Paper #1 Assignment Addendum

Please include a Works Cited page with your essay; this is standard procedure in college courses and is worth practicing if you haven't gotten the format down already. If you cite course readings (which I suggest--but keep the citations brief), follow MLA format, which is covered briefly in Chapter 16 of Writing Analytically. Also, be sure to include an image citation on this page, consisting of an exact URL for the image you chose to write about.

Paper #1 Assignment

For Thursday, September 25, please prepare a 2-page essay that incorporates the techniques of descriptive analysis you’ve learned from class discussions, readings, and Writing Analytically into the construction of a succinct, focused argument about one impressionist painting. In order to begin developing your “information-retrieval” (i.e. research) skills, I’d like you to search Artstor for an impressionist image you find particularly compelling. You may want to look in the reading for names of artists to search or you can experiment with different tactics (keywords, general searches) to generate a variety of results.

When you have selected the painting you want to discuss, I’d like you to build your paper using the method outlined in Writing Analytically. These are encompassed in the “5 analytical moves” section of chapter 1. After you’ve reviewed Rosenwasser and Stephen’s method, make a chart of your findings similar to the one on page 15. Begin by gathering your “data”—i.e. by making a list of details you observe in the painting. Then, figure out which details are most important by a) looking for patterns in which certain themes or techniques are repeated b) figuring out how the details relate to each other and c)looking for anomalies that make you do a double-take. Try to discern whether the painting seems to be making a particular visual argument. N.B. Please attach your list and chart to your completed draft when you hand it in to me.

After you complete this pre-writing stage, use your findings as the backbone of your paper. Remember, you are just trying to pose one question, and a narrow one at that, for a paper of this length. So, only include description that directly helps you answer this question (you may, of course, point out details that problematize your thesis—this is better than simply ignoring potential holes in your argument). Although this paper is not comparative, you may use brief references to Renaissance, Baroque, or Academic painting to strengthen your argument. However, only do this if you absolutely need to, as I want you to make your chosen painting the primary focus of this extremely short paper. Keep in mind that short papers can be more difficult to write than longer papers because every word counts. Each sentence should do active work to propel you from your initial question (thesis), into the exploration of evidence (analytic description of elements of the work pertaining to your thesis), and on into your conclusion (suggestions about how your analysis of evidence provides one or a few possible answers to your thesis-question). N.B. On Thursday, please bring 2 copies, stapled, to class. Attach your prewriting documents to the one you give me. The other copy will be used for peer editing purposes.

OK, that’s it. Have as much fun as possible with this assignment—I’ve given you free reign to choose a painting because I want you to find one that you can sit with for an extended period of time and that you can examine exhaustively without throwing your computer against the wall. Please use artstor so you can take advantage of the zoom function and get “up-close”, virtually, to the painting. Choose a painting you love, or hate—i.e. one that you have strong feelings about, and try to figure out exactly why you respond in that fashion. But, by the same token, make sure your instincts are backed up by information contained in the scope of the painting itself. And, lastly, please refrain, on this draft (I’ll let you get background info on the next draft) from doing research on the way the painting you choose is “usually” interpreted—I want you to develop your own skills, not to regurgitate what someone else has said.

Impressions on Impressionism

Impressionism is probably the go-to of the art world when it is defined as something that appeals to the senses and the emotions. Smith breaks down Impressionism into its analysis and its components, which includes the "Impression," "Sensation," "Vision and Sketchiness." He writes that there are four new perspectives on Impressionism: "social-historical, feminist, psychoanalytical, and ... anthropological." As evidenced by the many ways to analyze Impressionist art, it's very hard to interpret and analyze something that was described by its own creators as "personal and subjective." It was the artists' reaction to the strict classical training at Ecole des Beaux-Arts and their here's-what's-good-and-here's-what's-bad standards.

The concept of "flaneur" is interesting in the sense that it goes one step forward in (the theoretical portion) of Cartesian perspectivalism. In the latter, the viewer is inherently seen as an eyeball (disregarding the human differences) through the use of the painting itself, but with Impressionism, you are basically asked to look at the painting as the "casual, male urban observer." Whereas in Cartesian perspectivalism you are basically asked to look at it one way, in Impressionism, you are asked to view the painting from a specific viewpoint.

I believe it's important to note that the modernization of Paris under Baron Haussmann began right around the time Impressionists began to emerge. The "Haussmannization" of Paris included the construction of the large tree-lined boulevards that are seen in many Impressionist paintings (i.e. Pissarro's Boulevard Montmarte and Boulevard des Capucines, along with Renoir's Les grands boulevards). I've had the chance to look at this time period from three (somewhat) different perspectives... from architecture, global poverty, and art history. Last week, we had a reading that included "The Eyes of the Poor" by Baudelaire and it deals with the unforeseen consequence of the modernization of Paris and how it exposed poverty not only to the wealthy residents of Paris, but also to the impoverished by showing them "the other side of life." I don't know if Impressionists depicted this or not, but it would be interesting to see if they also painted "the other side of life."

Impressionism and Psychology

In this class we have labeled Impressionism an “aesthetic revolution” in the history of art, but this time period, roughly 1860-1900, was a time of revolutions in other disciplines as well. One of these areas was psychology. Like art, psychology has existed in some form or another for much of human history, but underwent a dramatic change during the latter half of the 19th Century. During this time, psychology was transformed from a mostly theoretical and philosophical discipline to an empirical one with the first ever psychology lab established in Germany by Wundt in 1879. Thus, both art and psychology became what we consider “modern.” In addition, it appears that the two disciplines consciously intersect in Impressionist paintings more than ever before.

In Smith’s Impressionism Beneath the Surface , he relates how some have tried to interpret Impressionism by retroactively psychoanalyzing the artists. However, the artists themselves also made use of psychology in ways that proactively affect us today (which is kind of trippy when you think about it that way). For example, in the “Flaneur” chapter, Smith shows how Manet used his “philosophical” side (actually his psychological side) to reflect on attitudes towards women and is actually able to make the viewer feel uncomfortable and like an intruder with his paintings of nude women. Artists that used this flaneur perspective would even use pamphlets of “physiologies” that attempted to classify social types. The Impressionist painters were also openly influenced by contemporary ideas of perception, which is a very important field of study in psychology. Although we now know that theories such about “color patches” are completely untrue, it shows that they recognized that “true vision” is a myth and that perception is subjective. It is this recognition of the subjectivity of perception that in my opinion makes Impressionist painting so powerful, because it allows the viewer to experience a different person’s view of the world while at the same time reinforcing shared experiences, such as the wonder of watching the effects of light on environments.

Karl is Impressed

In the first week or so of this class, I decided for myself that art should be considered based on the feelings and thoughts elicited in the viewer. Impressionism as an art form seems to fit that bill. The goal of impressionism is to present to the viewer an experience, whether it be an experience of a landscape or the experience of being looked at. As the article states, "an impression was not just the record of transient effects of light and atmosphere" (9), but rather a capturing of a moment. "They are Impressionists in the sense that they render not the landscape, but the sensation produced by the landscape" (22).

Impressionism as an art form reminds me of photography. The very nature of photography seems to be to capture a single moment, to perfectly record a frame of life. In this manner it would no doubt exceed Impressionist art, which is quickly sketched in order to preserve the moment. However, Impressionist art can do something photography can't do, and that is to warp the image to further emphasize what exactly is going on. For example, in one of his works Manet randomly blurred or focused people in a crowd in order to simulate the sensation of darting your eyes through the crowd. Photography would simply record the scene of the crowd, and would lack the sensation.

At first I felt the Flaneur concept was pretty stupid. I'm still not quite sure what it means, but I think it has something to do with picking up prostitutes. Later in the article however, I found that the works of art described work very well with the Impressionist idea, although in a different way than Monet's work did. For example, the "Nymph Taken by Surprise" painting, which depicted a women seemingly caught naked. The viewer is given the feeling that the woman is looking at him, and is trying to hide from his gaze, giving the viewer a feeling of guilt or discomfort. Another work, "Le Dejeuner sur I'herbe", is similar except that the naked woman is accompanied by other men, and does not seem bothered by your presence. It makes the viewer feel he doesn't belong there, and somewhat uncomfortable. Where the landscape paintings allowed the viewer to feel a moment of time, these people paintings gave the viewers a situation, uncomfortable or otherwise.

Although the photocopied images are almost indecipherable and there's a random 8 page gap in the middle of the article, what I've learned about Impressionism intrigues me. It seems to take a moment, real or not, and translate it into another moment for the viewer to experience. Unlike previous art, the goal of Impressionism is to give the impression, while still maintaining a semblance to reality which may not be present in more modern art. I like the idea of this, and it fulfills my ideas on what art should be.

Developing Our Inner Flâneur

In Defining Impressionism, Smith in part (and vaguely) defines the Impressionist movement as the perception of the artist in response to ideas that they encounter. The revolutionary artists were moved by the romanticism of daily life. What they painted was not only their first impression, but also their lasting impression. Impressionism is also defined as a rejection of the classical training of contemporaries. Impressionists favored mobility and progress over stagnant art.

Impressionist art also allows the viewer to develop a physical relationship with the painting. In his essay, Smith asks us to become a Flâneur or a “casual man of leisure,” when viewing the paintings. The flâneur comes upon the scene and participates in the painting. As in real life, there are no structural manipulations to direct the flâneur’s attention and no single viewpoint.

In some ways (and in a historical narrative), Impressionist painting mirrors the mysterious and rapid-paced cities in the mid 19th century. The paintings are brought to life with the seemingly spontaneous brushstrokes. The anonymous faces passing by in the crowd and fleeting images of the city were part of the modern city experience in which these subversive artists lived.

Renaissance to Impressionism

On reading Smith’s Defining Impressionism what captured me was the interpretation of Impressionism as the heroic act of rebellion, that the art “owes its virtue to the heroic individual who made it.” While in this phrase Smith was making an attempt to imbue impressionism with something more than simply an idea whose time has come, rather how it is an art form that is rich and is “a vehicle which can carry an imaginative world,” it inherently implies that impressionism was in fact perceived, in part as virtuous only as endeavor undertaken by the brave. An act of rebellion against the dominating ideal of art during that time, which was the conservative, classical training under the example of landscape painters and the emphasis of the state-run institutions on “historical and classical” subject matter placing Renaissance art as the “correct” mode. Renaissance art, which placed much value the human form, the divine beauty of man and realism was perceived in juxtaposition to Impressionism which was concerned with subjectivity and representing the subject on the grounds of an “impression” or “sensation.” I would like to suggest that Impressionism is not a headlong crash into Renaissance and a heroic rebellion to it (along with the landscape art of that time). Rather, I suggest that impressionism can be viewed as a new movement of Renaissance as far as it being a celebration of man not as subject but as artist. That it is the artists sensation’s which is of highest value. Of course, this makes it difficult to judge an impressionist art work since how can one judge how accurately a painting captured the artists sensation, hence the temptation to perceive impressionism as many things, such as it being simply a heroic act of rebellion, and not a mode of art.