Impressionism or pointillism?

Hi Rianne,

I'm very curious where you've heard that Vincent's work is pointillistic, because it most certainly is not. The assumption that the use of (small) stripes makes it pointillism, is wrong. 

The main feature of Pointillism is that the paintings only use dots in primary colors; the secondary colors are made up by the combination of nearby dots. As can be seen in the paintings of Van Gogh, he didn't use dots, and the stripes he did use are made of primary and secondary colors, indicating he mixed the paint on his palette. Look for some paintings by Seurat to get a good idea of this (somewhat uncommon) technique.

Furthermore, the use of small strokes is not uncommon in impressionist paintings. For example, if you look at the later paintings by Monet, you can see many resemblances in technique. 

Oh, not trying to make you depressed, but the assumption that using your feelings while painting equals impressionism is also... wrongish. Impressionism is also characterized by the use of precisely the brushstrokes you described above, the kinds of composition and the intricate use of light. And probably some other aspects, but I'm not an art critic :)

Bye,

Joanne 

Hi Rianne,

I'm very curious where you've heard that Vincent's work is pointillistic, because it most certainly is not. The assumption that the use of (small) stripes makes it pointillism, is wrong. 

The main feature of Pointillism is that the paintings only use dots in primary colors; the secondary colors are made up by the combination of nearby dots. As can be seen in the paintings of Van Gogh, he didn't use dots, and the stripes he did use are made of primary and secondary colors, indicating he mixed the paint on his palette. Look for some paintings by Seurat to get a good idea of this (somewhat uncommon) technique.

Furthermore, the use of small strokes is not uncommon in impressionist paintings. For example, if you look at the later paintings by Monet, you can see many resemblances in technique. 

Oh, not trying to make you depressed, but the assumption that using your feelings while painting equals impressionism is also... wrongish. Impressionism is also characterized by the use of precisely the brushstrokes you described above, the kinds of composition and the intricate use of light. And probably some other aspects, but I'm not an art critic :)

Bye,

Joanne 

Hi Rianne & Joanne!

Interesting discussion you have here! Joanne, I find your post facinating. You definitly made a point here.

I'm a bit confused though. I also thought Van Gogh was an artist of the impressionism? I see what you mean with the different technique Joanne but I also discover a sense of emotions in his paintings. You can tell by the colors he used and the objects he choose to paint. That's why I think Van Gogh was an artist of the Impressinism art movement.

Hmmm, still not sure what to think..  Jenny

Hi Jenny,

Thanks for your reply. Of course you're right: Van Gogh is an impressionist painter, and its unlikely he had no emotions while making his paintings :)  

However, a "sense of emotions" does not make one an impressionist. For example, many of Picasso's paintings are raw emotions (to me at least :), but it's far fetched calling him an impressionist!

As far as feelings are concerned, impressionism is only about subjectivity.  

You're right about how the choice of subjects and the color-techniques make him an impressionist though.  

Hi everyone!

I was taught that the main purpose of impressionism was to capture the volatile moment, the transient effect of a specific place, person or time. Impressionist artists worked quickly and directly in the open air in front of the subject, in the hope that their works were distinguished by a new freshness and immediacy.
If you think about it with this in mind, Vincent surely fits in there with the impressionists.

But

Van Gogh started to paint in 1882 and it wasn't until 1886 when he first saw an impressionist painting (when he moved to Paris to live with his brother Theo). By that time the impressionist movement was already fading out. While painters like Gauguin and Seurat tried to slow down the painting process, Van Gogh started to paint faster and faster.

So, is Van Gogh really an impressionist painter? What do you think?

You have a point there Renske. But I'm confused now. I have a book about Impressionists at home where they say that Vincent was one of the best Impressionists. On the other hand, when I look closly to all the paintings of other impressionists like Monet I see only a few simiilaritys, like the bright colors..

Is there anybody who knows more about the Impressionism and Vincent van Gogh? Or is It impossible to devide Vincent to a specific art movement??? 

- Rianne 

  In a letter of Sept 18, 1888 Vincent answers both questions...  "What is Seurat doing? I should not dare to show
him the studies already sent, but the ones of the sunflowers, and the cabarets,
and the gardens, I would like him to see those. I often think of his method,
though I do not follow it at all; but he is an original colourist, and Signac
too, though to a different degree, their stippling is a new discovery, and at
all events I like them very much."  and  "That is why I myself remain among the impressionists, because it professes
nothing, and binds you to nothing, and as one of the comrades I need not declare
my formula."

  As to the definiton of what an Impressionist is...  it is a difficult concept.  One based on the emergence of new technology and new ways of looking at things as much as anything.  Keep in mind the word "Impressionism" came from an art critic who hated one of Monet's paintings, "Impression of a sunrise" and used it disparigingly.  Monet was one of the original Impressionists, but so were Degas and Cezanne, among others, whose work cannot be limited to the definition of capturing a certain kind of light. 

  thanks to the website at http://www.webexhibits.org/vangogh for making it so easy to search through Vincent's letters!

   for more info...  http://vangoghinparis.com

 best regards,

john 

Hi John!

Thanks for sharing your opinion with us :-)
The quote of Vincent you've added is very interesting, It seems that Vincent considered himself as one of the impressionists!

I agree with you that the concept of Impressionists is difficult.. It can be very confusing.

Thanks for sharing the links too, we already discovered the website of Webexhibts, It is indeed a great website to search easily through Vincent's letters! The website about Vincent in Paris is interesting, did you create that website John?

- Rianne

I think many would agree that Van Gogh was an Impressionist at the Start of his Career but bridged the Sacred Gap between Impressionism and EXpressionism during his life and work...  The clear Parallel is how Beethoven bridged the Gap between Classical and Romantic Music?!   There is no Doubt that V-G's Early Work Is Impressionist but by the end of his life, the true movement of Expressionism has begun in earnest?!  Blob....

Hi Seth!
Funny that you compare the work of Vincent van Gogh with the music of Beethoven. Nice bridge ;-)
I totally agree with you that Vincent's early work was Impressionism but then... His latest work.. I'm not sure about the art movement in his latest work. The thing I do know is that his lates work was absolutly fabulous! Vincent did became better each day! And yes maybe Vincent started the true movement of Expressionism....

Btw, what does Blob mean?? :-)

- Rianne

You are partly right...  For all that proper study shows Expressionism, I am Also convinced that some of V-G's work is almost in a genre of its own Entirely!!  Some of his paintings seem to "transcend" all analysis of Genre in any approach?!

Blob..  Is sitting around not being bothered to crawl around the floor like most babies...  Let Them get on with It!  (talking, like 1972 here though!!)

 Tim...

Hi Tim!

I think it's a great statement to say that Vincent's work is a genre of Its only! Yes! Great thought, his work is so amazing en special that I think Vincent deserves his own genre!

Love your explanation of Blob :-)

- Rianne 

Yes, the website is in support of a story I'm writing about Vincent in Paris. I want to present the kind, gentle man with a good sense of humor, as revealed in his letters and how instrumental he was in the development of the artists of the Petit Boulevard.
Back to Impressionism. Most of the definitions I see of Impressionism are woefully inadequate. In my way of thinking, the concept has been re-discovered every few years and given another name, like dadaism or pop art... Vincent and his mates had the right idea, namely, that Impressionism professes and binds you to nothing.
john

15th June 2008

 RE: "Impressionism is "Woefully Inadequate""

 Dear John,

 I think you are being a little "harsh" on Impressionism...  Have you properly view the works of, say, P.A. Renoir for example?

Or Georges Seurat?  Or Sisley?  Or Manet?

Personally, Impressionist paintings can invoke the soul of the Eye of the Viewer almost immediately and then for a good 5 minutes after that...

If you had viewed "Monet in the 90s - The Series Paintings" at the Royal Academy of Arts in 1991.. you would be less terse?

 Of course, All Art is Subjective and not just Objective, but I hope you might view some more Impressionism and rethink?

Personally, I cannot fail to often be "deeply moved" by an Impressionist Work..  They Can be the Main Event, Man!

Hope you might gaze at some and rethink

Regards,

 SBGB - Blob

More Later!

02nd July 2008

 RE:  Impressionism is a Load of #####, Guys!

Dear Forum,

Perhaps Just a Few of "Them" might just "Pop Along" to the East Wing of The National Gallery and Just quickly

Make "Absolutely Sure"?!

Regards,

SBGB

The Age of the Deisgner Pram that We're In!

Laters...

thanks Rianne for putting this topic up, i never knew there was a vast difference between impressionism and pointillism. But i love van Gogh's works and yet love the style of pointillism. I guess they are both fine with me. I also agree about art being such a subjective thing, it's so hard to describe one's feeling on paper or canvas. And it also depends on how the viewer is feeling and experiencing at the time when he or she is looking the artwork. I like the idea about the bridge between two eras...nice one!

Hi Pleng!

Thanks for your message. It's great to hear your opinion about this subject. Still, a very interesting subject because of all the theories; some say Vincent was an Impressionist while others disagree with this statement. You're right that it also depends on the feeling and experience the viewer is looking at the artwork. Though, I see a difference between Pointillism and Vincent's style of painting, I guess the artists of the Pointillism were inspired by Vincent? Must be..

I also think that Joanna has some interesting things to say about the technique of Vincent and painting with his emotions.. Hmmm, difficult to make a statement here. But I also like the bridge between the two areas :-)

- Rianne

20th August 2008

RE:  Genre of Painting....

 Dear Forum,

So we're Not going with Too much EXpressionism and the Birth of its Legacy here, then?!

Could "also" be a Relevant Line of "Exploration"?!

Mind you, Impressionism is GREAT and forms the Soul of Vincent's Platform?!

Doubt we're Flooded with Too Much Pointillism, tho'...

Regards,

SBGB

All Best Wishes...