Painters and Visual Artists

I've been occupied on other threads, but as I take note of coincidences, it was funny that in the same day as you'd written this, I rec'd a book I'd bought, on Impressionist winter scenes. In the front pages, there is actually used, another Friedrich painting, as a reference: 1824's Sea of Ice (depicting the wreck of the ship, 'Hope'):




It is interesting, btw, how many different colorings are given this same painting, at different sites: something I had meant to bring up in the thread, especially because of @Steve N 's work. The way a painting looks, in a photographic image, depends both on the lighting, for the work, and the film used (the colors on Fuji film, will differ from Kodak film, for instance). There is more involved today, with all the digital images, but I'm sure this must vary from one system, to the next. When I tried to sell colored copies of one of my pencil drawings, I saw how much I could play with the image, based on what part of the color spectrum (the three primaries: Red, Yellow, & Blue) I augmented or reduced, in the copy, besides how dark or light I made it. These two are the same painting as above:












And here are a couple of others that look the same, but are titled "The Polar Sea."











Anyway, it was reproduced (in black & white), in the first chapter of my book, on the page opposite of this 1853 salt print from a paper negative, by Edouard Loydreau, titled Effect de Niege:







Here is another early photographic image from the 1850s, of a snow scene, as a salt print from a paper negative, in Eugène Cuvelier's Road in the Forest in Snow:



Which is on the page opposite this 1867 painting, by Monet, Road to the Farm, Saint-Siméon, Honfleur, which also has different looks, in different images:
















Continued, next post

 

Post #2, snow scenes, continued

Let me start with a few more photos, not in my book, by the last photographer shown, Eugene Cuvelier (only one of which, has snow):















But, back to my book, it shows these two scenes of Hunters in the Snow, done 300 years apart. Gustave Courbet's





opposite Pieter Brueghel, the Elder's





Again, see how different is this version; I'm thinking that maybe it is another artist's copy, a "reproduction?"






But see what a difference, merely cropping makes:






As much as it may seem is post is wandering-- and there is some of that-- there was actually a purpose I'd been following, as these images now lead us to a more modern photographic image of trees, shown in my book. This harkens back to images from early in the thread, that @Talon was offering for @FatBack , I believe, because of his interest in photography. This is a gelatin silver print of trees, from 1950, called "Chicago," by Harry Callahan, which is part of the collection of NY's Museum of Modern Art. Even in this simple image, notice-- what has become an unplanned theme of these posts-- how different versions of the same image, can differ:










Which leaves me room for one more, Impressionist winter painting with trees, from my book: Paul Cezanne's Melting Snow, Fontainbleau. This piece, is also in MoMA.






Continued.

 

As you may know, combining three dimensional objects with two dimensional paintings was, along with collage, one of Rauschenberg's schticks, and I don't recall any other artist doing this back in 1960. It's a somewhat peculiar piece, but it's a credit to his creative genius that he would even conceive of combining a chair, of all things, with a painting and then successfully transform it into an artistic element that coheres with a painting to create a multidimensional composition. I couldn't help but ask "why a chair?", but it dawned on me that it operates like a staircase that takes the viewer from the ground up into and out of the painting, which continues the ascent to the top of the piece. The choice of contrasting colors is quite nice, too, and the placement of the earth tones at the base of the piece and the light blue at the top is akin to rising from the ground to the sky. The color rhythm from the chair to the painting is quote effective in drawing the chair into the painting (and vie versa) and the dash of contrasting red on the side is a bold touch. It's a peculiar little piece, but I think it works better than most of his installations, including his more famous Monogram.

It's interesting you brought up the artist you saw in NYC who created the illusion of a three-dimensional in a two-dimensional painting, which is something painters had been doing since Giotto & Co. in the Early Renaissance, and Rauschenberg's piece got me to thinking that he was breaking or reversing that tradition by bringing paintings out of their two-dimensional plane of existence and into our three-dimensional world. I've seen him do this in other installations and I get the impression he was conscious of this, and on a conceptual level it's quite brilliant and creative. Unless one had a familiarity with Art History and the evolution of painting this would be completely lost on them.

 

I like the top painting best, as well...

Personally, I'm not having those issues with this piece, which I just discovered is called Charlene and was created in 1954:

Combine: oil, charcoal, paper, fabric, newsprint, wood, plastic, mirror, and metal on four Homasote panels, mounted on wood with electric light
89 x 112 x 3 1/2 inches (226.1 x 284.5 x 8.9 cm)
Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam
https://www.rauschenbergfoundation.org/art/artwork/charlene

Here's an interesting photo of Rauschenberg in his studio while he was making Charlene - it's not often you see pictures of an unfinished piece during its creation:



And once again I'm reminded of the problems you mentioned earlier in this thread about not being able to look at these works in person and at full size. It's little wonder I missed that there is a reflective panel in the piece, and I'm sure I'm missing a lot more in the details that I can't see in the pictures I've posted...





A tungsten filter would have been nice....



Better....

 

I am, of course, aware of the use of three dimensional illusion in painting-- like, who isn't? I noted this painting of a T-shirt, because its realism exceeded anything I had ever seen-- and I had been, numerous times, to NY's Metropolitan Museum of Art, as well as to MoMA, the Guggenheim, the Brooklyn Museum, and to many galleries. IOW, it was noteworthy. Just as it would have been, had Rauschenberg been able to create an illusion of a chair next to a painting which, in truth, was part of the painting.

Nevertheless, I do get what you're saying, about this being innovative. I guess I am less impressed by that aspect, because that is the way I often see reality: as an artistic composition. Yet, I will accede to your description of the significance of this, by noting the analogy one could draw to certain works of Shakespeare, in which he analogizes the world to his theater, and attempts to break the wall between the play and the audience, viewing the play.

 

Of course you are, and I didn't state or suggest that you weren't. What I didn't assume was whether or not you were familiar with Rauschenberg and his multidimensional work.

And I understood and understand that, and the reason I'm here and in the other Visual Arts thread is to share our common interest in the Arts and our own unique personal observations, experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc., regardless of whether we agree or not. FWIW, this was one of the things I enjoyed the most during my years in art school - seeing Art not only through my own eyes but the eyes of others - and as a young artist I learned a lot from that, too.

Nice analogy.

As I mentioned earlier, I consider The Bard the greatest writer, and one of the greatest artists, who ever lived.

 

@Talon ,

A gimmicky effect that I like, is the character in a painting who always seems to face you, no matter from what angle you view the painting. I just read an explanation for this, which says that basically all paintings, because of their fixed perspective, should do this-- but I have noticed it much more prominently in some paintings than in others. I've even taken note of a certain, angular relationship, between for example, a figure's feet, which fosters the illusion of that figure following the viewer.

There is a very cool, old painting in the Yale Art Museum, IIRC, which is filled by a man sitting in a chair, the arms of which seem to point directly forward, when one stands in front of the painting. Yet, walk to the right of the painting, and the entire chair, with the man in it, turns to face that direction. Walk back, around to the other side, watching the chair's arms following you, until the entire image has swivelled toward other side of the painting.

I tried to look up some examples of these, but Google didn't seem to understand. All I got was a story on the Mona Lisa's eyes, reputedly following its viewers.

So, instead, here are some examples of the kind of illusion I'd previously mentioned, which looked more like someone had thrown a T-shirt over the rim of a canvas, than a painting of a T-shirt. This style supposedly goes all the way back to ancient Greece, and is known as trompe l'oeil. Since your sister thread includes architecture, here is some of the mural work of painter Richard Haas:




That is not a physical facade, framing his painting-- the entire thing is flat. Here is another:





And they can look concave, as well as convex:






That is a fake dome. Here are a couple more examples:

 

Now, back to the snow scenes, I'd been showing, because of my newly arrived book.
By the way, @yardmeat , my book hadn't been comparing the Friedrich painting, with the salt print photo, opposite it, though I myself saw a relation between the layers of ice in the painting, and the stone wall and other striations in the rugged landscape, of the other. Instead, Friedrich's piece is contrasted with a Monet work, titled The Magpie, which it says "celebrates a moment of transcendent beauty. Although unintended, it offers a polar opposite to Caspar David Friedrich's famous image of snow, ice, and the brute forces of nature, Sea of Ice (the Wreck of the 'Hope')... the allegorical content of which is Wagnerian in scope..."

But I was just using this link to Friedreich, to show some more Impressionist winter scenes, to tie up that subject, I'd opened on page 10, mostly with Monet paintings, and just a couple from Pissarro & Sisley.

But first I will show some more images of Gustave Courbet's, since he came up, and is very famous. He is another of the "Realist" painters, but a bit younger than the Barbizin painters, like T.H. Rousseau, and Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot--





Yet Courbet was older than the Impressionists, and I don't think he was ever part of the Lepage school of Realist painters. I'm not a huge fan, but here is a little bit of his work, in keeping (mostly) with the winter theme:




























And here is another painter named Gustave, I just stumbled across-- Gustave Fletcher Gilder:







And I'll finish this post, with a couple more of Alfred Sisley's:













That was post #3, in this series. I should wrap it up, with just one more.

 

@DEFinning

 

Great story behind those guys.

They did a nice job of capturing the unique look and feel of Florida, didn't they?

I'm sure a lot of people found/find the bright colors in their paintings garish and amateurish, but when I think of Florida I think of the brilliant quality of the light and the colorful skies, shimmering water and lush vegetation. It's not a land that I would ever be inclined to paint in muted earth tones.

 

Now I want to go and read more about their story.

Here's a photo I took just about 1 minute ago where I'm sitting. You would need a lot of different colors or green to accurately portray it.

 

I like the shot. The framing and composition are good. While the initial image is pleasantly bucolic, and dominated by the central group of trees, what makes it so interesting, is the way the landscape is divided by the true subject of the scene, the stream. The interplay of flora and bristled reflections, whet one's interest in knowing the parts of the stream, before and after the snippet, in our view-- glimmeringly tied, as well, to the bright sky, from which the leafy tree boughs, buffer us.

 

Another guy must think the same way. That is on the side of the road and this private little community of dirt roads and this fella built a nice wooden bench for everyone to use there.

A place I frequently stop for a break when riding my motorbike there.

When I take pictures I simply try to find the most interesting focal point and square it up.

 

And you were shooting from a shady spot under what appears to be a hazy or overcast sky, which flattened out the color.

If you correct for that and ramp up the light (at right) you get even more color in the vegetation, much like one of the Highwayman paintings you posted earlier....



All we need is a vivid sunrise/sunset and some contrasting blue in the trees and we're there....



If these were "folk" painters, they sure displayed an intuitive understanding of color theory in their work....

 

I'll have to play with my phone and see what kind of features it has in that area.

It's only $100 phone but then again these phones are getting high tech.

If I remember correctly they were actually some pretty decent colors in the sky.... Or maybe that was another afternoon close by that I tried to photograph. This phone definitely doesn't do justice to the colors in the sky

 

I've noticed with a lot of digital cameras and camera phones (including my own) that they can have trouble handling contrasting light conditions - full sun and shade - within a shot. Your camera actually did a pretty good job, but to get a good shot of the sky you probably would have had to step out of the shade and into the open light to get a proper exposure.

 

The same guy that made the wooden bench where I took that picture from lives across the street. Last year before the hurricane there was about a 3-ft gator he named Wally that he used to feed meat on the end of a stick that would come when called.

Which is of course illegal and dangerous because it conditions the gator not to fear humans and see them as a food source. But the guy is from Miami.... That area where I was sitting or standing when I took that photo..... Was under about a good 6 ft of water after the hurricane last September.

Also if I was still into that sort of thing.... You can see all of the cattle grazing and this is typically the best sort of mushroom hunting area you will find for purple ringers in Florida.

Nice wooded and shaded pasture land with plenty of tall grass and swamp nearby so you have a maximum of humidity and shade for the growth of fungus.

 

I have to wonder how many of those highwaymen paintings were painted from memory or mental image alone versus using a reference photograph or the artist sitting there with his easel painting what he sees before him?

 

So, how's the post-Ian recovery going down there? I know some places took a long time to pick up after Michael.

 

The artists are recognized for the vibrant and timeless nature of their images. The scenes the Highwaymen depict suggest serenity and undisturbed wilderness. Beaches, marshes, water birds, and poinciana and palm trees are among the most used imagery. The group did not paint landscapes directly, but rather created these scenes from memory and imagination in their backyards, sometimes surrounded by other Highwaymen...

https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/florida-highwaymen

 

Your revamp of the lighting, was very interesting. It does give the image a super-real quality-- which supports your argument, on behalf of the color choices of these artists.

However, I think you have not just "freshened up," or "improved" @FatBack 's image: you have changed it into another picture. With the distant field, lit up a glowing green, in your version, that is where the viewer's attention is drawn:







But the more subdued lighting, of the original, allows the audience to bring its attention to the stream, in the foreground, which is (as I'd said in my initial appraisal) the truly interesting subject of the image; the sauntering traveller, who has seen (and conversed with) everything that the woods and grasslands along its path, have to offer, and is brimming with those tales.







DEFinning said: ↑
I like the shot. The framing and composition are good. While the initial image is pleasantly bucolic, and dominated by the central group of trees, what makes it so interesting, is the way the landscape is divided by the true subject of the scene, the stream. The interplay of flora and bristled reflections, whet one's interest in knowing the parts of the stream, before and after the snippet, in our view-- glimmeringly tied, as well, to the bright sky, from which the leafy tree boughs, buffer us.
<End Quote>


Both images are interesting-- but they are depicting two distinctly different moods, different focuses, different sets of ideas. Even though the scenes are of identical spaces, the "perspective" of the two photographers/visual artists, are not at all alike; they transmit different experiences.

 

His improvement of the image really did bring the colors out. I noticed now that you can see some of the color of the sunset through the trees. Everything really does look more sharply defined and even looks like the outlines are more crisp.

That bench is a very nice place to sit, in addition to the cows it's not unusual to see deer and wild turkey moving through.

Although you don't see many feral hog for some reason. I think it's because they are fair game with no season or bag limit on all that private property around there.

If I happen to see one at the right moment I will put some lead through it and take it home for the freezer.

 

As I'd pointed out to Talon, "brighter" does not automatically equate to "better," or an improvement. In this case, I would say that he had transformed your image of a shady, slow moving stream, that (barring the hurricane rains, you'd spoken of) seems to always be in the same spot, with that of a field in the distance, which now has at least equal position, as the foreground. Your original image had maintained that separation, between the field in the background, and the darkened stream before us, which is generating the vibe of that moment, in that small locality. Talon's image merges the entire generalized area, into the overall "energy." To that changed perspective, the stream might be seen as hardly more than an obstacle in one's path, rather than as the metaphysical artery, feeding the spirit of the place which the viewer now shares, with the natural world. The brighter image, mostly loses the contemplative character, of shadow enshrined stream.

This is a good segue into another of the NATURALIST painters-- only a handful of which, I'd covered at all, and only giving a couple of those, more than a glancing look. This painting is by a Belgian member of the group (though a lot of whose works maintain more of an Impressionist appearance), Theodor Verstraete. What do you think of his Enterrment en Campine?






My, they got such a dark, cloudy day, for their funeral procession! Perhaps we could convince Steve N or Talon to improve it, by brightening it up?

Hopefully, my point was not overly subtle.


Now, for more artwork. Funny, this next one looks like it would go well with your picture-- though not with Talon's.







This next is the brightest painting I'd seen, and is most akin to the work of some of the other Naturalists, I'd earlier covered (like LaThangue).









Look at the dynamism of this next painting. Even in this small group, we see interesting variations in style & technique.






Again, not a bright image-- but it couldn't be, and have the same effect. The atmosphere, is of a storm's imminent arrival.

 

Here is another Belgian Naturalist, Evariste Carpentier. Her work seems much more to focus on individual characters, rather than on landscape or group scenes, in which features are more vague. This first painting, is photo-realistic.

































That last to one, seems somewhat Pointillist-- unless it has to do with the site's reproduction of the digital image. The one before that, even if it has touches of Impressionistic looseness, gives an overall effect of being photographic-- after all, not all areas of a photo (or of our vision) are equally in focus. Yet, at the same time, it speaks with its own personality.

The small picture, above that, is my favorite of the set. The image both has a drawing appeal, and is a place where I would feel comfortable, staying a while; is a scene in which I feel "at home."

 

A very good and educational video. Thanks for pulling that up.

I knew the basics of the story but not all of the specifics.