A Smarthistory video by Beth Harris and Steven Zucker. For more videos, visit www.smarthistory.org. More free lessons at: www.khanacademy.org/video?v=hH...
The 3-year span is a helpful reminder that Rome isn't drawn in a day. I see these as finished work, but I'm sure they're a long, sometimes painful production process. This is the first time I've seen you guys roast a piece as being "badly drawn" - I did appreciate the candor. It's interesting to see a renown artist experiment this way... I'm looking forward to hearing more about Van Gogh's psychology aspects - that would make him infinitely more interesting to me.
Une organisation spatial picturale génial et des nuances de couleurs génial , pas pour rien qu il était le plus aimé des grands comme Picasso , Braque , Klee . Gauguin et plusieurs autres ...
Three times, Dr Harris uses the word 'bankrupt' to describe traditional still life painting during the late 19th century. Alas, I am now confused about why beautiful hyper-real painting of vases, tables, and fruit suddenly appear bankrupt'. Meanwhile, a flawed portrayal of a table, complete with poor perspective and proportion, is revolutionary and marvelous. Examples of 'bankrupt' still lifes contemporary to this one would make a more convincing argument.
Rusty W I don’t want to speak for Dr. Harris, but I don’t know how often she responds to comments so I’ll give my thoughts. She talks about the tradition of still life, which is that hyper-reality you mention, and that tradition has existed since the early 1600s in Northern Europe. By the late 19th century, that genre of painting had experienced over a century of stagnation where no one was improving at painting these forms and no one was really trying to paint new things. The beauty of the objects was still there, but there were new types of beauty that hadn’t been explored. So Cezanne sees that lack of experimentation and growth and decides that he will paint in a non-traditional style so that there could be a new way to represent beauty. And the style is really more transitory and represents growth to the modernist period where the rules would be fully broken and artists could value emotion over form. Basically, still life as a style of painting was going nowhere and didn’t have room to go anywhere with the traditional style and Cezanne broke open that style to let new creativity flow forth in painting.
People have been trying to imitate real life with a paint brush for hundreds of years. The artwork might be splendid but the tradition certainly is getting boring and repetitive, or 'bankrupt' as Dr Harris aptly describes it. I thought this would be a rather obvious point that wouldn't require much explaining.
I understand what she is expressing as an art historian describing the chronology of ideas and developments in painting, but I don’t like her emphatic use of “bankrupt” multiple times. It doesn’t prioritize Cezanne’s innovations and it devalues the periods before Impressionism. I would also say this painting isn’t “poorly drawn” at all either, but again, I understand the art history story they are weaving to “make sense” of the painting.
The 3-year span is a helpful reminder that Rome isn't drawn in a day. I see these as finished work, but I'm sure they're a long, sometimes painful production process. This is the first time I've seen you guys roast a piece as being "badly drawn" - I did appreciate the candor. It's interesting to see a renown artist experiment this way... I'm looking forward to hearing more about Van Gogh's psychology aspects - that would make him infinitely more interesting to me.
Une organisation spatial picturale génial et des nuances de couleurs génial , pas pour rien qu il était le plus aimé des grands comme Picasso , Braque , Klee . Gauguin et plusieurs autres ...
I don't know why but there is something about this painting that draws me in, I can't put my finger on it.
He was just working loose.
Three times, Dr Harris uses the word 'bankrupt' to describe traditional still life painting during the late 19th century. Alas, I am now confused about why beautiful hyper-real painting of vases, tables, and fruit suddenly appear bankrupt'. Meanwhile, a flawed portrayal of a table, complete with poor perspective and proportion, is revolutionary and marvelous. Examples of 'bankrupt' still lifes contemporary to this one would make a more convincing argument.
Rusty W I don’t want to speak for Dr. Harris, but I don’t know how often she responds to comments so I’ll give my thoughts. She talks about the tradition of still life, which is that hyper-reality you mention, and that tradition has existed since the early 1600s in Northern Europe. By the late 19th century, that genre of painting had experienced over a century of stagnation where no one was improving at painting these forms and no one was really trying to paint new things. The beauty of the objects was still there, but there were new types of beauty that hadn’t been explored. So Cezanne sees that lack of experimentation and growth and decides that he will paint in a non-traditional style so that there could be a new way to represent beauty. And the style is really more transitory and represents growth to the modernist period where the rules would be fully broken and artists could value emotion over form.
Basically, still life as a style of painting was going nowhere and didn’t have room to go anywhere with the traditional style and Cezanne broke open that style to let new creativity flow forth in painting.
People have been trying to imitate real life with a paint brush for hundreds of years. The artwork might be splendid but the tradition certainly is getting boring and repetitive, or 'bankrupt' as Dr Harris aptly describes it. I thought this would be a rather obvious point that wouldn't require much explaining.
I understand what she is expressing as an art historian describing the chronology of ideas and developments in painting, but I don’t like her emphatic use of “bankrupt” multiple times. It doesn’t prioritize Cezanne’s innovations and it devalues the periods before Impressionism. I would also say this painting isn’t “poorly drawn” at all either, but again, I understand the art history story they are weaving to “make sense” of the painting.
@@Ben-go9rk Manet was already breaking the rules 40 years prior to this painting
@@Princeteradeth it speaks to her inarticulateness and inability to command anything greater than the word bank of a teenager.