor is that they were inspired by the urbanization of Paris starting in 1852. Claude Monet is an impressionist artist. He painted The Gare Saint-Lazare Train Station, Arrival of a Train in 1877.  My overall reaction of this painting is that it effectively expresses the aims of Impressionism.

            The Arrival of a Train was painted plein air, meaning it was painted outdoors. The painting conveys extreme realism being that it is a split second of time when the train arrives and the puff of smoke is let out from the stack. The composition is visually interesting; there seem to be many lines that cause the viewer’s eyes to move throughout the piece.  For example the railroad tracks in the foreground that goes off the bottom of the canvas and then lead into the background of the painting. The painting is asymmetrically balanced with one train leaving and another entering the scene.  One can see that the arriving train is more emphasized because of the smoke cloud around it. Cropping is utilized in the piece as well, which help convey realism. In the foreground there appears to be a train attendant awaiting the train’s arrival who has his legs cropped.

            Another key part of Impressionism is the scientific observation of light and color. Many Impressionist artists would spend time outside observing how sunlight affects the landscape depending on the time of day. Monet would return to locations over and over to observing the light. This is seen in many of his works especially Haystack, Sun in the Mist and in Haystack, Snow Effect. The Arrival of a Train utilizes interesting color combinations; Monet mixes colors one would not usually see next to each other to create colors that the eye blends together. This idea can be seen throughout the painting, especially in the ground and the ceiling of the station. If one looks at the ceiling it appears to be a mossy green color but with a closer look on can see that there are reds, browns and blues to create the overall color. One other way the viewer can tell the train on the right is emphasized is through color, there are hints of red which the viewer would be attracted to. Since this painting was done outside at the station you can see the effect of sunlight, or lack of sunlight. Monet uses many blues and grays in this piece that suggests it might have been a cloudy overcast day.

Impressionists are not concerned in having a smooth surface when finished painting like the Academy painters. In the painting the Arrival of a train, Monet utilizes an impasto technique that is a thick application of paint which leaves the surface very rough. Since the painting is plein air and alla prima, painted “at once” or “from the first” there is a sketch like quality to the painting. It is not as visible in Arrival of a Train as Monet’s Impression: Sunrise, which appears to be an unfinished sketch of a painting. The Arrival of a Train could appear sketch like because there is not a lot of detail in the background of the painting, and some of the figures appear unfinished. There is a level spontaneity in of the Arrival of a Train because Monet is a realist meaning he is painting exactly what appears around him at that time.

Overall I find The Gare Saint-Lazare Train Station to be an interesting Impressionist painting. I enjoy the ways it incorporates impressionist characteristics of light and color observation. I thing it is fun that Monet was outside paintings this piece in the middle of a train station is inspiring. The use of unusual colors keeps viewers enthralled. I think the true reason I enjoy this piece is that many years later we are able to see exactly what the artist was seeing without photographs.

Gustave Courbet

            During the 19^th century it was difficult for artist not to be affected by the revolution taking place in 1848. Gustave Courbet was affected by the revolution and it is seen in his realist paintings. To certain viewers, mostly the bourgeoisie, his paintings, The Stonebreakers and A Burial at Ornans, were offensive.

            Courbet painted The Stonebreakers in 1849 and it offended many bourgeoisies when the painting was shown at the salon. The painting would have been offensive to the bourgeoisie because this large scale painting is of two working class men. The painting was fairly large and typically large scale paintings were of historical or biblical events. Instead, Courbet filled the space with lower class.  Seeing the lower class at such a large scale was offensive to the bourgeoisie because their lifestyles caused the lower class to be extremely poor and oppressed.  The Stonebreakers is a good example of Saint-Simonian avant-gardism. Saint-Simon believed that art should encourage society to push forward and to better them. This painting is an example of this because Courbet glorifies the working class and in a way is forcing the higher classes to look at these poor men to perhaps cause empathy. The painting is artistically radical too. The paint appears rough, almost unfinished, which is very different from the traditionally perfect smooth Academy paintings. The figures fill most of the foreground yet their faces are turned away from the viewer. Even though most elements of the painting are not traditional, Courbet utilizes perspective and illusionism.

            Another Courbet painting is A Burial at Ornans which was painted the same year as The Stonebreakers. The painting A Burial at Ornans is even bigger than stonebreakers. The Ornans painting has slightly higher class depicted yet untraditionally shows a funeral which would not be considered a historical or biblical event. Even though there are many figures depicted, the subject matter is unclear, there are not any single person more emphasized more than another. The only thing that appears to be emphasized is the dog in the foreground that is white juxtaposed to the figure’s dark clothing. During the 19^th century it would have been offensive to have a dog emphasized. Others would have been opposed to the painting because there is a very large hole in the foreground which makes no sense to include. Courbet may have been inspired to paint this sense because his father had recently passed. It is also said that Courbet possibly created a link between the revolution presently taking place and a revolution during his father’s lifetime. This is said because there are figures in the foreground that are wearing clothing that was popular during his father’s lifetime. Many men and women at the salon found the painting to be very offensive and were even more offended that people from the lower class were going to the salon to see the painting.

            Even though Courbet’s paintings were not liked by very many people, he was still able to send radical messages through his art that were affected by the on going revolution in France.