Seurat & Pointilism

It's interesting that while Schapiro's main focus was Seurat's method while Eisenman focuses on his subject matter, they both put forth the idea that Seurat's art has a conflicting aspect to it. Schapiro writes that Seurat's art had many "striking polarities" while Eisenman describes it using the antinomy of "'photographic literalness' and a condition 'as abstract ... as pictorial art ever attained.'" Schapiro describes Seurat's dots as "a refined device" that "serves the painter as a means of ordering, proportioning, and nuancing sensation beyond the familiar qualities of the objects that the color evokes." He dejects the notion that Seurat's touch is mechanical, citing the nuances of the dots: the directionality of some, the size, the color, and densities. They look the same, but when closely examined, no dot is actually the same. Yet Seurat becomes interested in the mechanical, eventually becoming "the first modern painter who expressed in the basic fabric and orms of his art an appreciation of the beauty of modern techniques." He mechanized/systematized a way of expressing his "sensations" in a way that is still personal, however, his interest in the mechanical manifests itself in his later paintings when "the figures in the late paintings are more and more impersonal."

Seurat - Dialectic Representations

In “Seurat”, Meyer Schapiro seeks to unpack the methodology and intent behind Seurat’s use of dots to render a scene. Seurat was undoubtedly interested in the sensation of an image and the dots were his device or technique in reproducing various aspects of a scene in a way that dealt with his perceptions about proportion, color, and space. Schapiro points to the order or systematic process by which Seurat’s dots modulate and aggregate to produce varying effects. While these dots may appear to be a form of mechanization of painting, it is important to note that this personal honest technique is in fact much along the lines of impressionism, and upon closer inspection, the dots are not uniform – rather they vary in direction, size, and form to produce the desired effect. Seurat, albeit short lived, imparted a new form of approaching art upon many of the emerging artists in Paris. Within certain pieces such as the Three Models (Les Poseuses), there existed a statement of harmony and relaxation in the community that was being portrayed as “a society that enjoys the world in a pure contemplation and calm” (173). Later, Suerat’s appreciation for the built environment and structural infrastructure is interesting and responds to his personal use of systems and a modernist ideal.

Eisenman in his article Mass Culture and Utopia: Suerat and Neoimpressionism expands upon the uprising of neoimpressionism and the contradictions that emerge within the movement in terms of the perusal of science and also abstraction that lead to modernism. Seurat himself as champion of neoimpressionism through his painting distances himself from contour and lines in an attempt to create a new paradigm of painting. There is also an interesting interpretation of many his paintings where the composition seems to impart some kind of political and societal satire, yet the techniques employed by the artist are intended to bring some level of joy or harmony to the viewer. Seurat’s art touches upon so many aspects of society, and is a complex piece on many levels. It explores the shift to modernism, and at the same time can be tinged with critique of the new life style.

Seurat and the Present

While reading Shapiro and Eisenman’s pieces about Seurat, I was struck by how eerily Seurat’s art seems to speak to and predict conditions and technologies of today’s world. For example, Seurat’s art strongly resembles current graphic art with its simple shapes and use of gradients and shading; in the Grande Jatte it looks as if you could move each figure around like clip art. Thus, both modern graphic art and Seurat’s painting brings up issues about the relationship between science and art because on the one hand the art feels more mechanical and the artistic process is described by Seurat as just a “method,” and yet it is still possible to infuse the work with individual expression and cultural significance. This relates to a larger cultural dichotomy that exists today, in which our world becomes more and more mechanized while “creativity” is more valued than ever.
In addition, Seurat’s pointillism technique can be seen as a forbearer of modern ideas about how small points make up a whole. For instance, Seurat’s dots are analogous to the atoms that we now know make up all matter, computer binary codes that combine to form what we see on the computer, pixels that make up electronic screens, and color dots used to make color copies. In Seurat’s time, ideas about how individual people related to society as a whole were taking shape, as ideas of capitalism, socialism, and democracy were further contemplated, and mass culture developed. Today, people are feeling the same sense of “alienation and freedom” depicted by Seurat because even though we are acquiring more leisure activities and becoming more connected with the world, people tend to feel a sense of alienation in their virtual environments. Thus, the dichotomies and paradoxes that embody Seurat’s work meaningfully describe both his own time and ours.

Karl's Point on Seurat

The short-lived artist Seurat seems to be most well-known for his style of drawing, Pointillism, which consists of drawing entirely with point-like strokes instead of actual lines.

Looking at his works and their significance, however, it seems like the use of Pointillism isn't that significant at all. Really, what difference does it make? From far away, boundaries of conflicted dots look like lines anyway. The dots simply melt away into solid color. What really matters is the reason why Seurat used Pointillism.

Seurat is quoted to have said, "They [writers and critics] see poetry in what I do. [...] I apply my method and that is all" (Eisenman 281). This is a vital point when looking at Seurat. Everything he applies: color, proportion, Pointillism, etc. are all just parts of his "method". He does not build meaning into his works. Take for example his work Chahut. There are erotic dancers on stage all lifting their legs up high while smiling. Other elements of the work including the conductor and the flutist are oriented in the same way as the legs. In general, it tends to elicit happiness and freedom. However, in the end this is just a choreographed sexual display, and there is nothing glamorous about it. The meaning in the art was completely ignored by Seurat, who simply sought to follow his formula.

It is not that Seurat's works have no meaning, it is just that he does not have any rigid interpretation of his own works. He expresses himself through his fixed rules, and for what reason he did this I do not totally understand. Yet, it was definitely different from the art that preceded his.

Artistic Method

Stephen Eisenman includes Seurat’s quote, “They [writers and critics] see poetry in what I do. No. I apply my method and that is all.” When I read this, I was strongly reminded of analogies I’ve seen used to describe computer programming. I’ve been told that in writing a computer program, a person is figuring out exactly how to solve a problem without actually solving the problem. The computer programmer is the architect. He creates the method and the commands, each saying something along the lines of, “When you see this, perform that task.” Once the program is written, all the user has to do is tell the computer the individual situation, and then the computer goes and does the grunt work (actually performing the tasks required).
Pointillism in painting seems to run along these lines. The artist creates a plan before even conceiving the subject of the painting. When the subject of the painting calls for sunlight shining through trees, use a certain-sized point with a particular mix of colors, and that is how one creates these trees. If, instead, the subject calls for painting a human face, use this different type of point with this different mix of colors, and the face can be created. That’s where the creativity lies: in figuring out the exact technique to create the proper effect. After all of that has been figured out, then the actual task of applying the paint to the canvas and drawing the points in the pre-described way is trivial, and almost could be seen as grunt work. In this quote, Seurat uses the possessive pronoun when describing only his method, not the act of painting. He sees value in the development of the technique used to create luminosity, shading, or certain figures. Perhaps if he had owned a computer, Seurat would have devised a way to tell the computer to go paint the paintings, so that he could devote his time to discovery of new techniques in artistic representation.
This idea, however far-fetched, brings up interesting implications about art itself. Does the art lie in the act of painting, the manner in which the painter labors day after day to create a finished object for viewing? Or does the art truly lie in the vision the painter sees in his head, and is attempting to reproduce on the canvas. Or does art lie in the creative devices the painter uses to make this reproductions pleasing , lifelike, or meaningful? With the shift from Impressionism to Postimpressionism, it would seem that the symbolism behind the subject matter presented in certain ways is just as integral to art as the act of depicting this symbolism through painting. If painting is a language through which painters comment about society, as we’ve so often heard in this class, then it could be that the creative art is actually the comment about society. Or if painting is a forum in which to present new techniques in artistic rendering, then it could also be argued that the creative art lies in developing these techniques.

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.

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.

Antimony and Harmony

The advent of mass culture in the latter half of the 19th century accompanied, and was certainly indebted to, the rise of industrialization in much of Western Europe. These societies were now equipped with the technology to produce goods quickly, cheaply and in mass quantities such that old traditions and ways of life gave way to modernity.

Seurat's depictions of working-class people and other people (i.e. the inclusion of people outside of the élite and bourgeoisie) challenged the elitist implications of art and/or high art. The juxtaposition of working-class folks with higher-class folks created a sort of "antimony," perhaps under the guise of harmony (or is antimony harmony?). Beauty, according to Seurat, "arises from a continuous process of opposition and resolution among contrasting colors, values and lines." If we were to apply this concept of beauty to the paintings that juxtaposed people of "diverse classes," can we say that it constitutes harmony? Moreover, can we apply such a concept of antimonious harmony, in a work such as Chahut, in which, as one opinion goes, "the dancers experience the utopian delight of free and expressive movement while the audience is subjected to the dystopia of bad food and spirits, seedy surroundings, and lewd display." This characterization of the setting itself appears to be a criticism of the way that Seurat viewed mass culture; that is, this antinomy of mass culture and human individualism.

Seurat

Seurat seems almost neurotic in the development of his methods. His technique looks as though it would require extreme patience for such tedious work. It's this anal-retentive attention to detail that I admire in artists. The ideas of pointillism, conveying images with only simple shapes, breaking objects down to their simplest components, are extremely common now. Printed photos can be composed of dots, each only cyan, magenta, yellow or black. Any digital image is entirely colored pixels. Photo realistic images can be created by burning and scraping pieces of toast, or by stacking Rubik's cubes. Seurat's method, however, was the precursor to all these forms of displaying images. By eliminating lines from his work, previously the most indispensable element of artwork, Seurat began a style "utterly without precedent"(274). This revolutionary style is what draws me to Seurat's work, though Schapiro writes that "Admirers of Seurat often regret his method"(101). Instead, I find myself regretting his subject matter. Perhaps due to my lack of knowledge on the sociopolitical context of Seurat's society, the implications of the paintings, the alienation of modern class society, would have been lost on me. I would not have interpreted any emotions from his stiff, geometric figures. Anyway, I'm more interested in his systematic approach to painting. I'd rather read more about his rules of proportion and color. I want to know more about M. Rood and his equations which demonstrate that "the luminosity of optical mixtures is always superior to that of material mixtures"(278).

Seurat and His Technique

Upon observing Seurat's artwork, I couldn't help but notice how analogous his brushwork and style of painting are to modern day's digital-everything. The multitude of colorful dots meshing together smoothly to form a picture seems awfully similar to the million colorful dots that create the TV screen or laptop screen nowdays. It doesn't seem anything out of the ordinary to us now for an image on the TV screen to look smooth and clear, but to think that a handmade image of dots can generate something that feels so natural and smooth seems extraordinary. There seems to be a bewildering impossibility in the idea of using countless dots to depict a scene or an object that looks so smooth, generating the "light-dark continuum" as the art historian Bernd Growe described it. But there is something about Seurat's paintings (or are they really "paintings" by traditional definitions?) that embodies clarity and a comfortable level of definition, and at the same time produces luminousity and soft fuzziness. It is like a paradoxical juxtaposition of ideas.
Some critics apparently thought that his work was empty of emotion and expression; they called his work mechanical. This is the similar line of argument concerning Renaissance perspectivalism painters, who concerned themselves with accurate and scientific representations of space, depth and perspective. Saying that Seurat's work is mechanical and is of less artistic value is like criticizing Renaissance perspectivalism paintings for their primary focus on scientific accuracy in representation of space, depth and perspective (we've already had this discussion), and therefore a lack of artistic quality and creativity in their artworks. On the contrary, Seurat's pointillism style displays his creativity, amazing control, patience, which spell out genius. Afterall, this style that Seurat invented and perfected was unprecedented in all of history of art. Also, having the control of the hand and the brush, and the patience to fill canvases larger than 10 feet across is almost godly. There is also great beauty in the simplicity of Seurat's technique; breaking something complex and real down to the most basic geometric elements, the circles or the dots, and putting them back together to construct something so mesmerizing. There is plenty of expression in his artwork; in any case Seurat is classified as a NeoIMPRESSIONIST painter, and maintained the core Impressionist idea of valuing personal experience and expression in response to everyday life. Seurat's originality, artistry, control and patience put into his paintings can only be explained by his genius.

Seurat and pointillism

Schapiro and Eisenman, both write about Seurat, a neoimpressionist, and his technique of pointillism. Schapiro’s focuses more on description of Seurat and his painting techniques; while Eisenman also mentions the social context that Seurat was experiencing. Because of the time in which Seurat shortly painted, he chose his subjects for a purpose his paintings dealt with people and what they were doing; he was trying to represent what was going on at the time. Seurat, like many artists at the time, grew out of a reaction to the Impressionists. Schapiro, focuses especially on Puvis de Chavannes, some of Seurat’s painting appear to mock and response to Puvis. Seurat used his pointillism to make images that looked similar to Puvis but lacked the same definition. Seurat chose to capture and transform “the Golden Age, so grey in Puvis’ imagination, into a golden day” (Schapiro 105-106). Thus Seurat transformed what had not been accomplished by before by getting rid of lines! His style was revolutionary, he focused values and color to bring depth and light to his paintings and I believe he accomplished this very well. His paints are relatable and even inform about the time in which they were done.

Seurat captured a time of transition in Paris, which is what drew him to the Eiffel Tower. To Seurat, “the Eiffel Tower, the iron bridges, and the new airships… towards the end of the century spelled modernity” (Schapiro 107-108). Paris was changing into a more modern and industrialized time that faced many new ways of life. Many of his painting portray people outdoors experiencing life and the others show the ways in which they escaped at the Circus or Chahut. Chahut, in particular, “Seurat paradoxically depicts both a dream of unrestrained pleasure and a nightmare vision of vulgarity” (Eisenman 286). Seurat wanted to show the struggle that middle class Parisians were experiencing a time of industrialization but also the need to escape this new industrialization.

I liked Seurat’s paintings and method of painting, especially the way he seemed to put two different styles into a painting. Although the dots defy what had been done and did away with lines, Seurat still used very careful and methodical placement and measurements in his paintings. His figures were always proportional and he “carefully placed curved, horizontal, vertical, or crisscrossed strokes of unmixed or partial blended paint” (Eisenman 277). Seurat had a purpose in every painting, whether it was the style or subject, and will never be forgotten for effectively executing it.

Seurat

In Mass Culture and the Paradox of Pleasure , Eisenman discusses the concept of “harmony” in Seurat’s art. This harmony that is achieved in Neoimpressionism results from placing dialogical concepts together, and depicting their ability to coexist. The dots that are being used are mechanical in nature, yet the image produced resembles the smoothness of Impressionist art. Eisenman also discusses the harmony between alienation and delight, as the content being depicted in Seurat’s work. As such, Seurat is utilizing form to depict the content in his work. Seurat is therefore taking us to the threshold by making the contrast and the dialogical nature of his work and the social life around him apparent. He is putting this contradiction right in front of us, and by doing so, he deconstructs the very conditioned belief that these two concepts have to contradict. I definitely agree that beauty lies in this harmony between contesting ideas coexisting. Life in itself, is dialogical and cannot be explained. Living in this modern world, we often find ourselves chasing after ways to explain life, because we’re dissatisfied with the contradictions that we cannot explain, and Seurat’s art argues that there is no disharmony at all. I think what is interesting is that although beauty is in harmony between contrasting ideas, we derive pleasure out of chasing the unattainable, of questioning and always attempt to rationalize these dialogical ideas. As such, beauty is in the disharmony that results from these ideas as well. Another contradiction! This is in harmony as well because we’re looking for harmony while deriving pleasure from disharmony! I think that Seurat’s form is very thought-provoking and captures the essence of modern life.

Seurat's Light

“’The [writers and critics] see poetry in what I do. No. I apply my method and that is all’” (280). George Seurat, a famous Pointillist painter, denied all accusations of placing intellectual cognition onto a canvas for his many works of art. As mentioned in the essay, “Mass Culture and Utopia: Seurat and Neoimpressionism,” Seurat was all about “harmony” in art, which is why he used an interesting technique of placing several tiny dots in close proximity contrasting colors, values, and lines. Seurat, like the other Neoimpressionists, also sought to somehow portray “idleness, quietness, and pleasure” in the modern society, particularly in the French working class (280). It was interesting to note that the way Seurat showed individuals, take for example the girls dancing the Can-Can, happy and content with a job that downright degrades them as women. In Chahut, the men and women are shown almost proud and content with their work as being entertainers demonstrated by the smiles on their faces, the upward tilts of their chins, and their unique postures. But their gaiety is not only projected by their body language, Seurat brilliantly figured out a way to emphasize happiness by incorporating “high luminosity, warm hues, upward pointed angles and accents” (284). Seurat had a way of shining light on objects hidden in the darkness by the modern mass culture. Knowingly or not, he bravely posted questions and thoughts in viewer's minds about what exactly is going on in this seemingly all pleasant modern world.

Seurat

Implementing a new technique involving applying countless dots to canvasses to form images, Seurat was the precursor to the Neoimpressionists and the forerunner to the development of architecture and painting of the twentieth century.  The main staple of art before the Renaissance involved the manipulated control of the line, with linear drawings attaining an almost divine status.  Seurat removed the use of the line completely from his paintings, blurring the distinction between ground and subject, which allowed him to more closely approach pure abstraction than any other artist previously.  Previous artists such as "Delacroix and Manet, both of whom sought to dethrone the line from its exalted rank, found it indispensable for the creation of movement and plasticity in drawings" (19th Century Art, 276).  In contrast, Seurat employed the use of "varying densities in the distribution of light and dark dots (to) generate the boundaries that define figures" (Schapiro, 102-3).  

Compared to other famous artists such as Cezanne and Degas, Seurat was a complete artist by the time he was twenty-five.  Before he died, he successfully revolutionized Impressionist sketchiness yet maintained some the rigidity and rules of a classical style.  For example, in Grande Jatte Seurat paints his figures based on strict Classical rules ["heads are 1/7 the heights of bodies, and faces are turned precisely full frontal, 3/4 view, full profile, 3/4 from the back, or full back" (277)], yet the painting preserves the sensations and expressions of Impressionist ideals.

In the reading, the author of the second article discusses how Grande Jette is representative of the alienation of modern class society.  I understand his argument about the second painting (Chahut).  However, for the first painting, is it just the conflict between the stone-like figures of the people and the joy of the occasion?  I feel like there is more that I am missing beneath the surface.

Cezanne and the End of Impressionism

Richard Shiff begins his essay "Cezanne and the End of Impressionism" with a discussion on the categorization of the movement that followed Impressionism. Roger Fry chose to name this movement "postimpressionism", not because it was the most descriptive or accurate but because it was convenient. The end of impressionism, means the beginning of something else, and Fry felt the need to give that "something else" a title. In the process of categorizing art into chronological periods or aesthetically similar genres, we are essentially designing the movement of art history. "Postimpressionism" wasn't a reaction against Impressionism, but allowed for the establishment of "a clear distinction between this new art and the impressionism that had set the stage for it". (Shiff 155)Postimpressionism was essentially created by combining a number of different genres into one that allowed for that first reactionary, revolutionary exhibit. However, Shiff comments that "Impressionism was never itself so simply defined that it could foster a clearly defined reaction". (Shiff 157)I think that this leads to a very important question about the nature of revolution in art. By categorizing art into movements and counter-movements, are we creating genres of art that don't really exist? Are we creating labels like "postimpressionism" to fill in the gap between one style of art to the next? Postimpressionism, expressionism, or symbolism may not be that different or revolutionary, but by creating these labels and framing them as such we lose sight of the nature of the artwork itself. The artwork functions for the label, but the label does not function for the artwork.

The Art History of Postimpressionism

In “Seeing Cezanne” by Richard Shiff, Cezanne is used as an example to demonstrate the failings of art historians to properly differentiate Impressionism from Postimpressionism. Cezanne is shown to have characteristics of both Impressionists and Symbolists. Cezanne does apply distortion to the figures he draws. This distortion can easily be interpreted as using art to represent the feelings the figure evokes in Cezanne, a sign of Symbolist art. Cezanne also recognizes the usefulness of the naked eye, and many of his paintings try to see through this naked, “primitive” eye that is so characteristic of Impressionist painting. Cezanne thus serves as the convenient “missing link” between Impressionism and Postimpressionism. In presenting this idea, despite its oversimplification, Shiff shows that Impressionism progressed gradually toward Postimpressionism. He then uses this point to criticize the name Postimpressionism, saying, “the name itself implies that a theoretical chasm separates impressionist art from whatever followed it.” If this were the case, the missing link Cezanne would not be able to exist. In dubbing the movement following Impressionism as Postimpressionism, art historians have misrepresented the intricate nature of the progression from one artistic movement to another at this point in history.


Also, Shiff uses Cezanne to show that the lines between what defines Impressionism and Postimpressionism are blurry and overlap. Cezanne doesn’t paint in both genres; both genres have overlapping characteristics and goals that can be found in Cezanne’s work. Many of Cezanne’s paintings are drawn over again and again. Cezanne is using more than just his first impression of the scene in his final painting. He is also using his later impressions, so that the painting will never be a complete log of his impressions, because he will always be able to come up with a new point of view or effect from glancing, and then alter the painting. This raises the question: is Impressionism defined as an instantaneous, first impression, or can it be a continuous evolution of impressions, such as Cezanne employs. Perhaps instead this is a Symbolist art form, because the changing impressions show changing emotional reactions to the painting, and thus changing sensations. It’s difficult to tell which interpretation describes this ongoing altering of impression in Cezanne’s painting, perhaps because both interpretations are so vaguely described. Shiff uses Cezanne’s perpetual process to show the ill-defined nature of both Impressionism and Postimpressionism as mutually exclusive artistic movements. This sheds light upon a failing in the characterization of both movements by previous art historians or art critics of the time. Again, Cezanne is used as an example to show the oversimplifications art historians have made in describing Postimpressionism and Impressionism.

Cezanne

After much comparing and contrasting to the many artist's before and of his time, Paul Cezanne came out of Richard Shiff's essay, "Cezanne and the End of Impressionism," as a man that stood alone not only in the world of art, but in life itself. Cezanne was known for being a very corky and isolated individual. Some of the wordings Shiff uses to describe the artist himself were "odd," "mysteriously incommunicative," "complex," and "diverse" (162). Despite having been rejected for his earlier works, Cezanne emerged basically out of no where for he was "unknown to the public," into the world of appreciated of art, particularly for his unique style of expressing nature and the self (163).
Although Shiff spent much time trying to demonstrate how Cezanne was a legend or founding father of a particular movement, it was almost unnecessary to do such a thing because of the fact that Cezanne was such a unique figure, there was no use dubbing him the "modern Poussin" or anything of the sort. Cezanne's style of painting were certainly not like any other, even though many critics claim that his work is simply just a mere copy of classical works because of his technique used of studying the pieces of late artists. His paintings were awkward, yet intriguing. Other characteristics of his style were bold and single brush strokes, sketchy and unfinished, figures are crudely drawn, contrasting colors positioned right next to each other, and a spirit of symbolism sprinkled all throughout the entire painting (167).
The distinction between Impressionism and Post-Impressionism in the essay was a bit hazy however. There seems to be no clear cut answer as to how are the two dissimilar and therefore, its a bit rough to place Cezanne under any of these categories.

Karl, Post-Impressionism, and Cezanne

I will first take a brief moment to express my frustration at the copy center, who removed a segment of pages from the previous article and put it after most of the Cezanne one, then proceeded to print the entirety of the Cezanne article again, which undoubtedly wasted a few dollars of the money spent on the reader.

Now back to the topic of Post-Impressionism. Or maybe Expressionism. Just the contrast of the words "Impressionism" and "Expressionism" makes it seem like Expressionism would be the opposite of Impressionism, and in some ways it is. Via a brief breakdown of the terms, Impressionism uses impressions while Expressionism uses expressions. What exactly this even means, I don't know, but basically Impressionism sought to (excuse the bad choice of words) express in art the feeling in what already exists, while Expressionism simply creates the feelings. Where Impressionism was limited in that it was still rooted to the real world, Expressionism let go of these bounds and simply focused on expression.

So, while Impressionism and Expressionism/Post-Impressionism had the same goal of emphasizing expression, they are opposite in the ways in which they approach this goal. They are simultaneously completely different and exactly the same. Now, to confuse you even more, I will bring into play the artist Cezanne. Cezanne is considered to be in both categories, to be both an Impressionist and a Symbolist (which is yet another synonym for Post-Impressionism). As a critic described him, he is a "fluid mixture of the finder and the maker" (159). Actually, the only reason I bring up Cezanne is that he demonstrates that Impressionism is not a far cry from Post-Impressionism, despite the large differences between them.

The point of all this is that art shouldn't simply be viewed in terms of these "movements". There is no clear distinction between Impressionism and Post-Impressionism. As Cezanne himself puts, "one does not substitute oneself for the past, one just adds a new link" (196). Each movement simply builds upon the previous movement, and no matter what radical new ideas are present in this new movement, there are still elements of the previous movement embedded. Personally, given paintings of each of the two movements, I most likely wouldn't be able to tell which painting belongs to which movement. However, comparing the ideals of each movement, there is definitely progress in a direction, towards greater expression and less realism.

Which just so happens to be the way I think art should be moving. Towards the tire-structures and bear-traps of today!

Post-Impressionism: A Contrived Revolution?

Although my title already reveals my own views on Post-Impressionism vis-à-vis Impressionism, I especially in light of the fact that I do not know enough on this subject to make any sort of conclusive opinion on these movements. However while reading (and synthesizing it with the analyses of past readings) chapters in Richard Shiff's Cézanne and the End of Impressionism, I somehow could not help but. . .have my sensations and impressions guide my line of thinking concerning Post-Impressionism; and this is what I would like to express:

Lets briefly explore the name of the movement itself. Shiff explains that the name "Post-Impressionism" could be credited to Roger Fry who "settled on what he thought to be an innocuous term of chronological identification." Immediately one senses not only the name's unoriginality but also, the designation's unrevolutionary-like nature. True, an aesthetic revolution indeed uses the former prevalent movement in a way to bolster itself; but including the word 'impressionism' within the name itself has implications for a non-traditional type of movement. Now then, what can we infer from this shared name? Does the shared name suggest shared techniques or similar theoretical underpinnings? And if this is the case, would it be a fair assessment to conclude that these movements share much more in common than what the "Post-Impressionists" would like to think?

Shiff explains that the "impressionists were too partial to finding and not sufficiently involved with making," thus implying that the post-impressionists were partial to the latter (as it is "increasingly of expressive design"). Such a reliance on being diametrically opposed suggests that post-impressionism is inextricably and heavily linked to the former movement such that, in some ways, it can be perceived as its rebellious extension.

Post-impressionism... ?!

Shiff writes, "Postimpressionism was, and is, an awkward invention, a new whole substituted for its disparate parts. ... The name itself implies that a theoretical chasm separates impressionist art from whatever followed it, whether neoimpressionist, symbolist, 'neoclassical,' or 'expressionist.'" Many art movements are usually a reaction to the previous dominating movement but I still don't really quite understand why Fry and MacCarthy chose the title "Post-Impressionism" because it's hard to see the clear difference between Impressionism and the movements that followed it.

"LeCompte saw that Cezanne's style rendered him acceptable to both impressionist and symbolist ideologies." To me, Cezanne embodies the difficulty found in trying to categorize art into various periods: he fits in everything and nothing. He can be an impressionist, symbolist, neoclassical, or "expressionist. When asked to make a statement about his art, Cezanne used many of the same words that impressionist used such as "sensation." It is explained that although his theory is close to the impressionists, his style is changed by his temperment because it "causes distortion."

"Cezanne, as the 'Pouissan of impressionism,' the Poussin of the experience of nature, filled out Denis's system of classification in completing a triumvirate of true artists: the classical Poussin, the primitive Gauguin, and the natural Cezanne." Shiff describes classic art as art that "maintains a balance between found nature and made art." However, the means to get to that balance confused me. Poussin became a classical master because he went back to Ancient classics (Roman sculptures, etc.) but he didn't just copy them... he studied them and then he learned how to express his style and personality. "To remake nature on the antique is to follow the inverse ... to remake nature after Poussin ... to remake Poussin after nature..." (a block of text on p182)

SAY WHAT?!

Post-Impressionism

In Cezanne and the End of Impressionism, Shiff introduces the struggle to define and name Post-Impressionism. Unlike its partial namesake, Post-Impressionism did not represent a radical shift from its contemporaries. It was, according to Shiff, “an awkward invention, a new whole substituted for its disparate parts (156).” Although its name implies a dramatic rejection of Impressionism, Post-Impressionism also seeks to create representations based in emotion and expression. So what exactly is the difference between the two?

To Shiff, the difference is Cezanne. He believes the works of Cezanne represent the shift from Impressionism to Post-Impressionism. Cezanne’s work places expression and symbolism above accurate representation. Shiff writes, “the artist struggled so directly to express his sensation, refusing to follow any conventional formulations, his painting of nature became as distorted and awkward as that of a primitive (166).” Cezanne’s strokes appear sketch-like or rushed like a primitive painting, and slightly abstract. He also makes abrupt color changes in his paintings.

Shiff goes to great lengths (literally) to establish a definite contrast between Impressionism and Post-Impressionism, but I really don’t see much of a difference between the two. Yes, technically one can distinguish Impressionism from Post-Impressionism; however, I’m not convinced that these minute technicalities call for a different name.

Seeing Cezanne

In Seeing Cezanne, Shiff discusses the dichotomy between representation and expression, making and finding, style and nature. He states that these concepts oppose each other and very often stand in “reciprocal relation” to one another. He explains that as one tries to represent, the painting loses its expressiveness as technique becomes the primary concern of the artist. As such, Cezanne’s ingenuity lies in his ability to place finding and making in equilibrium.
In my opinion, this method of evaluating a painting is questionable. Cezanne’s art is being celebrated for his lack of intention, the unconscious ability to produce this effect of merging two contesting concepts together. Yet, perhaps we are glorifying his achievements without considering what his intentions really are. Moreover, defining unconscious ability as better than deliberate technique is flawed. It seems as if analysts are molding the argument to better fit their perception of Cezanne’s talent. This is not to dismiss his art but to point out that perhaps our need to prove this has distorted what it is. Perhaps it is impossible to only find or to only make. In every creation, an element of the artist’s unconsciousness will inevitably bleed onto the canvas. Shiff talks about finding distortion and not artificially distorting works. Perhaps there is already an inequality that exists when we perceive. As we create based on these perceptions, we are placing making and finding in equilibrium as well. This is to say that representation and expression may not necessarily be in a reciprocal relation in the first place. As we represent something, our understanding of it is already departs from unconscious and distorted perceptions that we have chanced upon. As such, although Cezanne’s art has its own value, we may be romanticizing it by placing the value in his unconscious abilities.

Impressionism and Post-impressionism what's the difference?

Richard Shiff’s “Cezanne and the End of Impression” delves into the idea and history over the trouble of naming Post-Impressionism, just that. Similar to all the other art movements post-impressionism came as reaction to Impressionism and the rules that it had formed (even though they were breaking away from the rules). Expressionism seemed to fit “the spirit of the younger generation” (155), but ultimately post-impressionism was chosen to due chronologic order. But just like the Impressionist, post-impressionist searched to communicate their expression through their art. But Impressionist chose to “simplify and even ‘distort’ the objects they represent” (158). Cezanne seemed to embody post-impressionist value to make painting even more basic and focus more on the shapes than Impressionist. I didn’t think that paintings could get more shape basic, but as many of these articles have proven me wrong it has.
Cezanne chose to make a drastic move (at least it was seen drastic then) and made crude and distorted paintings than the previously refinement natural paintings. He chose to “go back” in a more primitive quality of painting. I understand why it was criticized as primitive now understanding the course of paintings. The Renaissance had seen moving toward a much more precise and scientific form of painting and the Impressionists completely changed that and Cezanne continued to push the limitations of art. But I admire Cezanne for doing so, for making art so fluid and allowing it to move “back” (however you chose to see it) or any direction that it is. Shiff mentions that Cezanne left paintings unsigned or without a date, in varying degrees of finished and repainted canvas with one image that had nothing to do with the previous painting painted over it. This excited me that he did not try to fit into a time period or movement, he wrote his own rules; which to me seems like a true artist. Unlike “Paris Street Rainy Day” by Gustave Caillebotte which tried to fit into the Impressionist movement, Cezanne was not trying to fit into a movement but had one created by critics to keep the paintings in order.
Although there is said to be a difference between Impressionism and post-impressionism Shiff’s argument that Cezanne had hastily applied strokes, sketchy and unfinished quality to images, does not clarify this for me. I thought that was what Impression was also, so I have difficulty in understanding the difference. Cezanne’s paintings are said to be “flat” with a uniform intensity of hue and a lack of value gradation but his images seem to mix in with the works labeled Impressionist. So what is the real difference upon first impression because I cannot see it?

Seeing Cezanne

The division between Impressionism and Post-Impressionism seems somewhat contrived. It's as if the line was arbitrarily drawn down the middle of a larger movement of art, and the details of the distinction filled in later to justify the line. The cyclic nature of artistic rebellions is not apparent here; at least, not nearly as apparent as the reaction of the Impressionists against classical artwork, or as drastic as the invention of Cartesian perspective. Instead of a dramatic reaction, the progression from Impressionism to Post-Impressionism is fairly smooth. The gaps between the "diametrically opposed"(160) principles of each movement are bridged easily by Cezanne.
The main difference seems to be the idea of representation versus expression. In both cases it is a matter of the artist's intent. If two artists create a nearly identical piece of artwork, but with radically different intentions, either to represent or express, how can the viewer differentiate the two without knowing the intent of either artist? Which is more important in classifying artwork, the artist's intent or the viewer's interpretation?

There is a conflict over what to call the movement of painting after impressionism. Expressionism was taken, so “post-impressionism” was chosen . And while expressionism was considered “an ugly world” (Shiff 157) it was less ugly than post-impressionism. Why the chasm and need for separation from impressionists to post-impressionists? In Fry’s “Essay in Aesthetics” he makes the claim that “one only comes to know emotion only through expression”. How was emotion not “known” in the impressionist’s works, or rather how was it not expressive? I don’t claim that the post-impressionists, Cezanne, Van Gogh, and Gauguin’s work is not different from Manet and the impressionists; I simply do not see the distinction based on Fry’s premises.
In the post-impressionist catalog essay, it is stated “…there comes a point when the accumulation of an increasing skill in mere representation begin to destroy the expressiveness of the design.” This can be considered a critique on the impressionists for creating more “representations” in comparison to the increasingly "expressive" designs of the post-impressionists. I find this point difficult to see, in fact, post-impressionists seems a step further that the impressionists from the coveted “emotion” quality they strive for in that impressionists attempted to capture the primal feeling itself in their paintings -their natural, unborn, unprocessed emotions in response to a subject. As I understand it, the post-impressionists in doing more on the canvas, are utilizing more acquired skill, and make the end forms less emotionally expressive, as it where.
The post-impressionist argument to this call is that they not only express the artist’s personal associations in art, but the artists themsleves attempt to capture the feelings that subject itself evokes, separate from the artist. They, in effect, “make” the subject into an emotional source as opposed to simply reflecting on an object and transmitting any emotion.
I believe the distinction here is that while impressionists tackle the problem of transmitting a subject and allowing its emotion to form or not form in the viewers mind, the post-impressionists relay intentionality, meaning there is a prescribed emotional quality they seek, produce, and express. In this, I believe that the “knowing emotion” of Fry’s original premise becomes an elusive moldable abstraction, in that it is up to the artists subjective to fashion emotion as they please and diverts further from a known, truthful, emotion. I imagine the ideas of truth in art will be covered later, but these arguments led me to discuss them here.

From the onset of this course we have been encouraged to view the articles from different perspectives- presumably ones that we are more familiar with. Because chapter 12, The Cezanne Legend, portrays Cezanne as a wildly eccentric individual, I chose to analyze his character. Through academics, my family and personal experience I am well acquainted with mental illness and therefore felt it was appropriate to note the peculiar behaviors and elements of his personality that might lead researchers to a better understanding of Cezanne and his works.

From the evidence provided in this article one might consider that Cezanne may have suffered from a mental illness. The initial description of an "...odd and mysteriously incommunicative..." (162) person who remained isolated and showed little concern for others touched on some major points of autism. However, in order to achieve the status and skill that Cezanne attained he would have had to have been a savant or possibly ridiculously high functioning.

An explanation that more appropriately addresses Cezanne's quirks is bipolar disorder. Shiff attributed Cezanne's isolation to the fortune he had inheritted because due to the that money he did not need to depend on selling his art. However, bipolar disorder is the only mental illness that is more prevalent in this with higher socioeconomic standing and is also directly correlated with creativity. It is also mentioned that many of Cezanne's paintings have been left incomplete or in "...varying states of finish..."(162). This behavior is typical of someone in a manic episode. In phase one or phase two mania an individual may make grandious plans or start many projects- often times this results in chaos and the projects are eventually abandoned. Once an individual reaces phase three or four mania, their symptoms ressemble those of schizophrenia. Cezanne's bizarre behavior towards other people could easily be explained if he did in fact suffer from bipolar disorder. Cezanne distrusted the public, harbored deep suspicion and paranoia about other artists and lead a seemingly unstable life.

Perhaps there was nothing wrong with Cezanne afterall. Maybe he was just a quirky guy, however, the evidence lends a lot to think about.

Cezanne and the End of Impressionism

Richard Shiff introduces the post-impressionist era, suggesting that by the very nature of the title it rebelled against impressionist ideals despite the many similarities.  Cezanne is universally recognized as the precursor of the post-impressionists, who focused on expression rather than the representation of their predecessors.  In an essay, Roger Fry argues that "there comes a point when the accumulations of an increasing skill in mere representation begin to destroy the expressiveness of the design" (157).  This notion is reiterated throughout the several chapters with the post-impressionist obsession with Cezanne and his primordial perspective.  His art pieces were characterized with humans painted at awkward angles and lacked any sense of depth.  Contemporaries argued that this "primordial visual sensation" was the "most immediate and spontaneous effect to be observed" (172).  This was in contrast to the academic style of the modern artist, who saw nature unoriginally and was able to construct paintings solely based on technical conventions.  While I follow along with this argument, I do not completely understand the main premise behind it.  Why does an increase in the primitiveness of a painting increase its expressive value?  Are realistic paintings unable to convey the same emotions, the same symbols that an incomplete painting lacking depth can?

There are frequent references to Cezanne as the Poussin of impressionism.  However, the similarities between the two artists do not arise in their stylistic and artistic methods but "their attitudes toward art and nature and to the historical past and present" (184).  Poussin is praised for his return to classical ideals in his effort to maintain originality and his rejection of modern "degenerate" art.  Similarly, Cezanne, with his strange and awkward style, rejected modern ideals with his primitive perspective.  Both artists had examined previous artistic styles and it was this knowledge that enabled them to express their own style and originality.  

Through his distortions of reality, Cezanne revolutionized art as modern contemporaries became increasingly obsessed with the primordial vision and rebelling against modern standards.  Interestingly, in Cezanne's paintings all of the distorted images were painted like that as opposed to the deformation of an already created object.  This distorted reality seems akin to the impressionist idea of spontaneous sensation.  

Lastly, this is one particular quote that I found thought provoking: "(Gustave) Geffroy asked how one could determine when a painting was 'finished,' how one could ever terminate the image, the recording of sensation, if life itself, the life of sensation, continued on without end" (193).  Cezanne devoted his life to finding a method to record this expression, which proved unattainable.

Cezanne: A “Spontaneous Classic”

When the Impressionist painters rebelled against the Academic art establishment in France they effectively threw out the old rule books and guide books dominating the old world. Thus, the artists and critics who succeeded them were left to try to develop new systems for classifying, judging, and practicing art. However, it seems as if the harder they tried to define art and the artists, the more contradictions, paradoxes, and gray areas they found. In many ways, Cezanne embodies these conflicts, which made him especially hard to classify and ultimately Richard Shiff does not definitively place Cezanne in either the Impressionists or Post-impressionists but calls him a link or continuation between them.

Overall, the most problematic issue seems to revolve around the competing forces of the “unconscious” and the “conscious.” For example, references are made to Cezanne’s unconscious and spontaneous expressiveness, and his gaucherie and distortions are linked to his position as a “primitive” who sees the world in a very simple and sincere way. And yet we see that Cezanne is also called a classic (in the syle of 17th C. painter Poussin) and Shiff also shows how Cezanne studied past art, developed a loose theory about sensation, and actively manipulated techniques and color to achieve his originality. Despite the contemporary critic’s statements about the unconscious, Shiff argues that the conscious side of the artist actually plays a huge role in the creation of original art as artists cannot “escape being self-conscious” and that “Cezanne’s technique (as well as that of so many of his contemporaries) developed in accord with specific intentions, indeed, as a response to ‘statements’ made by the techniques of other painters.”

I agree with Shiff on this point because it seems as if the critics of the time went a bit overboard in their rejection of Academic artificiality when they started labeling Cezanne as a man of “genius” and “unaccountable originality” whose work seems to have been done “almost unconsciously”. Also I find their obsession with the “primitive” kind of strange, though I’m sure it’s linked to turn of the century ideas about race and evolution.

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?