This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Hey is there anything on this site to do with Sociological Impressionism, in reference to Simmel, I can see how the artistic fits in with his writing, as it uses ordinary subject matter and it is accessible, any help woulld be welcome, thank you Clare Banting
Notable New Zealand Artist deserves inclusion
I'm a scholar of impressionism and was surprised to see James Nairn not included here, could open the articles sphere to a world view, more content for beyond france section perhaps, thoughts?
I have the feeling some parts of this article are written implicitly as within the POV of the impressionists. For instance, academic painters would sternly disagree with a sentiment such as "Colour was somber and conservative, and traces of brush strokes were suppressed, concealing the artist's personality, emotions, and working techniques." One can arguably see a tremendous amount of personality, emotions and working technique in academic painters. This rather reads as history being written by the victor. I would feel it more appropriate if it were rewritten as that the impressionists _argued_ that it was thus. —184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, that is the standard description of academic art and that article says as much, as does the article on false surfaces, the latter seen as a prominent feature of academic art. If there is some sourced text that counters this standard view, we could perhaps add something. freshacconcitalk to me 19:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
"Colour was somber and conservative, and traces of brush strokes were suppressed, concealing the artist's personality, emotions, and working techniques." That sentence should be removed since its an unreferenced claim here and Academic art (an article with only one reference). The WP:BURDEN would be on the editor restoring it, not the other way around. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It only reads as "history being written by the victor" if the description is perceived as disparaging. But in fact, the academicians at mid-century generally regarded a smooth finish as a virtue. In this they followed the teaching of J.A.D. Ingres, who said: "The brushstroke, as accomplished as it may be, should not be visible: otherwise, it prevents the illusion, immobilizes everything. Instead of the object represented, it calls attention to the process: instead of the thought, it betrays the hand." Ewulp (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
My problem is not at all with the brush-stroke (I say the Bouguereau-finish, whether you like it or dislike it, is a fact), rather the implication that its effect is "concealing the artist's personality, emotions, and working techniques." That is a highly subjective statement and I acknowledge the impressionists probably _did_ think this. But it surely cannot be said to be the opinion that academic painters held then or being held now. —220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I rewrote the section with reference. All artists/styles may portray emotion in their art, there is no reference that one style is more "emotional". If a hallmark of academic art is that it is unemotional that should be referenced. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Another few sentences to clarify the situation confronting the academic artists and the independents has just been added. Coldcreation (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Ewulp, the sentence about the golden varnish does not refer to the Impressionists. They did not generally apply such, as did the academicians. And many of the synthetic colors that the Impressionsists used were in fact brighter. This needs to be written in the article as it's an important point. Coldcreation (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The paragraph in question describes the status quo ante before the Impressionists arrived on the scene. Here is the text as I left it: "The Académie preferred carefully finished images that looked realistic when examined closely. Paintings in this style were made up of precise brush strokes carefully blended to hide the artist's hand in the work. Colour was restrained and often toned down further by the application of a golden varnish." This seems unlikely to confuse the reader; the context makes it obvious that the line about golden varnish describes the kind of art that the Académie preferred. A few lines later the Impressionists are introduced: "Some younger artists painted in a lighter and brighter manner than painters of the preceding generation", and here we already have the point about the brighter color, which is attributed to their "manner" rather than their selection of art supplies. This seems to me to be the correct emphasis in these first paragraphs of the article. The importance of the new pigments to the Impressionists is given its due in the "Impressionist techniques" section: "The impressionists also made bold use of newly developed, brighter pigments such as cerulean blue". This could be elaborated, but it seems better to emphasize that the Impressionists found a new way to use the newer pigments—by laying them on relatively flat, unmixed, and opaque—than to risk suggesting to the reader that the academicians could have painted brighter pictures if only the synthetic pigments had existed earlier. Because in fact many of the synthetic pigments were marketed in France from the 1820s, and were used by academic artists—who typically mixed black with them to make smoothly gradated shadows which were subsequently glazed over with asphaltum for an old-master finish. Cerulean blue was available to artists starting in the 1860s, but can we say with certainty that Cabanel and Cot never touched the stuff? Our article should say more about what the Impressionists didn't use, but I think the "Beginnings" section is the wrong place to introduce a lot of technical details. Ewulp (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW my unencyclopedic take on the period is that prior to Impressionism the considered correct way to paint was Dark to Light...while the Impressionist innovation introduced the concept of painting Light to Dark; which consequently changes the perception of color; by placement on a white or light ground, allowing the color to read more easily as language...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right, that's important and is entirely missing here. An edit is in progress. Ewulp (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)