catherine

I would dearly like a discussion on French artists.It might expand my horizons,as I am walking around the Orsay and the Louvre. <BR>I know art is subjective,but still other peoples perspective can make one more aware. <BR>I personally feel that Claude Monet is rather over rated.His work to me is mostly pleasant and sometimes Unpleasant,like his painting of the cathedral at Rouen.Monet's true masterpiece is the garden at Giverny. <BR>My favourite French artists are Millet and Pissaro.I have a definite emotional response to their work.I don't like the work of the dot painter,I can't remember his name.Van Gogh is alright and so is Picasso.Cezanne could be brilliant at times. <BR>Sometimes I wonder am I missing something not looking at paintings the right way.It would be great if someone could say why Monet is an immortal.

wes fowler

Catherine, <BR>In my mind's eye, I classify French painting (at least from the seventeenth century) into four broad categories: the Commissioned, Classical, Romantic and Revolutionary. The Commissioned painter (think of Champaigne's full length portrait of Cardinal Richelieu, or much of the works of Franz Hals and Rembrandt and all of the ecclesiastical works of the Renaissance) painted what royalty and the aristocracy or the church wanted portrayed, almost always at the expense of the taxpayer or churchgoer. The Classicists, predominant at the time of the French Revolution and best epitomized by Jacques-Louis David reverted back to Greek and Roman themes in their painting. Think of "The Oath of the Horatii" as an example. The Romantic, who attempted to appeal to the emotions is perhaps best epitomized by Eugene Delacroix, with his massive paintings of massacres, battle scenes and the like. His best known painting and typical of the genre is "Liberty Guiding the People" with it's heroic female figure holding a tri-color high as she urges her compatriots over the bodies of those comrades fallen during the Revolution of 1830. The first of the Revolutionaries saw the world a different way. They saw light and color, not shape or form. When one thinks of them, one thinks of French Impressionists, Manet, Monet, Degas and Renoir, but the first was English, J. M. W. Turner! With the sometime exception of Renoir, who had many portrait commissions, they painted everyday life as they perceived it and experienced it . The Post Impressionists saw a different world. The pointillist, Seurat, saw only color as evidenced by his dot filled canvasses. Cezanne returned to geometric shapes and prepared us for Braque and Picasso. So which style is "best"? Is there a significant difference between the delightfully graceful, ultra-feminine dancer of Degas and the equally delightful coquette of Fragonard or Boucher? All art has value and cogent meaning in that it reflects the times and circumstances in which the artists lived and worked. In the same way that a travel guide may prepare us for the geography of a place and the tastes and pleasures of its populace today, painting may prepare us for the history of a place in time and the tastes and pleasures of that time gone by.

elaine

Hi <BR>Anything anyone has to say on this topic will generate agreements or disagreements. Of course it is all in the eye of the beholder. <BR>Monet speaks to me because he painted the abstract long before that was routine. When I look at the waterlilies and other paintings such as are in the Paris Marmottan museum (where I think his best work is) and the Orangerie, I can appreciate the abstraction, the seizing of a moment, <BR>the color, the light. I actually appreciate the later paintings more than the earlier ones, because the later paintings seem more reckless, more bold, <BR>more wild, capturing the essence of water, shapes,color and light more than the reality of the flowers. I don't think of his later work as pleasant, but daring,energetic, and especially remarkable because he lost a good part of his eyesight to cataracts. <BR>Cezanne doesn't speak to me in the same way, but I can see that his geometric <BR>presentations of mountains,even fruit, <BR>are perfectly composed, balanced, <BR>and again present the shapes and textures more than the literal objects. <BR>Most artists of the late 19th and early 20th century cited Millet and Pisarro <BR>as their masters of inspirations, so <BR>your preferences put you in good company. Like you, I have never learned to appreciate Picasso as much as I <BR>"should". I enjoy some of his work, but when I went to the Picasso museum in Paris I was bored silly. <BR>If we all liked everything, there'd be <BR>nothing to talk about! <BR>

elaine

Hi <BR>Anything anyone has to say on this topic will generate agreements or disagreements. Of course it is all in the eye of the beholder. <BR>Monet speaks to me because he painted the abstract long before that was routine. When I look at the waterlilies and other paintings such as are in the Paris Marmottan museum (where I think his best work is) and the Orangerie, I can appreciate the abstraction, the seizing of a moment, <BR>the color, the light. I actually appreciate the later paintings more than the earlier ones, because the later paintings seem more reckless, more bold, <BR>more wild, capturing the essence of water, shapes,color and light more than the reality of the flowers. I don't think of his later work as pleasant, but daring,energetic, and especially remarkable because he lost a good part of his eyesight to cataracts. <BR>Cezanne doesn't speak to me in the same way, but I can see that his geometric <BR>presentations of mountains,even fruit, <BR>are perfectly composed, balanced, <BR>and again present the shapes and textures more than the literal objects. <BR>Most artists of the late 19th and early 20th century cited Millet and Pisarro <BR>as their masters of inspirations, so <BR>your preferences put you in good company. Like you, I have never learned to appreciate Picasso as much as I <BR>"should". I enjoy some of his work, but when I went to the Picasso museum in Paris I was bored silly. <BR>If we all liked everything, there'd be <BR>nothing to talk about! <BR>

Catherine

Thankyou sooooo much.The responses were as good as listening to Sister Wendy.My mental gates of perception have been opened a little bit wider.

cheryl

Before you visit Paris, I would recommend reading a few chapters of a basic art history book. I still always reread the relevant chapters of Gombrich's "The History of Art", before each of our trips. In fact, I usually carry it with me, since we always seem to want to discuss in the evening the art we saw during the day. I find that once you really understand an artist's place in history, it's much easier to appreciate the artist. A visceral reaction is fine, but since obviously no one will have this with every artist, I find it greatly adds to the enjoyment to have an understanding of what is important about each artist. For example, Monet and the other impressionists painted subjects that were considered inappropriate for great art. Monet's paintings of the train station would fall into this category. Often in the impressionists' landscapes, you can see trains or smoke or even factories in the background. This image of the industrial world encroaching on the natural world is one of the things that set the impressionists apart. Without this break from the past, art would not have changed in the direction that it did. <BR> <BR>When looking at Cezanne, try to see the geometric patterns that he used to create a picture. This use of shape eventually led to Picasso's cubism. <BR> <BR>There will still be artists whose work does not thrill you, but you will probably enjoy the overall experience a little more. I hope this helps. <BR> <BR>By the way, this was a wonderful question, it was so interesting to read other's opinions. I would love more like this.

Maira

Catherine---A while back I was recomended (by a fellow Fodorite!) a wonderful book called 'Guide to Impressionist Paris' by Patty Lurie, an American author that lives in Paris. This book details, with stunning pictures and narrative, nine walking tours to Impressionist painting sites in Paris. Using this book, you can literally step where Pisarro, Monet, or Renoir must had step to paint some of their most breathtaking work. The book is so neat it pairs the color photographs of the locations as they appear today with the picture of the painting. It also includes good tour directions and maps. <BR> <BR>My favorite?---walking somehwhat distracted down a street in Montmartre, looking to my right and there it was....Moulin de la Galette. Right out of the Renoir painting. <BR> <BR>The best part about last year's trip to Paris was studying French Impressionism to better savored my first visit to Musee d'Orsay. I enjoyed every second of it. Good topic Catherine! Good spin for discussion on a travel forum.

April

I think you are missing nothing and shouldn't worry about looking at paintings "the right way." There's alot of... hmm... BS in the art world. Just like what you like! I can appreciate that some artists are good even though I might not like their style. Picasso in my view had no colour sense. I always find it interesting how different a painting can look in a book or as a print compared to real life. I thought Monet's paintings were quite beautiful in person and some of the Van Gogh's that looked so dull and flat in print were absolutely dazzling. Then there are those exquisite works by artists you rarely hear about, and who knows why.

Maira

I disagree with April. Art is an expression of an idea, and understanding where the author is coming from is part of the appreciation process. Case in point; just last week I went to a local museum where they are displaying some POP art work (Warhol, Liechestein (sp?), etc...). It was only AFTER the Museum guide explained to the group what this whole concept of pop art was about, that we all truly came to an appreciation of the pieces. I do realized that art is also about your own perceptions of color and images, but I see as a diservice not to try to understand what the author was trying to say. <BR> <BR>BTW, Does anybody else likes Sister Wendy? Her tours of European Museums are amazing!

Catherine

Thankyou Cheryl and Maira for the book recommendations.I will try to add them to the toppling stack on my coffee table. <BR>I can see Aprils point that some art is B.S.Such as the artist who paints 3 strips of colour can't remember his name a lot of his work is in the Tate.No matter where the guy is coming from it leaves me cold. <BR>I do like Andy wharhol though, he was very original for his time.I know a fair bit about Paul Gaugin and I don't much like his Tahiti paintings. <BR>I think art may be like people, one has to feel on the same wave length for real communication. <BR>It's strange what we respond too as people.One of my favourite artists at the moment is George Rodriguez.I walked past his gallery in New Orleans last year and was electrified by the Blue Dog.I don't think my imagination as ever been captured by a modern painting so much.I love that Blue Dog.I couldn't sleep for thinking about it.My husband wouldn't buy me a painting $5000 for the cheapest oil.The cheapest print was $1500.I found a picture in a magazine and had it framed.I never get tired of looking at it.I love his Cajun scenes also. <BR>I can't wait to get to the Orsay.I am almost drooling thinking about it.