Seurat and Neoimpressionism

As I read the two articles on Seurat, I had a lot of trouble identifying what it is that makes his work revolutionary, or uniquely different. Both articles attempt to distinguish Seurat from the Impressionists as well as demonstrate his novelty compared to other Neoimpressionists. In Mass Culture and Utopia: Seurat and Neoimpressionism, Eisenman describes Seurat’s work as being highly politicized, stating, “Seurat’s drawings and paintings therefore mark an attempt to restore social and political meaning to the work of art”. (184) However, the subjects of Seurat’s work are not exceptionally novel considering many of the Impressionists used modern scenes as the focal point of their works. Both Seurat and the Impressionists attempted to depict qualities of the atmosphere, but they each differed in how they achieved such means. Seurat used small dots, while the Impressionists used thick, short brushstrokes. Although their techniques were different, their conceptual ideas were very similar. Both Seurat and the Impressionists were primarily concerned with manifesting an image into its most basic elements. Seurat attempted to eliminate the use of line and bordering and replaced it with small dots, hence creating an effect that blurs the boundary between background and subject. The atmosphere and the subjects are essentially made from the same rudimentary elements and display a primarily physical, materialistic effect. Even Seurat himself states, “They [critics and writers] see poetry in what I do. No. I apply my method and that is all.” (189) Perhaps, Seurat was not making a statement about society or class, but was purely creating work that was a continuation of Impressionist ideas using a new technique.