In the mid-197s, Impressionism established itself in Paris. When it comes to the art of the century in which the author and the reader live, they will certainly suffer from the lack of a detached attitude, especially when they are in the transitional period of breaking the old and establishing the new, and it will become more difficult to look at the problem without our time. Art historians, out of professional instinct, will inevitably accumulate a set of loyalty to the past, which will be revealed once challenged by the present.
whenever this kind of challenge appears, their attitude towards what is "modern" becomes a little emotional and slightly hostile. On the other hand, the daily life of art critics brings them closer to the present. When faced with this hostility, they often show the same emotionality and unnecessary provocation.
this situation is inevitable. We don't need to feel sorry for this, because art history research and art criticism (as long as the object of art criticism is the past, there is little difference between them) are worthless unless they are based on a passion. Therefore, readers should accept this chapter with some skepticism.
although I may try to show the same detached attitude as the previous chapters, I also realize that this attempt cannot be completely successful. History cannot be recorded calmly when it happens, and value cannot be measured while it is still flowing. However, it is certain that a revolution was brewing in the last decades of the 19th century.
At the end of the first decade of the 2th century, it was manifested in an extreme form, or some extreme forms, because although revolutionaries could naturally agree on what they wanted to destroy in the old system, when the old system was replaced by the new system, they would inevitably disagree on what form the new system would take.
In the mid-197s, Impressionism established itself in Paris. They defeated everyone in this battle except the most conservative critics. Their wonderful attempt to capture the moment, though surprising at first, was later recognized and respected.
at first glance, George? Seurat (1859-1891), Paul? Cezanne (1839-196) and Vincent? Where? Gao (1835-189) seems to have no similarities, however, once faced with "what is the painter's main goal?" When it comes to such a fundamental question, all three obviously think that Impressionism has nothing to do with this goal.
capturing the moment seems to be irrelevant to these three people. If art is to keep its serious purpose, it needs something more fundamental. They all think that impressionist painting has become too dependent on the naked eye. It is not enough to just observe those fleeting things and then record them with paint.
In Seurat's theory and painting, the French logic was fully reflected after Pu Sang. There is a theory that even if a painting contains recognizable themes, it is essentially a different arrangement and combination of colors and shapes in the plane of canvas. Many artists in the 2th century used different languages to repeat this sentence.
as early as 189, Morris? Dennis once said, "Remember, a painting is essentially a plane covered by colors combined in a certain order before showing a war horse, a naked woman or an anecdote." For Seurat, it is very important to establish a "certain order". Seurat did not push this theory to its logical conclusion, nor did he create abstract art by completely abandoning the theme.
However, in an era where experts gather, Seurat's pure graphic structure is bound to take a step towards abstract art.. Around 191, Kandinsky took this step. The graphic structure in Seurat's paintings was also discovered by Cezanne from nature. "Studying nature" is his battle slogan.
In his view, the in-depth analysis of natural structure is completely different from the close observation of nature initiated by constable and practiced by impressionist painters. The unusual shape density in Cezanne's paintings, the tightly woven composition in landscape paintings, and the effect of building structures by adjusting colors? All these make him more powerful, influential and revolutionary than Seurat.
Compared with Cezanne's portraits, still life paintings or landscape paintings, any impressionist painter's works have become "invertebrates", and any Seurat's paintings are deliberate and artificial. In his works, the moment has been forgotten, along with the feeling of a certain moment of the day, a certain weather, or even a certain season of the year.
who will remember the weather, the movement of clouds or the flash on leaves in Cezanne's landscape paintings? He set himself an arduous task, that is, to extract the three-dimensional geometry hidden behind his mask from nature without ignoring the mask. Raphael did the same thing in his time, but he was backed by a whole century of tradition, and Cezanne had to establish a new tradition by himself? Or, as we now think, to rebuild a lost tradition.
where? Gao's performance is also revolutionary. In contrast, although it seems simple, it is more touching. This kind of revolution includes expressing oneself with passionate and manic emotions, and also including finding the visual equivalent of this emotion on canvas. The unrestrained and masculine rhythm in his brushwork and his purely emotional color make him a popular artist in the 2th century. Once you understand the moderate violence in his painting, almost everyone will praise him as a genius.
Based on the foundation laid by these three artists, the main structure of "modern" art has been established and is still being built. Art is a graphic building, art is a structural analysis, and art is an expression of mood? These ideas are by no means new, but they are combined in different proportions at the expense of other aspects of art as never before.
Almost all real contemporary paintings and sculptures can be traced back to one or the other of the three, or a compromise of the three. In addition, it is worth noting that in today's art, artists do not hesitate to take them to the extreme. In the second half of the first decade of the 2th century, in the paintings of Picasso, Braque and Kandinsky, people realized for the first time how far painting had to go along the route drawn by Seurat and Cezanne.
If Seurat pointed out the way for abstract art, Cezanne inevitably led to the emergence of cubism. From where? High expressionism found that the cultural soil of Paris lacked sympathy for its all-round development. As a spontaneous art form, expressionism has found more enthusiastic advocates in Norway and Central Europe. Monk (1863-1944) developed expressionism with a desperate impulse; The latter has a tendency to overemphasize the hysteria of expressionism.
In Paris, there was a brief experiment of "Fauvism" with expressionism tendency, and this school was completely liberated in dealing with pigments. It is necessary to mention another extreme "modernist" movement here? Surrealism. It tries to isolate the illogical and unconscious dream world and present the symbolic meaning in the most realistic way.
However, it has nothing new except trying to push the illogical things to the limit in a logical way. Symbolism at the subconscious level often provides the most powerful effect for art. It can be said that poetry and music can't exist at all if they can't play freely on these levels.
However, as an independent style, surrealism in painting is absurd. Consciously and calmly draw the unconscious range? Literally, it is contradictory. In the short heyday of surrealism, its success lies in making everyone aware of a large number of experiences and themes that have never been fully utilized before. Just as abstract art increases our sensitivity to pure form, surrealism increases the potential of painting themes.
therefore, abstract art, cubism and fauvism can be regarded as the three main sources of "modern" art, despite their pioneers? Seurat, Cezanne and Van? Gao, if you realize that the revolution you initiated is so thorough, I am afraid you will be more or less surprised.
In the period of artistic experiment between the two world wars, it is obvious that the concept of painting initiated by the Renaissance has completely collapsed, and the rationality of a work of art can no longer be simply asked, "What aspect of visual experience does it reveal?" To test. Now the related question is, to what extent and for what purpose have these three revolutionary movements absorbed and combined to produce a recognized "modern" work of art?
The word "modern", as a semi-technical word used to describe the style of a period, is somewhat puzzling and embarrassing. An adjective that has always meant "newest" now has its own set of new connotations, which future lexicographers have to consider.
We are used to thinking that the world we live in is developing faster than in the past, abandoning old styles and developing new ones faster than in the past. Today, however, the word "modern" seems to have a "rigid" meaning. For example, if Titian's early style was labeled as "modern" by the Venetians in 152, then the same word is definitely not suitable for the works of the same artist fifty years later.
the "development" experienced in that unusual fifty years has certainly not appeared in the past half century. What was "modern" in 196 was still "modern" in 1961. As pointed out in the previous chapter, after Giotto's sudden innovation, there followed a period of relative stagnation in artistic style? This situation seems to be repeating itself today.
maybe this is an inevitable law of evolution? The period of change is followed by a period of stagnation, or more accurately, a period of digestion. Since Picasso wrote The Girl of Avignon in 196 (undoubtedly the first landmark work of "Modernism"), the language of art, that is, the formal vocabulary dominated by artists, has been greatly expanded.
Today's painters and sculptors seem to have unlimited possibilities in artistic style. They have got rid of their strict obligations to the "representation" world, and at the same time they are confused and at a loss for their freedom. To be unconstrained (or to be constrained by some aesthetic theory, not by non-human or religious reasons) is to be deprived of a direct purpose. Because unconstrained human activities are unpredictable and obviously fickle, no matter how sincere and purposeful these activities seem.