FILM 12: Impressionism/Collings

I personally liked last weeks video more because it kept me interested for longer. I liked having the previous knowledge of the other videos and then hearing Collings compare and contrast them. That was the major difference between the films. What was the same is that he went into detail about a lot of the paintings and he did mention the similarities and differences of Monet and Manet. I just thought that was last weeks was more interesting than this one and the way Collings presented it last week was better. One thing he said that I liked was, “Impressionism  is political, but in a deep way.” He explains that impressionists weren’t under the illusion of politics, but they were modifying the relationship between society and art. Impressionism had been despised for years and as the popularity grew, society began to accept it more. This has a political connection. I thought this was interesting because I don’t think of art as being political at all. However, Impressionism definitely had an impact on society.

“The Lunch in the Studio.” It is made with oil on canvas by Edouard Monet. Collings first points out the black jacket of the guy in the center of the painting. This caught my eye immediately because it is such a dominant color and location on the canvas. He also says that as a scene, nothing really makes sense. I thought this was interesting because usually there is a commonalty or a theme to the paintings. However, there is no relationship between the three people in this painting. The second thing I looked at was the woman and Collings points out that we have no idea who she is or what she represents. The third is the man in the corner and he has said to be Monet himself, but could not be. The guy in the center could also possibly be his illegitimate son. I thought this whole concept was interesting because there is so much unknown and it is kind of random. The viewer can make what they want of the painting instead of being told exactly what it means.   

Impressionism is distinctly different to those before them, such as realism, because of the way it is painted and the pictures themselves that are depicted. Realism is very straightforward and right to the point. Everything has an exact location and the colors are clearly defined in the places they need to be. With impressionism, the strokes of the paint are almost all over the place and really quick. Impressionists tend to make paintings with a lot of color, but what looks to be in a messy way. I think this is a step in the right direction because when one looks at an impressionist painting compared to a realistic one, the impressionist tends gets more discussion out of it. There could be so many meanings and so many different techniques to the painting. With realism, it is the way it is. I really like the Impressionism era of painting and think that the more you can interpret on your own from a painting, the better. Collings is definitely a fan of the impressionist paintings as well. He often commented on the beautiful scenery and colors in the impressionist paintings.

Do you prefer realism of impressionism? Why?