Post by billypilgrim on Nov 11, 2010 11:22:49 GMT -5
There's an exhibit currently in Nashville that I saw in San Francisco that I highly recommend to anyone remotely interested in impressionist art. It's called "The Birth of Impressionism: Masterpieces from the Musee d'Orsay" and it's at the Frist Center Museum until January 2011. If you miss it there, your next chance to catch it is Madrid.
Many of these are not technically impressionist paintings. Instead, they're mid- to late-19th century paintings (mostly done in Paris) that show how impressionism developed. It includes famous and not-so-famous works by painters like Degas, Manet, Monet, Renoir, Whistler, and others. I'm no art aficionado by any means. But you don't have to be to appreciate the grandeur and artistry on display.
I'm actually really excited about this! They also have the Chihuly exhibit at the Frist until January as well. But I think the Impressionist exhibit has a separate admission price. Both would still be worth it. The Chihuly exhibit at Cheekwood was one of the most remarkable things Ive ever been to.
I'm consistently surprised at the quality of work the Frist is able to acquire and show. (I almost cried when I saw a piece of Roy Lichtenstein's work in person at the Frist a few years ago.)
Post by billypilgrim on Nov 11, 2010 11:58:45 GMT -5
Some art history major will probably disagree with everything I'm about to say. But if you can't stand the heat, get out of the Inforoo. So here goes:
It was a movement of painters that were rebelling against the conventions of the time that involved more somber (often religious) subjects, painted indoors, and a greater emphasis on lines than colors. The impressionists took painting outdoors and were more willing to paint everyday subjects and landscapes. They paid more attention to light and movement and didn't rely on the traditional artistic establishment to dictate which works were or were not worthy.
Post by Vector Viking on Nov 12, 2011 15:26:28 GMT -5
That's actually basically spot-on. Prior to impressionism, painting was generally two things: as close to photorealism as they could get; and funded by the church. Time spanning from Michelangelo/DaVinci to Rembrant/Vermeer-ish. Photography and an emergence of an upper-middle and middle class (who could afford to commission artists or purchase works) enabled artists to break old rules and still be able to afford supplies and eat. But yeah, most of the paintings that were in that Frist exhibit were post- and neo-impressionists. There isn't a whole hell of a lot of difference between the three, just minor things only art nerds would notice.