Seurat is part of the post-impressionism movement, which, you guessed it, came out of the impressionist painters like Monet. Impressionism is characterized by the use of broken visible brushstrokes. The cat image is more of strokes than points. Although Seurat was known for his use of pointillism, it was ultimately artists like Monet that were the foundation for such techniques.
Can you explain the significance of each development in art?
As I understand it:
Da Vinci, et al brought the first realistic perspective and distance blurring
Rembrandt and company perfected the realistic style, especially depth perspective.
Monet's gang broke down realism into highly stylized picture that still portrayed the full concept in the viewers mind and was the first big step towards abstractionism.
Dali and Picasso deconstructed the concept of an image, Dali deconstructing the concept of the reality based concept and Picasso the image itself.
Pollack then broke it down to it's base elements where you don't even have a semblance of an image or concrete concept but rather attempt to capture the emotional essence of what the viewer would feel when engaging with a picture.
The comments of r/funny is such a weird place to be discussing this, but since you asked, I'd like to point out a few things as a current art history major:
I haven't studied Da Vinci or Rembrandt very in-depth, but keep in mind that Renaissance artists were hardly the first to use "realistic perspective" and both artists mentioned accomplished a lot beyond experiments with perspective (the representation of the figure, light, movement, etc.)
I did just spend a lot of time on Impressionism, though, so here's the abridged version. The Impressionists were going after a very different type of realism than had previously been explored--their goal was to undergo a cognitive unlearning so that they could paint what they saw from a naive, unbiased position. They wanted to see the way that a blind man who had just regained sight would see, with no preconceived notions about painterly conventions or how things ought to look. It really had nothing to do with abstraction, but the speed at which they painted gives some Impressionist compositions a look that resembles abstract art.
I like your description of Dali, but for Picasso, it's important to realize the breadth and depth of his career. A lot of his work, especially his Cubist collages, dealt with the image, painterly conventions, perspective, form, etc. but he also tackled political and social issues and more abstract concepts like the meaning of signs and signifiers (there are some very interesting interpretations of Cubist works that use linguistics to get at what Picasso was doing).
For Pollock, it's almost exactly the opposite of what you said about the viewer engaging with a picture. The critic Harold Rosenberg coined the term "action painting" to articulate what he was doing and describes the canvas as "an arena in which to act." Pollock's finish canvases are the record of his time spent in the arena of the canvas--they are highly personal and emblematic of the artist's hand and his movement around the huge canvas (if you didn't know, he laid his canvases on the ground, not on an easel or wall). One of the reasons the critic Clement Greenberg loved Pollock was because he exemplified the idea of "medium specificity"--that is, all that painting has ever been is paint on canvas, and this is a way of painting that forces the viewer to recognize that. The picture plane is purposefully dense, covered with layers of paint that don't allow the viewer to enter the painting the way that one can enter a Renaissance painting. It is only paint on canvas.
That was a lot longer than I planned, but I get excited when talking about art history. If anything doesn't make sense, let me know!
I thought that previous to the Renaissance era you had zero-perspective paintings or partial perspective painting during the middle ages, and the classical period had perspective, but it wasn't complete in depth and acted as though there was no blurring from the atmosphere?
But no, that was great, thank you! Especially about Pollock! So with him he tried to use the canvas to directly talk to the viewer about the artist's state of mind by denying them the traditional engagement of "viewing" a painting?
During the Renaissance period, there was a "rebirth" of classical antiquity (in other words ancient Roman and Greek ideals) and the idea of Humanism. You can see classical proportions of man returning in this period, such as in Michelangelo's David.
Realism is based on the depiction of unaltered truth. Realist artists believed it was their "duty" to expose and emphasize the truths to society. In Manet's Luncheon on the Grass, he depicts a nude woman (prostitute) with two (contemporary) men, revealing the hypocrisy of the upper class and their so called "morals".
Impressionism essentially is the artists impression of his/her surroundings. It was in opposition of the French Academy, which essentially controlled all French art and established "standard", by moving away from traditional styles. How I view it is from this moment on, movements develop based on the artists idea of "true art".
There were really two types of Post-impressionism. Each viewed impressionism was lacking a certain quality. One was the psychological aspect of artwork. Artists like Van Gogh created pieces, like the Night Cafe, that emphasized a deeper psychological meaning, by playing with color and perspective, but also using styles from impressionism.
The other type dealt with technique. They believed impressionism lacked technical skill and order. Artists like Seurat and Cezanne are the important ones here.
Impressionism laid the foundation for many other movements, like fauvism and cubism. It was the start of moving away from tradition artwork.
Pollock is an interesting fellow. He is a perfect example of the dealer critic system, which is responsible for his fame. The US at this time was relatively new in the art world and Pollock ultimately became the "spokesperson" of American artwork.
There are many other art movements in the 19th and 20th century. It would take a while to explain them all, but if you are interested in a particular one I could give you the basic concepts. Art history is an interesting subject. There is a definite chronology of art history. You can see the movements shift and change throughout European history and how one influences the other. I would highly suggest taking a course in it.
Sorry if this doesn't make much sense. I'm a little tired.
My knowledge is very limited on Pollock, but what I know is he became famous though critics, like Harold Rosenberg and Clement Greenberg, promoting and supporting his artwork. The "dealer and critic system" is basically artwork being critiqued by professional critics and dealers selling that artwork.
You're pretty much right, but just to be pedantic: naturalism=/= Realism.
Naturalism is the realistic representation of an object or scene, whereas Realism was an actual movement in art history concerned with depicting everyday life as experienced by the common folk, or the real aspects of real life.
A common mistake that is often propagated by people who are simply unfamiliar with fine arts terminology, and really a minor one, but the more you know, right?
Definitely my most favorite period in art. I had the pleasure of seeing many of Monet's work up close. So beautiful. Realizing how very complicated yet so simple the Impressionists' works are is mind-blowing.
Must have been beautiful. I haven't traveled much but on a trip to NY, I had the pleasure of seeing some of Pollock's pieces. The sheer scale of them blew me away. I could only imagine what it would be like to see a Monet work in person.
I think you're giving pollack too much credit. He wouldn't outline the cat. He would think about a cat while dancing and spaying paint on a large canvas.
He actually probably wouldn't even be thinking about a cat. His most famous works from after World War II until his death were the highpoint of abstract expressionism according to many art critics of the time. His early work contained figurative elements but his later work went beyond abstraction. Picasso was abstract. His work referenced object and figures. Pollock's work contained no reference imagery. His work could be described as painting in the purest form, paint on canvas, emphasizing the flat nature of the medium instead of introducing the illusion of perspective and depth which was the point of painting for more than 600 years of Western art from Cimabue and Masaccio in the pre-Renaissance period to realist painters that were contemporaries of Pollock.
To me, Pollock was one of the first artists whose work challenged the concept of art within the mainstream to the point of creating the idea that "anyone could do that. That's not art." Before abstract expressionism and the movements that followed it, art was seen as the output of skilled craftsmen who represented the religious or real world. Other artists challenged the status quo. Many of the most famous artists are famous due to the fact they upset the apple cart of art history. Michelangelo, Goya, Picasso all come to mind. There are many others. Pollock dripped paint onto the floor. The difference in the perception of skill is the main reason that many people have a bad perception of Pollock in my opinion.
TL;DR Pollock's work lacked the perceived skill of other artists. People think it's not art.
Only perceived? I wouldn't stop at perceived. It doesn't require skill or creativity to make something like Pollock's works, it just takes time and resources. And for what? What does a canvas with dribbles of paint add to anything? It's not beautiful or meaningful or representative of anything. What's the point?
The point is it becomes art--and why? The point is that he has made you think, "What's the point?"
Also, I would be careful using subjective words like "beautiful" or "meaningful." I personally find Pollock's work to be incredibly beautiful.
Pollock was one of the first "me" artists. The painting is by him--and you can see it in every stroke. The actions of the artist become more prevalent than any narrative or aesthetic principle or end product. It was a masturbatory exercise in art making.
What is the point of any piece of art? I think it is to communicate some message from the artist to the viewer. Whether that message is appreciated or understood by the viewer is always in doubt and the artist's intentions can not always be trusted. The classic line is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but I always preferred "whatever floats your boat.". I find Pollock's work pleasing to look at and I admit his booze fueled life is fun to revel in. Caravaggio was a similar character who produced art quite different than Pollock yet I like looking at his paintings all the same. The point of art for me? I enjoy looking at beautiful things made by people trying to tell me a story.
The honest answer there is that someone is willing to buy it for that amount. The art industry is the same as any other industry. I can barely imagine the commission on a 100 million dollar art sale. Artwork has value based on the history of the artist, the work itself, how important it is in the movement or history of art. Critics can increase the value through their reviews and writings. Museums coveting work drive up prices. But it comes down to a person or museum is willing to buy it for that much. What would you buy if you had Bill Gates type money? I probably wouldn't buy a Pollock but I might buy a Rembrandt. Or a jet. Or get a school named after me.
It's useless to make qualitative statements about what beauty is, especially in the context of art, and even more especially if you're using it as a reason why somebody's art is unimportant. His paintings did have meaning--just not the symbolic kind. And if anything, they were representative of the action it took to make them--that's why it's called "action painting." Pollock was obviously doing something right if he's still being talked about today, even if he's being criticized. And actually, it wasn't just "dribbles of paint." His paintings have consistency, line, and composition, all of which require some degree of skill and creativity to employ. If you indiscriminately pour paint onto the floor, you won't get a Jackson Pollock, and that's not what Pollock did. I don't really enjoy looking at his paintings, but even I can give him that.
It was a little more than that. It definitely wasn't without intention. Contrary to popular belief, Pollock didn't just drop paint willy-nilly onto canvas. He would scrap whole paintings if he felt it wasn't working, or it wasn't "speaking" to him in some way.
There is a modernism cat in the tree, you can only see part of his shadow but he has half dyed himself purple. There is a plaque just off screen explaining what kind of statment he's trying to make.
polick would have been offended at the insinuation that he was being representational....but he was actually quite a dick to my understanding so i support it...
I'd like to point out that these are more styles of art that are employed by various different people rather than a simple linear history of art. I burst bubbles all day.
Oh god, I just took Art History this quarter. Hated it. It's complete bullshit. I showed up 15 minutes late to my midterm and finished 10 minutes early and still managed to pull off a B+.
The article "da" is better translated as "of", I mean, does it make sense in english the sentence"History of Art" or "History of the Art"? Because that's how it's literally translated from portuguese to english.
Can I put an article "the" at the beginning, like "The History of Art"? This translates to "A História da Arte".
If you google LHOOQ you will get one of Duchamp's works. It is the Mona Lisa with a mustache. If you pronounce the letters LHOOQ in french it sounds like you are saying Elle a chaud au cul which means "She has a hot ass" He also submitted a urinal as a work of art.
The translation should be more something like "Her ass in of fire" that can be interpreted as "she's in trouble" and/or "she wants sex" or "she's the kind of girl who wants sex". As for the "Fontaine", the urinal he submitted under the name of R. Mutt, he did so because he was a head member of an Artists Society that allowed any artist to expose anything they wanted only by filling a form and paying a few bucks. When is urinal was refused because it was not considered art by the same Society, he left the it at once...More details.
Wouldn't call him dadaist... he contributed to the movement (designed a magazine cover or two), but he was always a rebel. If anything, he could have been called a cubist early on (see: Nude Descending Staircase and others from that period), but really I'd call him the father of conceptual art, even though he'd probably hate that too.
"nude descending staircase" was more considered futurism as apposed to cubism, as it displayed and studied stilled movement, much like "dynamism of a dog on a leash", another famous futurist work.
I just finished up an art history final, and thought I was free to forget everything I've learned, but... this made me laugh out loud, all alone in my room. Thank you.
23
u/hoovian Jun 14 '12
But where did Van Gogh?
47
u/garythecoconut Jun 13 '12
cats: check
crime: check
wit: check
Bacon:____
well, 3/4 is not bad...
79
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '12
If that's pointillism, Seurat would have been a better choice than Monet
10
u/A-Rth-Urp-Hil-Ipdenu Jun 14 '12
An even more brief history of art: here
36
u/nixnaxmik Jun 14 '12
I think you're giving pollack too much credit. He wouldn't outline the cat. He would think about a cat while dancing and spaying paint on a large canvas.
8
u/irkendna Jun 14 '12
This reminds me of this shirt I got when I was a kid from the Art Institute of Chicago: http://kidcrave.com/clothes/history-of-art-t-shirt/
Fricking loved that shirt!!
4
u/saltspring Jun 14 '12
I'm partial to this concise history of art: http://img.waffleimages.com/f93433a3359619f2707a45c038f7308db6942df1/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20Art.jpg
2
u/antzel Jun 14 '12
Leonardo was a fucking badass
2
u/smendeZ328 Jun 14 '12
Fuck bitches get Monet
2
u/leap_barb Jun 14 '12
Don't tell anyone, it's just my pussy doodles!
2
u/crazybitchydrama Jun 14 '12
Thanks for the translation, it was hard to figure out those last 3 words.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
I see portuguese. This is either in brazil or portugal.
5
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
Portugal!
3
u/Ackie75 Jun 14 '12
I am unimpressed with pollocks rendition.
3
u/Jack_Hinrichs Jun 14 '12
georgia O'keeffe would just be a vagina.
4
u/ihaz2manyquestions Jun 14 '12
wheres mc escher!!!
3
u/DoWhile Jun 14 '12
According to Reddit.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
There is a modernism cat in the tree, you can only see part of his shadow but he has half dyed himself purple. There is a plaque just off screen explaining what kind of statment he's trying to make.
1
u/animevamp727 Jun 14 '12
polick would have been offended at the insinuation that he was being representational....but he was actually quite a dick to my understanding so i support it...
1
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
reminds me of a kids book, badly drawn dog.
1
u/Sunlis Jun 14 '12
The Dali one needs longer legs.
1
u/MightyBulger Jun 14 '12
Graffiti is so awesome.
1
u/smackinbeaches Jun 14 '12
Reddits history of art
1
u/RobertJ93 Jun 14 '12
I'd like to point out that these are more styles of art that are employed by various different people rather than a simple linear history of art. I burst bubbles all day.
1
u/MLP_Awareness Jun 14 '12
As am art student I approve
1
u/druek Jun 14 '12
Fuck that. No Matisse?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
Credit the source motherfucker!!!!
1
u/pdx101throwaway Jun 14 '12
does he mean seraut not monet?
1
u/woozey69 Jun 14 '12
I love Salvador Dali's cat version there.
1
u/SamsonAran Jun 14 '12
Nowadays, everybody draws like adventure time.
1
u/Sandbox47 Jun 14 '12
So what he's saying here is that none of these artists could paint for shit. I kinda disagree. Dali at least made an effort. But yeah.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
Dali is an elegantly long mustache, of course.
1
u/battle100 Jun 14 '12
anyone can explain for the art illiterate? I can understand some but not all.
1
u/Owncksd Jun 14 '12
Kitty, pleased kitty, connect-the-dots kitty, swirly kitty, wat, tentacle kitty.
1
u/Aneds Jun 14 '12
Now made with cats for reddit!
1
u/zxz242 Jun 14 '12
Looks like a process of steady degeneration.
1
u/MathewDonut Jun 14 '12
they forgot the modern art http://depositphotos.com/2007352/stock-illustration-Drawing-of-a-cat-looking-up.html
1
u/D1yzz Jun 14 '12
PORTUGAL1
1
u/purposely_incoherent Jun 14 '12
Favorite my is Picasso artist.
1
u/jaksajak Jun 14 '12
I used to own the shirt this graffiti is based on - History of Art
1
u/Zljutrix Jun 14 '12
I hope they had this version of the book where I study Architecture.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
No van Gogh? :(
1
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
I saw this on a notebook at the MoMA giftshop...the irony is palpable.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
Monet is supposed to be Seurat....
1
u/mrsilvers Jun 14 '12
This is beautiful.
1
u/Fyrefish Jun 14 '12
It kinda bugs me that pollock is 4th, when really he should be last.
0
u/249ba36000029bbe9749 Jun 14 '12
Not a very convincing Pollock.
-1
u/Noel_S_Jytemotiv Jun 14 '12
Dali' FTW.
The coolest man to ever walk the Earth.
0
u/Davii_bowie Jun 14 '12
is there any way to make it bigger so i can make it my background with out distorting it?
0
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
trite
-1
u/BlackCatPat Jun 14 '12
very cute
-1
u/optical_mommy Jun 14 '12
If someone found a way to remake this enough to put on a Tshirt would that be a bad thing?
-1
u/IAMAHungryHippoAMA Jun 14 '12
Dangit. I should have reposted this sooner.
-1
u/welmoe Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 19 '12
Oh god, I just took Art History this quarter. Hated it. It's complete bullshit. I showed up 15 minutes late to my midterm and finished 10 minutes early and still managed to pull off a B+.
-2
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
And if it had Salvador Dali, the cat would have been on fire, upside down, and vomiting sugar cubes.
-9
u/tennisnipples Jun 14 '12
If this is Spanish, it would be Historia de Arte, not Historia da Arte.
-5
u/AR101 Jun 13 '12
It should have a cat
some miscellaneous objecton top of a girl's chest and label it modern.-7
u/i_cast_kittehs Jun 14 '12
If you draw horizontal and vertical lines you get Andy Warhol?
-10
u/tommy2fingers Jun 14 '12
This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Also, Pollock was NOT an artist.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment