Throughout the majority of Caillebotte’s paintings, there is an impressionist influence and they have modernity. Being from a wealthy family allowed Caillebotte to be progressive and paint to his liking. He is labeled as an impressionist, but throughout his work, he did not follow all the conventions of the impressionist. In his life, Caillebotte suffered enormous loss that left him feeling isolated and alone. This theme is represented in his paintings. They show scenes of isolation and tension with quiet suffering from those within. From people walking in Paris streets assumeably just passing from point A to point B without any care for the surroundings to workers suffering work and maximum effort while feeling isolated. This isolation is however depicted in a time where the rebuilding of Paris is happening and the modernity of actions by the subjects. As exampled by the “Nude on a Couch”, 1882, the figure of a nude woman slung out over a couch appears to be crying or suffering in some way. The placement of the arm over her breast I believe was an attempt to not be completely obscene. An argument can be made that this was a voyeuristic look at someone, where I would contend, that the woman is nude because Caillebotte wanted to show complete exposure. As if the being exposed reflected the complete unhidden suffering of being alone, even in the nice apartment/home on fine furniture. I see the fine furniture as a symbol that this woman is successful and even she still is isolated and alone in her modern, upper class surroundings. In other paintings, Caillebotte shows certain genders performing tasks and other duties that were thought of as only for a woman or man. He was pushing the envelope in the sense of what was known and accepted. His paintings depict the regular man and do not glorify any of the subjects leaving the absence of idealization. Caillebotte uses perspective to further add drama and tension to his works, as well as making sure he pointed out the modern lifestyle and what was expected and encountered by the modern man. He was more focused on changing the ideas and hearts of those who viewed his paintings. So much so that he hosted several impressionist shows and until his death in 1894. He pushed for the acceptance from the academy of paintings by other artists in the impressionist movement.

I believe that Caillebotte's paintings were a critique on the life of modern man. I believe he depicted most his subjects in their current situation and the hard work that all had to make to be valued in the society. I think that he suffered greatly and was having family issues and with the money he had, I think that he may have been pulled greatly by the societal leaders. This however had advantages as having money gave him influence and that helped him push forth modernity and impressionism. Even if it was only after his death, the fact that he pushed for the acceptance of others and their station in life, shows me that he is the definition of what we consider modernity.

Kevin Anderson - Manet & Monet

The painting by Claude Monet named “The Rue Montorgueil” and “The Rue Mosnier with Flags” by Manet is two paintings of the French Festival in 1878.  Both these paintings are similar in that they are painted with impressionist motives.  Both are covered with rough brushstrokes and have the use of bright colors.  Both these paintings are works of avant-garde and both are not as simple as they seem.  The subjects of both of them are very political and the colors in each are used to tell the story.

  The “Rue Montorgueil” by Monet is very rough with brushstrokes and it is more difficult to make out what the subject matter is.  The painting is of a crowded street lined with tall buildings with many French colored flags being flown from the windows.  This is a picture of celebration, as if a party has lasted for weeks and the streets are still alive.  The colors used in this painting are bright and colorful and the balance of color and depth achieved from perspective are quite extraordinary.  At a glance you see a colorful mess and when you stop and look at it deeply, you see all the details start jumping out.    The “Rue Montorgueil” is less avant garde in my opinion, because this painting is a picture of French pride and celebration.  It doesn’t offer any disparaging commentary on the current day’s politics.  

In contrast however, is the “Rue Mosnier” by Manet.  The avant gardism is apparent with the subject matter.  It shows a lessened importance on the celebratory and it clearly magnifies the position of a one legged man, assumed to be a war veteran, making his way to work.  What kind of life is it to have to work after so much sacrifice has been given.   I’m sure this painting was made to be a negative commentary on celebrating  continued work and meager means.  The “Rue Mosnier” is much more subtle in color, with much of it being simple earth tones and far less bright colors.  The colors are still there, just they are off to the side and are not a focal point to the piece.  The colorful flags seem to just be a marker in time so the viewer can related when this picture was captured.  It is littered with subjects and focal points that show life as usual happening.  Nothing more.  This to me is an intended slight on the people in charge letting them know that even though the flags fly, the people at the bottom don’t get any treatment for their sacrifice. 

Both these paintings move me and spark emotions both for a positive future as with the “Rue Montorgueil” by Monet, and for the negative as if nothing will change in the “Rue Mosnier” by Manet.  As they are so alike in style and size, they are vastly different if you take your political look at them.  One is of the big party and the other is the behind the scenes look.  I suppose there is the option that Manet painting his as a look at normal life, where perhaps Monet was grandiose and sought out something glorious to depict in his painting.

Impressionist Post 3 Kevin Anderson

Of the impressionist paintings available to be chosen, the one painting that resonated with me most was Gustave Caillebotte’s “Paris Street, Rainy Day”.  This is a scene of a busy street being traveled on from many angles. Caillebotte’s use of lines and color are extraordinary.  He has masterfully used the impressionist method of painting blocks of light and color to acquire his personal impression of the scene in front of him.  There is some time spent in detail, so I would not classify this as strictly impressionistic, but also would have to include some realism was having influence on Caillebotte.  When I see this painting I get a charge of renew, a sense of “a new day coming”.  There is a sense that we are all moving in different directions headed to our sunlight spot in the world.  

                Our text does not go into great detail about the painting, but what I see are a wide variety of lateral lines that seem to tilt the picture to the side, as exampled by the cobblestone road aligning to the three walkers on the right and beyond.  I can see three vanishing points being used to bring a wide variety of depth to this scene.  One such line is located to the left of the left-centered building at street level, and another is to the right of the same building, again at street level just to the right of the lamppost.   The third point is somewhere off to the right a ways away from the canvas.  The cobblestone street is drawn from that vanishing point.  The strictly vertical lamppost brings the viewer back into balance and gives the viewer something to “hold on to” while the rest of the painting seems to be sliding off to the right.  There is a certain line orientation that is discombobulated between the lines on the street, the unseen lines and the line of sight that each subject is using.  This appears to be that this painting is moving in many directions all at once.   The use of these lines in itself pushes this painting towards realism.  Further can be taken into account if you have the subject matter in the discussion.

                When looking at the colors offered in this painting, they are bright at the right side of the painting and rather drab otherwise.  I believe this was done to bring a certain amount of balance from bright to drab, right to left.  There are only a few sections of bright color scattered throughout the rest of the painting.  There is a large amount of earth tone color in the brick and a much flatter sidewalk area where the walkers stroll on the right hand side.  There is a large amount of muted light throughout the left side of the painting and above in the sky.  There is also a great study of reflection on the street and walkways. The light and dark sections of each subject are well done.  With such a high concentration of the bright orange to the right, it lends one to wonder if the road to the right is much brighter and shinier than the current one being rained on.  As I analyze the shadows in this painting by Caillebotte, I notice that they are headed in different directions.  Especially when you take a close look at the umbrellas and walkers shadows.  I take this to imply that perhaps “light” shines in all directions….are you willing to see the light or be mired in the rain?

                The brushstrokes seem very broad and rough toward the foreground, and in the background they are less broad and more detailed.  More detail as noted by the almost perfect looking windows and iron work on the buildings.  There is also a certain array of shapes in the painting as well.  I see lots of linear lines as well as oval based subject matter throughout it.  For example, there is an oval look to the street and deviated ovals in the umbrellas throughout.  A “world of ovals and round existing amongst the lines of formality”.

  The sheer size of the painting tells me that the artist wanted you to stand in front of this painting and feel you could take 3 steps into it.  The capture of the lighting and muted sky really lend to the feeling of a new day with multiple ways of getting to where you want to go.  My resonance with this art piece comes from a memory from years ago, and that in itself has me wanting to run into this painting figuretively.

Kevin Anderson Post 2

The realism in Gustave Courbet’s paintings were offensive to the bourgeoisie due to the paintings glorifying the plight of the poorer man.  In respect to “The Stonebreakers”, Courbet epicted an old man with the lowest of clothing (torn vest) and clogs, working to break large rocks into smaller ones for a road with a relatively small hammer that looks like it might take all day to finish very little.  The book mentions that the man is knelt and in agony of some sort.  Not quite in my opinion.  I see the man’s knee on a bushel of grass and he has found a way to be as comfortable as possible while still having to maintain work in such a laborious manner.  It can be assumed that only poor peasants would do this work, and perhaps that is the case, but this one detail doesn’t launch out at me as a primary commentary on the plight of the poor. 

Along with the old man is a younger teen struggling to move a basket of broken rocks up to what I interpret as the road.  He appears to perhaps be the son of the old man, and looking at details, he has on more modern shoes, but the pants are torn and the shirt is ripped considerably.   This tells me that the man has given his young man better shoes to perhaps better his life in some way, but he is still expected to do the heavier of jobs with the toting of the broken rock up to the road.  Courbet’s comment that “in labor such as this, one’s life begins that way, and it ends the same” resonates as the characters in the painting have such a vast perceivable age gap.  Without him saying that, I would not have made that connection, most likely based on the hope and opportunity that the US offers us as young people.  I simply see a younger man helping his relative of some nature and his dress seems that of what is to come or could be.  Now I also see that there is grain growing in what looks perhaps as abundance.  I could see a connection between the grain and that the grain resides on the left side of the painting with the boy.  This might be that the young man has the opportunity to pick the rich vibrant grain and work the fields to provide for his family. 

            Now when I look at the actual size of the painting and that it is quite large at 5x8’+ , this is probably what upset the Bourgeoisie most.  As with what the book said, that large canvases were reserved for paintings of glory and the size is what makes it a political statement.  I believe if he had painted this small, than the reaction would not have been as adverse as it was.  To depict such common people in a glorious fashion did not sit well with the bourgeoisie.  I don’t necessarily agree that this size was done to purposely upset the bourgeoisie.  For this painting, I’m just not sure whether that was the only size he could or wanted to paint.  Perhaps this scale allowed him to acquire the detail he sought.  Being an experienced painter myself, sometimes you draw to your tools to see what is possible, not the other way around. 

            Considering that the reaction of the bourgeoisie was most certainly negative from this first work, I can see him purposely painting “A Burial at Orans” to really upset someone or the entire system as a whole.  Without the complete history of Gustave Courbet paintings, this is what I read through the lines.