Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
A very interesting question that really arises for everyone who begins to learn this fact, and then talk about it.
I'm not an expert on this topic at all, maybe I can be challenged.
But I can't agree that it's “not a post”. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, art developed so rapidly that you can actually see an impressionist painting 10 years after Van Gogh died. But the question should be different-what came first? Not that it ended earlier. After all, artists rarely radically change their style, so as long as Monet lives, so much he will paint impressionistic canvases, although Kandinsky has long come to abstraction.
And there was earlier impressionism, from which the post-Impressionists are already emerging. Van Gogh, Cezanne, Toulouse-Lautrec and Gauguin all fell under the influence of Impressionism, otherwise you can't paint, you can't get Impressionism out of your head.
So in their art, they are the real “post”.
Of course, one may get the impression that the art of these artists develops logically within their own creativity.
For example, Paul Cezanne's “Man with a Pipe” (1890) seems to be a more logical continuation of his earlier “Tannhauser Overture “(1868), rather than an impressionistic line. But only at first glance, Cezanne gets acquainted with Camille Pissarro, under the influence of which his palette is highlighted and an impressionistic brushstroke appears, which is noticeable not only in the “Man”, but also in landscapes (for example, in the series of Mountains of St. John the Baptist). Victoria). I would rather say that Cezanne had to go through Impressionism in order to abandon transience in favor of eternity (which is the essence of his creative theory), we cannot consider the late Cezanne as someone who went exclusively out of the realistic line.
I would rather ask myself whether post-impressionists can generally be combined into one, albeit conditional, direction simply due to the fact that they are “post”. Although here I personally have no desire to rethink the term, because it well reflects the revolution that the Impressionists made, that unique artists scattered across Europe, who went their own ways, giving rise not to schools, but to almost all the main trends of the twentieth century.
Paul Cezanne “Overture to the Tannhauser”, ca. 1868
Paul Cezanne “A Man with a Pipe”, 1890.
Paul Cezanne “Mont Saint-Victoire and the Black Castle”, 1904-1906.
Camille Pissarro “A Peasant woman with a cart”, 1874
I am absolutely sure that you are not asking for an educational program, being well-versed in the topic. Rather, you are interested in an opinion, not an official theory from a textbook. Therefore, I will allow you to share my individual point of view, which is that the term is used correctly and it is not necessary to revise it.
Let me explain. He is a “post” not because he was really after, but because these artists: Cézanne, Toulouse-Lautrec, Gauguin and Van Gogh-they have gone further than the Impressionists from classical painting, its problematics and realism in the direction of displaying subjective impressions and sensations. And even if these artists do not resemble each other, they showed the way to the Expressionists, symbolists and similar “isms” who finally put an end to mimesis. You can, of course, invent a different name for them: “pre-subjectivists”, “post-mimesists”, but this is so discordant, conditional, controversial that these terms can also be subjected to objective criticism. And the current name is legitimate and understandable: post-impressionism is what happened in art after the impression was displayed. Yes, and used to.
it seems that it is necessary not to invent new terminology, but to say that many terms originated in a certain context and are now used rather by tradition. that these are not boxes that you can logically lay out all the art, but borders that help you navigate.
artist and critic Roger Fry, who coined the term “post-impressionism” when organizing an exhibition in London, immediately said that he did it for convenience: “it was necessary to give these artists a name, and I chose, as the most general and non-binding name, “post-impressionism”.”
art criticism terminology is rarely accurate at all: impressionists do not convey the impression, Art Nouveau is not modern for a long time, classicism and neoclassicism are indirectly related to the Greek classics, the Renaissance very specifically revived antiquity, and the Middle Ages are not average…
I think there is no need to revise the term yet. It is enough to be aware of its conventionality and the fact that it is used as a folder “Other”, in which artists are often placed very original, with easily identifiable handwriting, having little in common with other contemporary authors. And then, now there is a more acute and urgent issue in the field of terminology: we need to do something with the term “primitive” and its derivatives.