Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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)
Felby Chen
ReplyDeleteHA R1B
Section 6
I really enjoyed reading Meyer’s Schapiro’s essay “Impressionism: Reflections and Perceptions”, for Meyer Schapiro seemed to cover many perspectives of what impressionism. A point Scharpiro was trying to convey was that impressionism is interpreted differently by artists because each artist comes from a unique background and may work with a certain type of material.
Meyer Schapiro starts off his chapter, “The Concept of Impressionism”, with what the title states: the concept of impressionism, or to be more specific, a definition of impressionism. Impressionism, as stated by Schapiro, is “an effect of the scene on the eye of an artist-observer”, since everyone sees different aspects of a scene based on what their eyes draw out. Impressionistic artwork, though, purposely causes the eyes to focus upon certain parts of the artwork, so while different aspects of a scene may be picked out by individuals, the interpretations should still be quite similar. There are not many details in impressionism, as impressionism is used to “induce understanding of a seemingly unfinished or preparatory work”, because in impressionism, the process itself is often emphasized. Even if there are not many details in an impressionistic piece of art, the work as a whole is still “admired for qualities of dashing spontaneity or for close searching in an isolated part”. The concept of impressionism often brings out a “sensation” in viewers. One contributor to this sensation is the use of colors in impressionistic artwork: the colors used look “bizarre and untrue to nature”, most of the time touching upon pastel or fainter colors. However, as unrealistic as the colors are, in the end the colors “harmonize with the rest and contribute to the liveliness of the whole”, for when seen from a distance, the colors simply work well together.
Meyer Schapiro also goes on to describe other definitions of impressionism. He describes how “in the empiricist view, impressions are first experiences, not yet reworked and overlaid by thought”, since some people usually dive into deep thought when introduced to a piece of artwork, hoping to find the hidden meaning or underlying theme to the artwork. Schapiro furthermore discusses the definition of impressionism in scientific and philosophical literature. In scientific and philosophical literature, impressionism is “the bodily impact of a stimulus, from outside or within”. However, it could be an impact that has “a local, unnoticed physical effect on a sensory nerve” or an impact that has “an effect of consciousness”. Like the example Schapiro provides, the eye unconsciously draws in blue and yellow lights from a picture, each color with a different effect on the retina, but the conscious and “resulting sensation is of white”. Another definition of impressionism, often credited to Bishop George Berkeley, is that “visual sensations” from impressionistic artwork, “are of color and light, not of lines, solid bodies, and three-dimensional space”. After all, each person sees an artwork differently based on their own experiences and thoughts. Another concept of impressionism provided by painters and sculptors states that impressionism is a form of “enduring nature or an ideal form through which the observer is freed from the accidents, imperfections, and chaos of the natural”, a definition which probably originates from painters’ and sculptors’ idealistic minds and hopes for a perfect world.
Julia Herron
ReplyDeleteShapiro examines the “Concept of Impressionism” thoroughly and deliberately in order to get the reader to form his or her own opinions about the word and concept “impression”. The name Impressionism was originally meant as a derogatory or pedestrian name for the movement, but artists such as Monet embraced the name and its hardworking reputation. Impressionist artists were not afraid to challenge accepted mindsets and techniques and were willing to risk their reputations to create the art for which they felt passionately.
The thoughts and beliefs of modern artists were much more visible in their work than in previous movements. The colors and forms that they chose were unique to themselves, and they asked a lot more of the viewer than say, a Bougoureau painting. Impressionists wanted to capture the sensations that moved them to paint so that each viewer would take a unique personal experience away from the painting.
Impressionists chose subjects like fog, considered a disagreeable state of nature, and justified their beauty with their choice of color and detail. Whatever the painter perceived in the object was portrayed in the painting.
Impressionist painting mirrored philosophical changes occurring at the same time. Philosophers “criticized the notion of innate ideas independent of sensations” (Reader, p. 83). Impressionists made this idea physical, forcing the viewer to abandon their habits of perception and sensation and to genuinely see the object or scene being depicted.
Some thinkers, such as Baudelaire, saw Impressionist paintings as the first stage, the original emotional impact that needed to be refined in order to become a work of art. But Impressionists left their work in this first stage because they wanted to capture “first experiences, not yet reworked and overlaid by thought” (Reader, p. 84).
I identified with Leibnitz’s description that hearing the ocean is actually the sum of infinitesimal effects of innumerable waves, just as the image your brain perceives from a painting is the sum of infinitesimal effects of color and form. Nature was inseparable from the work of Impressionist painters but it was represented in the form of sensations, not as an exact replication.
Unlike some philosophic thought, scientific thought at the time was more aligned with the Impressionist mindset. Scientists looked at the way light interacts with the retina and how images are transmitted to the brain as sensations. They defended the importance of color and the dominance of the experience of color over the experience of shape.
Impressionism inspired decades of debate between its supporter, detractors, and those who found it difficult to organize the visual perceptions inspired by Impressionist pieces.
To see how the words “impressionist” and “positivism” came to be and their different meanings was very interesting. The etymology of a word is interesting because shows the initial intentions of the word’s creator. Following the etymology can give people a glimpse of the word’s “life” and how it has evolved. Meyer Schapiro and D.G. Charlton do a good job in trying to give us a comprehensive view of the words.
ReplyDeleteSchapiro’s “The Concept of Impressionism” made me feel much more comfortable with the word. As I was reading his description of it, I tried to imagine how it applied to the paintings we viewed in class. In some cases I said, “Ah, I see!” and other cases I said, “Huh?” Nonetheless, Schaprio left me better off than when I started. First, using the words “perception” and “sensation” cleared up those words for me as well as help to describe impressionism. Second, i helped when Schapiro contextualized the word “impressionism” in literature, giving me a glimpse of the various was interpreted and critiqued. Also, his quotations were very useful, whereas Charlton’s was a bit harder to swallow. Even though Charlton explained his analysis of the quote, I would have still liked to read the quote in English and interpret for myself. Perhaps he kept the quotes in its original language because many times translations do not completely or correctly portray its meanings.
As with many things, there is always debate and disagreement. For the two words we explored, people were trying to put a definite meaning to these ambiguous words because, for some, ambiguity is not satisfying. Charlton section his essay into two parts: the positivist philosophy and the positivist etat de’esprit. In Charlton’s essay, some were trying to reject the word “positivism” because it was not well reasoned and logically thought out. To me, this mechanical view of needing to see the use of science and mathematics in everything limits one’s ability to grasp the concept of “positivism,” as if it did not exist just because an equation could not represent it. How can you be a philosopher if you do not let go of strict scientific guidelines? Is it not the point to explore what we do not know and question the existing? I am glad Charlton included those people’s thoughts though. He did a good job with presenting why people thought one way or another to create a comprehensive presentation of the word. how he touched upon the three forms of positivism: social, religious, and Comtian.
However, ambiguity still is what it is. There is not only one way to describe “positivism,” and there might never be a consensus. However at least Charlton has given us the means to, if we wanted, combine different definitions to completely encompass its meaning. Perhaps the definition is too fluid and changes with each situation or over time, like a chameleon moving so slowly and hidden it is unseen.
I was particularly interested when painters happily adopted the name “impressionism” because it has a positive value, but some critics described it as a derogatory term. I respect the hard work to win over most people’s heart to accept the word. Although some philosophies and styles are quickly accepted and popularized, it is those who have to fight through the crowd that presents all its colors and significance.
Danielle Beeve
ReplyDeleteHistory of Art R1B
Section 6
“Impressionism” is a really captivating form of painting, in my opinion. To create something based on not just the bare bones of the structure, or the little details in the scene, but on the feeling you get from whatever it is you are looking at is a bold thing to do that produces beautiful artwork. Monet originally use the term “impression” as part of the title of one of his paintings of a sunrise, and Meyer Schapiro believes that “The word ‘impression’ in his titles was a tactic for educating the public to see that the method of the new art was founded on the reality of the unclear and atmospheric in nature” (82). Before this time, a painting of fog was seen to be a terrible element to incorporate in a nature piece, it made everything obscure and unclear. However Monet believed it was all a part of the impression of a piece and as such incorporated it into some of his works. His technique of blurring lines and hiding details to me seems to add a sort of dreamlike and idealistic quality to his pieces, which I really enjoy. His Impression, Sunrise depicts an ocean scene with a few small boats in the foreground done completely in black, and vague outlines of larger ships painted in blue to blend into the background. Everything is very choppy, you can see brushstrokes everywhere, and the sky is orange, all very unrealistic qualities. However, it seems to give off a certain feeling, of early morning at sea, everything feels peaceful and it is a truly beautiful piece in its own way.
Charlton’s essay on positivist though describes something that is in strong opposition to what the impressionists had made their livelihood, however it held some interesting similarities of viewpoint. Positivist thinking held that “All that we can know of reality is what we can observe or can legitimately deduce from what we observe” (103). In a way, this to me is saying that what we see should be the highest form of truth, and this can be correlated to the Impressionist’s way of painting a certain scene through what they can see in it: what they take from it upon observation. Also, the statement that “for the understanding of the intellectual foundations of the Impressionist style the question of the experienced and the innate—is less important than the exploration of the sensory and perceptual” (616) seems to be related to the positivists insistence on the only true knowledge as being that which can be repeatedly reproduced empirically, they insist on believing only what their eyes can tell them: “We have no knowledge of anything but Phaenomena” (104). As such, it seems the two disciplines are not quite as far removed as I first would have guessed, and it was interesting to notice the correlation.
Erik Narhi
ReplyDeleteIn approaching DG Charlton’s Positivism and Second Empire Philosophy excerpt, I did not know what to expect: the term positivism was wholly unfamiliar to me, and I admittedly had no clue what he meant when I first read the title itself either. As such, I was very relieved when the writing began with a very thorough analysis of the term’s various meanings and usages. This drew me into the rest of the excerpt, making me much more enamored with the content than I may have been had I not been immediately introduced so explicitly to the content at hand.
While French quotes are of little use to me, the rest of the excerpt proved equally thorough, making up for what it lacked in clarity with masses of information. This allowed me to focus more attention to interpretation rather than just a basic understanding of what is written within the excerpt. I felt that Charlton’s writing style lent itself to a discussion that I could not have while reading it alone—numerous mentions of what positivism “is” and “isn’t” left loose ends galore. Perhaps the incomprehensible quotes tie these logical knots, but since I could not understand them, I was left to do more thinking. In fact, as I read I found myself developing my own opinions of how one could define positivism in a manner similar to that of Charlton. The repeated scientific references were reflected in the presentation of the excerpt as a whole, and as a result I also found myself interpreting the writing as though it were from a scientific journal rather than from an artistic perspective.
My favorite aspect of Charlton’s presentation of positivism proved to also be the feature I found most frustrating—the persistent ambiguity of the text. This ambiguity inevitably led to my self-reflection and open interpretation, allowing me to project my own opinions onto the framework of a definition for positivism provided by Charlton. On the other hand, I also finished the reading still feeling as though I was unfamiliar with positivism. The lack of specific relatable examples of positivism in the context of art left me wondering how exactly the term can be applied to impressionism and modern art in general.
Response Essay 3
ReplyDeleteImpressionism HOAR1B
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.
Both Schapiro and Charlton make excellent points about how experiencing the world around us, what it can do for us and what we can achieve by using it as a tool. Mainly, it’s about the rejection of a priori knowledge. As humans, we must sense the world around us, not phenomena that don’t exist in this sphere, in order for us to understand the order of the world. However, the two are at different ends as to how we are to use our senses.
ReplyDeleteIn Charlton’s essay, Positivism is mainly stressed about using the scientific method, using precise logic in order to understand the world around us. There is no room for interpretation, as it does not exist. As he states, “if B has constantly been observed to follow A in certain conditions, then, given exactly the same conditions, we are entitled to supposed B will again follow A.” Hence, we can understand the world around us by establishing proven rules that cannot and will not be broken.
However, Schapiro’s argument with Impressionism takes on an entirely different argument when dealing with the rejection of a priori knowledge. Impressionism goes about experiencing the world through emotion. By doing so, we can see how the world works around us and appreciate the different systems of the working world. This is clearly emphasized with Monet’s Impression, Sunrise. The painting is almost solely upon the emotion of the scene, watching the sunrise in the early moments of the morning as boats begin to pull out of the French Harbor. There is no concrete, logical understanding of the scene. The details are inexact; the brush strokes are visible. It’s not about how precise Monet could recreate exactly what he saw. Rather, it’s about how he could re-invoke the emotion he felt that morning watching the Harbor. It would be almost impossible to recreate the conditions of that morning he painted it and be absolutely sure he would paint the painting exactly as it is now.
Hence, it almost seems that Positivism and Impressionism are polar opposites on the same spectrum. Both are about experiencing the world and rejecting any former knowledge we had. Yet, when looking at how to experience the world around us, there is a stark contrast.
Victor Gonzalez
ReplyDeleteSection 7
Impressionism
Before reading Meyer Schapiro’s article on Impressionism, I was not aware of the quasi-controversial impact of impressionism and the debates that ensued between art critics, scientist, and philosophers. Schapiro’s article does a great job of delineating the origins of Impressionism, right down to the use of the actual term, and showing how it challenged the way the world perceived art. In this sense, Impressionism as a style, attitude, and science seems to have played an important role in illustrating that art is vehicle of communication.
As Schapiro points out, Impressionism was considered a negative term to some critics. This was more likely than not, due to the incomprehensibility of some impressionist artwork. In other words, critics did not understand why facial feature where out of focus, or the reason behind the absence of set lines. If critics saw Impressionist artwork in this manner, then the general public must have been evermore perplexed. The general public saw the blurs, the smudges, the little points that seemed to make figures, and thought that the piece was still in the developing stages. The concept of impressionism was hard to grasp because critics and everyday people did not know how to receive the new style.
Schapiro discussed several of the prominent definitions of Impressionism in an effort to present the argument of those that opposed the ideas of impressionism, as well as those that adopted and celebrated its practice. Dating back to Plato, impression was seen as something as “fallible and illusory” (84). According to those that agreed with Plato, “knowledge does not consist of impressions or sense.” (84). In this regard, impressionism was an “illusory” form of art. Critics did not want to see something illusory; they wanted to see something that depicted reality. On the other hand, empiricists believed that impression and sensation were interchangeable terms. That is, we make sense of things based on impressions, and that we feel before we think. To these philosophers, the tiny points that amounted to figures were representations of those sensations. Impressionism is not “unfinished” art, but a representation of sensations.
In an effort to discern from these two opposing ideas, I looked at Claude Monet’s Rouen Cathedral: The Portal in the Sun. It was a considerably hard task considering the painting was reproduced in black and white, but it makes sense to me. I see the cathedral. I don’t see all the details, but I can still observe that it is gothic. In order to understand this sensory experience of impressionism, I tried to imagine being in front of the actual cathedral. It seems to me, that I would see exactly what is reproduced in the reader. I feel that when we look at something, we do not focus on the details right away because we are taken aback by the sensation that we are in the presence of something grand (or at the very least, worth painting). Focusing on the nuances of something only comes after we have experienced the sensation of impression.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrendan Cronshaw
ReplyDeleteResponse Essay 3
1.28.09
Meyer Schapiro’s Impressionism: Reflection and Perceptions does an exemplary job at defining, clarifying, and revealing what Impressionism is and how the word evolved from one with “var[ying] connotations of the active and passive, the immediate and the processed, the simple and the complex” (p87) to a word with a more fixed meaning. Personally I found his chapter to be very thorough and straightforward in both layout and subject matter. Schapiro begins by referencing when the word “Impressionist” was first used (p80) and slowly progresses through time, discussing what it meant during different periods. What he also does a good job of, and this makes it much easier to make sense of, is distinguishing what the word ‘impression’ meant to different types of people. He mentions philosophers, psychologists, scientists, painters, novelists, poets, and lay men, allowing for the reader to form a broader picture of the word’s meaning and how it differed across the intellectual professions.
Distinguishing between perception, sensation and impression was another thing that Schapiro set out to do and masterfully accomplished. Personally I felt that this was one of the most thorough papers we have read in class so far as it introduced me to all different impressions of well, impressions. Another trait that made this paper especially informative, and readable, was its apparent lack of opinion and personal thought; his somewhat hands-off approach. Schapiro distances himself from his work in that he doesn’t often speak in the first person, save to address things he will be talking about later on as well as to clarify a few things, “I do not mean to suggest that the painters had read the writers or were even influenced by them” (83). Removing himself, his thought, and his beliefs from the work makes it much easier for the reader to develop their own understanding of what impressions are and what Impressionism in art is.
Personally I find Impressionist art to be the most interesting and pleasing in that not everything is clearly defined, some things are colored slightly differently than one would imagine, while other lines and shapes are blurred and distorted. However, this feeling and appearance of difference, is what makes Impressionist art the most fascinating; the painter really makes it there own piece of art, their own vision. They are putting down their “impression” on the canvas for us to see, and that is what makes it so amazing, as we get to see, or at least try to, what the artist saw, felt, sensed, perceived, and what impression he or she got. And this notion of the artist’s impression from something and their making it their own and transmitting it on to the viewer is succinctly stated by Schapiro, “The true artist is one who responds intensely and constantly to qualities in the appearance of things, while the ordinary or mediocre man is content to recognize things through codified, familiar qualities as signs and merely applies names to objects” (97). What makes this art fantastic is its apparent synthesis of reality and imagination into something that is comprehensible and distinguishable and at the same time not exactly what we would imagine.
Christine Chou
ReplyDeleteBefore, I used to look at Impressionist paintings and think “the colors are so pretty” but without really knowing why the artists decided on this method of representation – blurry, broken up images, in such a drastic departure from anything that had come before in art history. Schapiro’s article was very illuminating in tracing the origin of the word “impressionist.” The initial derogatory label put on this group of artists didn’t deter them, though, and they embraced the term placed on them by their critics. The Impressionists saw something in their art and art method which others couldn’t yet come to terms with or understand (the critic Leroy: “Wallpaper in its early stages is much more finished than that [Monet] seascape.”) From the article, I came to understand that at its most basic, the purpose of an Impressionist work is to capture the direct and immediate effects a scene had on an artist. The blurred quality of their works emphasized the fleetingness of nature and vision. All the visible brushwork draws attention to the painter’s process, however, and people saw these works as quickly sketched paintings, when in fact they were the final and intended product.
Schapiro also addresses the reason as to why this change in representation occurred, and I was surprised to read that it didn’t entirely have to do with scientific theories on optics, which had already been around for a while. According to Schapiro, “It was not because of a recent scientific theory but rather because of a change in aesthetic sensibility and in the aims of artists who found in a freer use of color a new and congenial expressiveness.” This seems opposed with Charlton’s article on positivism. Charlton seems to brush aside most artists, novelists, and poets, saying that there has been a miscategorization of who is and who isn’t a true positivist, due to the difficulty in defining “positivism.” According to Charlton, it’s wrong to say so-and-so is a positivist just because “he wishes to celebrate the inventions and discoveries of science,” because “evidence of a positivist standpoint must refer to intellectual beliefs and not to artistic practice.” He raises a good point about what distinctions need to be made, and it further serves to highlight the ambiguous ground the term “positivism” treads.
Another interesting line from Charlton’s article: “Writers were attracted by the scientific attitude because in various ways it appealed to their personal leanings.” In a way, this is like the Impressionist artists who developed an interest in a visual representation which was linked with the optical effects of perception, but had more to do with their own personal pursuit of accurately rendering felt experiences. On the other hand, the “positivist” writers described in Charlton had entirely different reasons for following their philosophy of empirical knowledge and science: “Its objectivity and impartiality resembled their own determination to avoid sentimentality and an open display of personal feeling.” This is the exact opposite of the Impressionists and their project, which was all about expressing their sensations of a perceived scene through color and atmospheric lighting. Taken together, the pairing of these two readings created an interesting juxtaposition of science and art, which I normally would never put together in association, but it’s interesting to see the scientific influences prevalent in art.
Impressionism and Science
ReplyDeleteMeyer Schapiro in his essay “The Concept of Impressionism”, he tries to define impressionism. His definition leads through history starting with philosophers. He very meticulously defines the word impression from the era of conception and later references it with perception and other sensory words. I found it interesting how “truth” has so much to do with the impressionist movement.
He introduces the concept in the first paragraph saying that a magazine set up by Renoir was called “L'Impressionniste”. He may have had a pun in mind, because “the phrase “peinture d'impression” once meant house painting-the plain coat of color on a wall”. An interesting commentary which attacked directly the lack of detail in the impressionist works. The impressionist works had a lot of heavy brush strokes that tried to convey pure feeling. In their defense, Schapiro spends a large part of his essay discussing the origins of the impressionist movement. Monet incorporated the word impression in many of his titles as “a tactic for educating the public to see hat the method of the new art was founded on the reality of the unclear and atmospheric in nature and had its own objectivity and refined position.” (616) This quote suggests that as of then, the modernist movement was largely ununderstood and underdefined. He tried to help with both.
His paintings featured images of “bright sunlight... smoke, and fog”(615). People found this inexplicable because scenes of sunlight are beautiful of course, but scenes of fog and smoke are undesirable. Almost a taboo with painting Schapiro mentions. He tried to create a “feeling-toned experience”(615) for the viewer. From early writings, we can define impressionism as “the term for the comprehensive effect, personal and toned by feeling, of a complex whole given directly to perception.”(620) I enjoy this type of painting, because I believe it does evoke a feeling, rather than a message. It is similar to looking at a beautiful sunset to me, because the sunsets are mixtures of unique colors that come together to create something abstract. As with sunsets, impressionist paintings use a scene as a medium for colors which provoke a feeling.
Schapiro spent a while talking about how empiricists believed knowledge came from experience, and shunned the notion “of innate ideas independent of sensation”. I do not agree with this point of view completely. I do believe that some knowledge comes from experience, but I some knowledge comes from a more intangible source, genetics. Take animals for example. A cow would not know to be nervous standing on a highway (and I am sure many are hit and killed by cars), but if you pop out and startle even the youngest calf, that thing will be frightened. Similarly, I think that the impressionist paintings tap into some sort of emotional knowledge that does not come from traditional experiences.
Jenny Zhang
ReplyDeleteHA R1B Section 6
Reading Response #3
What I found interesting from both of these readings about the respective concepts of “Impressionism” and “Positivism” was that although impressionism is a more philosophical and positivism a purely scientific point of view about how humans obtain knowledge or make their judgments about what we see; the two texts are similar in that the writers explain both ideas through analysis by philosopher, artists and scientists (mainly physicists). For example, in The Concept of Impressionism, Scharpiro talks about the ideas of empiricists, philosophers who believe that humans acquire knowledge through their sensory experiences that are later reflected upon. I agreed with the empiricist’s belief that our impressions are based upon our first experience. This is because it is only through our first encounter with something, in which our minds are not clouded by judgments, are we able to view objects and events the way they are presented; these first impressions are hence “more genuine/authentic” (84). Scientists on the other hand, like astronomer Galileo Galilei, believed that our impressions based on simply what we see—colors and light because they are the only visual qualities that are scientifically what is perceived by the retina of our eyes. This idea was also one that the impressionist painters practiced because they wanted to paint things the way they are see using color and light but no distinct line separation for objects because they do not exist. This is why many impressionist paintings like Monet’s are described by the Schapiro as being “alla prima sketchy execution[s]” (80) via brush strokes, in contrast to the seamlessly slick and blended quality of past academic or “Salon paintings” (80).
Previously, I talked about how perception is understood by early scientists. A more radical scientific view is introduced by an Austrian physicist Ernest Mach who believes that the theory that all objects are composed of matter that is made up of tiny atoms is completely fictional because they cannot be seen and do not trigger our sensations; and instead, “colors, tones, pressures, spaces and times are what we call…individual sensations.” (92). Personallly, I agree with him about the factors that trigger our sensations; however, despite that, just because we can’t see or experience things with our naked eye or raw sensations doesn’t mean that they are fictional because although the concept of “matter” is a human subjective to define the make-up of objects but things like atoms and cells, although invisible to our naked sensory organs, can be seen, through the usage of technologies like microscopes.
Lastly, the idea of impressionism is also defined by the impressionist artists themselves as the “luminous, the colorful, the vibrant, the indistinct, and the broken” variables that they searched for in nature. And what the variables they perceived from nature or their surroundings are then translated onto a canvas via techniques like brushstrokes and color. The addition of all these variables showed the artist impression of what he had seen not simply what was visible to him. This way the observer of the painter’s work would see the artist’s impression and not just a painted picture that has no subjective meaning or impressions imbedded into the work.
The concept of positivism, the idea that the only true knowledge that human can attain is science through close observations of subject(s). I am still trying to wrap my mind around it because it seems very radical say that the knowledge acquired from subjects in the humanities are not concrete; because those too are backed by observation of human behavior in our daily lives (sociology) and throughout history. Although their observations are based upon concrete details in nature like color and light but they are based on actions and speech. One point that caught my eye in the second text was when Charlton was relating art’s hope to be as pure as science (106). He said that art wants to be as revered as science because science is considered to be “beyond the mental range of the vulgar crowd and the bourgeoisie and thus appealed to the aristocratic superiority” (106). In that sense, modern art is ambiguous because at the glance, the techniques to create it appear to be very simple and possibly amateur but at the same time, it requires an intelligent observer to gauge the hidden meaning in the art.
Danielle Lee
ReplyDeleteWhen the term “Impressionist” was first established, critics and artists perceived it negatively. They compared this style of art to the previous generation’s finished, refined, Salon paintings, which unlike the new Impressionist works looked complete. To them, these modern works of art looked “no better than that first stage of a housepainter’s craft (21).” If this term started out with negative perceptions, then why did it manage to stay around for so long, and why is it so important to the history of art? That’s because Impressionism is not just a canvas of a vast array of blotted colors, instead Impressionism is a sensation that can be applied to natures of perception.
When impressionists paint trees, they are not simply painting a tree. They capture everything around the tree as well. As M. Schapiro states in his essay, “they corresponded to their sensations in observing the trees in strong sunshine, and the painters explained them as reflections of neighboring objects or as subjective effects of interacting colors (23).” A tree is not just a tree in the mind of an impressionist. Instead the picture depicts the sensation of a tree and the experience around it. These sensations in a scientific light, according to Schapiro, is “a process of perception beginning with impacts of stimuli mainly below the level of awareness (26).” In a scientific perspective, Impressionism is much more than loose brushstrokes and an open composition, instead it is when “aa light ray produces an impression on the retina, exciting other nerve cells and paths and determining a sensation of color in the cortical region (27).” This whole process, in science is known as an “impression.”
Impressionism in the scientific view, as we just discovered focuses on the biologic impact of a stimulus. In a philosophical light, it can be described as a feeling or awareness (26). This “feeling” refers to the impact a stimulus, like a tree for example, can have on a conscious state. Impressionists wanted to capture these feelings or perceptions in their paintings. For example, they would paint fog, something usually unappealing because they would interpret it into their own perception of fog. These unexpected and untypical subject matters were then explained through the artist’s painting. Impressionism allows for artists to choose a usually unapproachable subject and personalize it with their own perceptions of what that subject is.
I enjoyed this article because it covers science and philosophical literature. I’ve never thought to combine science with art, but after learning about the origins of the term “impressionism” and the process of making an actual impression biologically, I’ve come to understand the way impressionism works and how it is created. It isn’t simply some art style that has harsh and obvious brushstrokes, but it is a method of representing the sensations and perceptions of a subject in a manner that most viewers have not been aware of.
In reading “The Concept of Impressionism”, I identify the reoccurring themes of change, different views, and color. I see, as in the previous readings, how change is often opposed, a common agreement is never made in relation to art, and color is essential.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to previous reading, art is repeatedly bashed during its introduction, and subsequently embraced slightly farther down the timeline. In this instance, the idea of thin layered, colored portraits were viewed as odd. This form of art was referred to as “Impressionism”, which began as a derogatory reference. The portraits were described as non-descriptive and unfinished, (81). This art was mocked and compared to “a plain coat of color on the wall”, (80). Impression art was degraded, and then appreciated. I identify this as a common theme as society has an issue with change. Change is never accepted right from the start, but is instead ridiculed first and embraced second.
In addition, I identify the reoccurring theme of people having different views. Schapiro spent a lot of time defining “Impression”. He linked it to perception, sensation, etc. The issue that arose when attempting to explain the concept of Impression was that various people had various ideas about the meaning. Some believed impression to be related to feelings, or previous knowledge, or experience, or awareness, etc. There was no common agreement. Schapiro brought up the argument that perception is directly related to the mind. He also introduced the argument that perception is related to external causes. I identify this as a typical aspect in art—everyone will have different opinions.
Furthermore, I identify the reoccurring theme of the essentialism of color. Schapiro portrays color as a major aspect of art, in which some people disagreed. I enjoyed the way in which he tied the significance of color it to the study of science. He made a valid point that the eye is made to receive only color and light: “there is no immediate object of sight besides light and color”. In this way, Schapiro argues that color overthrows the concept of lines, validating the way in which Impression Art is painted.
I really enjoyed this text and wish I could go on and on about it. However, I am running out of time and I had exactly one minute to submit is. As someone without an art background, I must say that I agree with the argument that color over powers lines. I too believe color to be a very valid aspect of art. On page ninety two, I see a phrase that says: “the world is not composed of things… but of colors, tones…”—and I completely agree.
HoA Section 6
ReplyDeleteBing Lin
Response #3
I have never felt an attraction towards impressionism as a genre of art, but “The Concept of Impressionism” by Meyer Schapiro introduces me to a world of art that seems fascinating and complex, inviting me to explore this genre with him. I appreciated the fact that Schapiro began with a description and explanation of how the name “Impressionist” came to be, with broad examples of what were considered “impressionist” paintings as examples to illustrate the adoption of the name. This allowed me to understand a broad sense of impressionist as a genre and intrigues me to continue reading.
Impressionism in a scientific view, as Schapiro explains, can be partly explained by the term “sensation,” which alludes to perceptions of not only tiny details but of the entire scene, where the sensation is grounded on sensory perception and what one makes out of that perception. For the empiricists, impression was the first though, the first experiences that have been not analyzed or taken apart. It may also be a sliver of thought or perception that slips right below the level of awareness, so any effects in consciousness, the tiny touches to the senses, can be considered as sensations. “Impressionism” as a term also covers many different connotations, ranging from “the active and passive, the immediate and the processed, the simple and the complex,” which presents a sense of ambiguity that allows “impressionism” to be applied to many stages in the painting and painting process that describes something different each time.
Impressionism then, as an art genre, seems to speak to me as an “art of sensation” that plays with light and colors to achieve a sense of fleeting and atmosphere in a painting that I can look at countless times and receive a different perception each time I view it. Painting an impressionist painting seems to be a journey in itself, where the artist attempts to capture the fleeting impressions that they see, trying to colorize all of the scenes they see on canvas. Viewing an impressionist painting is too a journey, where each look at the colors and light, not bounded by sharp lines, allows us to experience the “minute sensations” and “impacts of light” (90). Leibnitz likened this experience to the sound of the ocean, which further solidifies the concept of impressionism to me, and explains that the sound is a “sum of infinitesimal” waves hitting one after another, and this sound is something that we recognize but will not be able to describe exactly in a memory (90). This sums up the idea of impressionism, where we experience the scene of lights and colors as a whole, as something familiar that passes through our senses; yet, when we try to recall exactly where each color was placed and what type of brush strokes the artist used, we cannot describe anything but the sensation that we perceived from looking at the painting.
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.
Moved from first page -
ReplyDeleteB.H. J. Morgan
Baudelaire, shapiro, impressionism, part to the whole, Tuma
The excerpt from Meyer Shapiro’s Impressionism was an interesting exploration of “impressionism” from which I learned much. His reference to literature, philosophy, physiognomy, and psychology was useful in the sense that it shed light (pun intended) on the epistemological context of “impressionist” artists. On page 615, he talks about sensation for the first time: “…subjective effects of interacting colors or lights, including complementary contrasts: a bright green induced sensations of red, while yellows induced blues and violets.” (615) The impressionists took advantage of “first glance” sensations and recreated them in paintings with the idea that colors are subjective or implied. The idea of painting a moment or fleeting glance I think ties in well with Baudelaire’s “Modernism” essay in that it is the moment, or sensation of the present which, if credited by the perceiver, gives way to an experience. This experience is what was painted on canvas. And so, by impressionists taking classically painted subjects like trees, or weekend outings, or women, and giving them their own subjective glance, they are participating in Baudelaire’s modern movement. They are rectifying the past with the present and understanding the moment while it is happening. They are able to convey the moment as well without disturbing it – almost a stream of consciousness. They are “distilling the eternal from the transistory.” Shapiro’s essay furthers this idea: “The interest [of impressionists was] in the more variable and elusive qualities, what Cezanne called his “petit sensation” – may be described as the aesthetic moment par excellence, though such an interest may also be scientific.” (616) Even more: “Impressions are the immediate impacts on the mind in its encounter with objects and therefore more genuine/authentic and reliable than abstract notions that have been shaped by reflection, schooling, fantasy, and tradition and are thus further removed from their concrete sources [kinda like the Tuma essay].” (617)
Returning to the quote on page 616, Shapiro covers the scientific ideas as well. He gives us a good image with his reference to the mathematician Leibnitz: “with its decided impression of a totality, a whole rich in concordant sounds or colors, the sound of the sea is something we recognize afterward; yet as with a familiar face, we are unable to describe the parts from memory.”(623) It seems as if Shapiro founds the basis for impressionism on these grounds that at the smallest order, the infinitesimal makes up the whole which can be described, but not singly pinpointed. The impressionists identify this property to the visual and implement it in order to recreate a perception – done subjectively of course, but with whatever sensation was true to them at the initial glance. Their paintings in effect, cannot be broken down singly (as we found in the Tuma essay), but can be seen as a whole in “tonal harmony.”(624)
Moved from first page....
ReplyDeletemax moriyama said...
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.
There 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.
JANUARY 28, 2009 10:12 PM
dorothy said...
Response Essay 3
Impressionism
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.
FEBRUARY 2, 2009 4:06 PM