skip to main |
skip to sidebar
SITE FOR POSTING CLASS READING RESPONSES AS COMMENTS. FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON OTHER POSTS. History of Art, U.C. Berkeley. Instructor Sarah Hamill
FUR-LINED CUP, MERET OPPENHEIM, 1936
Students
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(17)
-
▼
January
(17)
- No title
- Minimalism: For Class 3/31
- Warhol and Pop: For Class 3/19
- Johns, Rauschenberg, Frank: For Class 3/17
- Abstract Expressionism: For Class 3/12
- Modernist Sculpture: For Class 3/5
- Surrealism and Gender: For Class 2/19
- Modernism and Mass Culture: For Class 3/3
- Modern Objects and Things: For Class 2/10
- Primitivism: For class 2/5
- Cezanne and after: For Class 2/3
- Impressionism and Science: For class 1/29
- Response #3
- Kathryn A. Tuma
- What is Analysis? For class 1/27
- Octave Tassaert’s ‘Ne fais pas la cruelle!’ (Don’t...
- Defining the Modern: for class January 22
-
▼
January
(17)
The abstract philosophical theory presented in this week’s readings effectively throws a wrench in the cogs of my mind. Ironically, I closely identify with many of the thoughts presented, especially Charlton’s Positivist Thought in France. The central concepts were philosophical, and centered on “truth”. Both articles present and ponder the idea of truth in an artistic, scientific, and philosophical sense. The single idea that sight is nothing more than the reflection and mental interpretation of light against our retinas is a little intimidating to think about. To perceive and give fuel to this thought is to question our perception, which we believe to be completely real. I believe many people are unwilling to give true thought to concepts such as these, yet also believe some allocate too much thought on the matter. This situation clearly gives rise to a lot of controversy, as was seen in both articles. In both exerts I found it almost comedic to observe the extent they were forced to explain relatively simple concepts. After some thought I do not take this as a sign of a poorly written article, but as an indication that these concepts are very abstract and incredibly controversial. For example, Charlton’s article describes positivism as a “hopelessly ambiguous term.” (5) Later, he defines it as “a theory of knowledge... All we can know of reality is what we can observe or can legitimately deduce from what we observe.” (5) Additionally, he states, “positivism as… a general attitude of mind in which confidence in the scientific method is combined with religious and metaphysical skepticism.” (8) Due to the relative clarity of these statements I have come to understand that there is an ambiguity created by the application of positivism as a label. I also believe this to be true for Schapiro’s article on impressionism. Both instances deal with abstract and ambiguous concepts, but I believe it is because they instigate a high degree of controversy which makes them so enigmatic.
ReplyDeleteThere is a slight paradox in Schapiro’s article that he lightly addresses. Or perhaps this is simply a counterargument. Either way, it seems odd to consider that impressionism is only concerned with color as a sign towards an impression or sensation, and ignores and denounces the object or ‘thing’. However, the process of painting an impressionistic painting is very conscious of the presence of the permanence in the form of paint, canvas, and brush. The final product, or painting, is itself a physical object with fixed paint. Additionally, the impressionist painting can also be said to pose as a form of imitation of the subject or object the painting seeks to represent.
Schapiro’s article took a complete switch from addressing the philosophy of impressionism to the role of the impression on an artist. I found this to be incredibly enlightening. Especially the quotes by Degas, Millet, and Delacroix. I enjoy the notion that a successful artist is one who is able to cultivate an impressionable state. I find this to be incredibly true. It may be a little off topic to write about, but I genuinely believe it to have taken a profound impact on the way I view art and literature. By completely immersing myself in the text I believe I receive a higher degree of understanding, as well as an ability to create my own thoughts and opinions.
Response Essay 3
ReplyDeleteImpressionism
Mike Dreibelbis
I would consider Impressionist paintings to be some of my favorite pieces in all of the arts. The simplicity of their raw application, and their often hazy description of landscape and architecture is what I like the most. In reading Schapiro’s piece on Impressionism, I was able to get a better understanding of the history behind the Impressionists and how they came about. I found it particularly interesting that the name Impression came out of a critique of the works and the similarity in how the story of how the American nickname “yankee“ came about. The fact that the artists embraced the name shows how much the name really describes their work. Schapiro also gives in my opinion a great metaphor as to the Impressionist experience. “ “Impression”…appealed to the reader who wished to relive an account of travel…of a first encounter with new sites and people.” In seeing the impressionist paintings I feel that it is more an experience than merely a depiction of a scene.
Schapiro also says that the name “Impression” also could have come from a term used in wallpaper as the rough under layer is called the impression. I think that this is also a good description, though it also may have initially been used in a negative way. Schapiro also notes that impressionist art conveys “the misty and vague in nature rendered with truth to their momentary aspect.” Through this I find that though impressionist works may appear unfinished and that they don’t have many revisions and repainting, they have their own beauty that the eye of the beholder can find.
Later in the piece, Schapiro talks about how impressionism came to mean the “sensation or experience of a place, person, or work of art”. This had gone against the norm for painting of the time, and Schapiro notes this later when he talks about how these “empiricists” had a far different view of how art and even knowledge should be obtained and presented. He quotes the lauded Socrates as saying “Knowledge does not consist in impressions of a sense…perception…can never be the same as knowledge or science.” Now I understand what Socrates is saying here, and I agree that strictly speaking we cannot take empirical data and apply it based on mere perception. But if we are to throw out perception and in a sense, impression, then we are resigned to throw out all creativity and innovation because those things are heavily based on perception and impression.
The Impressionists were not only changing the way that people look at art, they were challenging academia itself. The rigidity of the current system at the time disallowed people to express themselves fully and Impressionists were just one of the groups that helped this paradigm shift to take place. I find it interesting that the enlightened thinkers of the time were not open to the ideas brought forth by Impressionism, but it seems that history has shown that their ideas were here to stay.