Expressionism?

Richard Shiff opens Part Three of his book by talking about the importance and the consequential difficulty of assigning an appropriate name to what we now call “Postimpressionism” era. Toward the end of the recognized Monet-impressionism era, new generation of younger artists emerged who rebelled against the impressionism era, criticizing it for its lack of expression. Shiff goes into an extensive discussion about how art critics could not decide on a label for these new artists, caught in between “expressionism” and “postimpressionism,” especially in regards to Cezanne. What made this new generation of artists more expressive than their predecessors such as Monet and Renoir? What was so different about their style of painting that Fry, an English art critic and an artist himself, thought they deserved to be called “expressionists”?

Shiff says that “‘Accurate’ representation, characterized by similitude, may mask or diminish feeling; and conversely, ‘true’ expression may deform representation” (137). I understand his point. I think it’s important that he uses the word “may,” leaving room for the exceptions; accurate representation of a very emotional event is not necessarily any less artistic than a distorted and perplexing representation. But what is this ‘true’ expression? I don’t really understand the perspective of the postimpressionists. They pride in their ability to deliver their expressions on to canvas, because they paint what they feel and see; isn’t that virtually what the impressionists did, with the whole significance on unadulterated fleeting glances of the naïve eye? I do see the departure in artistic technical style from impressionism to postimpressionism but I feel like the ideologies of both eras overlap so much that I don’t really see the point of splitting them up.

Shiff persistently refers to Cezanne’s primitive qualities in his painting. The lack of fanciful and intricate details, and perspective depth (there is a constant mention of this “flatness” in his canvas) and the presence of distortions seem to characterize Cezanne’s art. His gravitation toward the use of strong contrasts in color and the fondness of bright spectral colors also seem to bring his art down to an earthy, “primitive” level. It seems like Cezanne’s painting is a lot bolder and more straightforward than the gentle and ethereal impressionist paintings.

I don’t really have room for discussion of this particular quote, but it stood out to me as particularly bizarre; “Here, in accord with a modernist aesthetic, the artist’s value lies not so much in what he can make, but in his capacity to seek and to continue to find.” This raises an interesting question. Are artists seekers more than creators?