points on seurat

It is interesting to me how the two authors characterize Seurat’s work as both having some intimate connection to science while at the same time occupying the realm of the abstract – the first great leap into an unprecedented artistic style. It seems that Seurat has somehow embodied a scientific aspect of reality – and by scientific I mean chemical, as atomic, or more accurately biological, as cellular – which one could argue as quite discreet and observable, with a “simultaneous evanescence and tangibility” as Eisenman put it, when it comes to areas of mass and shadow. I prefer to see it, almost cathartically, as the way an ideal person of science would view reality; as it is separated into its component parts yet completely observable as a whole together.
Further, it is apparent that Seurat has a likeness for expressing modern engineering, complex works of steel and wood that one would think require sharp contrasting lines for their exhibition. Yet, Seurat again does this with his dot painting technique, and quite effectively with little detail lost in the spaces between the dots. Eisenman incudes a quote from Ingres, Seurat’s teacher, “to draw does not simply mean to reproduce contours, drawing does simply consist of the line: it is also the expression, the inner form, the surface modeling…” and it seems that Seurat is able to do all those things with minimal use of the line.
Perhaps the neoimpressionists, with the approaching of the abstract through relating the reality of everyday life paved a way for more surreal depictions as it allows for greater control of color, borders and shadows. In essence, for the fact that this new mode of technique is so unprecedented, Seurat opens up a new field of painting where greater abstractions and control of details and minutia are possible.