I’ve demonstrated - by use of just a single example here (!) – that one primary and initial objective of the Impressionist school of painters was to break away from the traditionalists just in terms of subject matter (never minding the style in which they painted those subjects). Provocative group portraiture, urban street scenes, portraits of less-privileged and working class people – all of these became mainstays of the French Impressionist school. To the point that the traditional, national institutions which supported the arts in Paris turned away many pieces of their work, so forcing the artists to mount their own exhibitions outside of what was considered to be the mainstream opportunity for recognition and reward.

Even compositionally, matters were progressive for these artists before their painting style had developed truly impressionistic features. In the single example already used, there is a still life assembly included (with a certain deliberation) in the foreground. Below there’s another early work by Manet: ‘Le Balcon’ (1868-1869), one which was accepted for the official Paris Salon of 1869. Nevertheless, it’s clear that there is a lot of experimentation going on here. From a compositional standpoint, the work as a whole is disconcerting, with each of the three principal figures gazing off in totally different directions. Also, they are painted in different ways. And then there’s a fourth figure in the background. It’s as if nobody in the group knows one another or is meant to know the others …. Again there are “added” still life components in the foreground – in fact, only the flowers at the far left (plus the lady’s dresses) are really painted in what would become to be considered as the standard impressionistic (?) – certainly less-defined – manner.

It’s always been an intrigue to me as to why the French Impressionists worked so hard on still life subjects. The best of the work accomplished in just this narrow specialization is truly stunning. But, was this influenced in any way by progress made within the photographic arts during the same time period? I’ll be returning to this topic later, particularly with reference to the work of Gustave Courbet.

Somewhere (but exactly where ….?) I once read that the availability of photographic studio portraiture in France by the mid-1800s was one catalyst for the advancement of Impressionism in painting. It seems to me now that the argument was that painters could no longer gain a steady stream of commissions for portrait work, which required too much time (and hence money) in comparison with photography. And so they dived off into other artistic waters. Well, that seemed less than fully credible at the outset, and, the more I’ve learned about the Impressionist school, the more implausible it has become over time. (Anyway, what’s perhaps more worthy of some better understanding are the influences that photography and painting had one upon the other (within France, in that same timeframe, wherein both had a preeminent standing).)

As far as painting by itself is concerned, there’s no doubting that the Impressionists very deliberately set themselves apart from the conventional establishment. However, it is often argued that one of the key catalysts in this was the invention not of the daguerreotype but of flexible metal tubing. This permitted paint to be stored for prolonged periods, and to be transported, and to be used outdoors – a key step in allowing plein air sessions (and painting away from the confines of the studio). So, as an example of the innovation which this brought about, Claude Monet painted almost all of the 23 foot wide canvas which became ‘Le Déjeuner sur l’Herbe’ (1865-1866) outdoors, from nature, only being able to complete his work at the top of the piece by lowering the bottom into a man-made ditch. Actually, it seems as though Monet’s primary intention was to (literally) dwarf a work with the same title completed in a studio just two years before by Édouard Manet (see below). The earlier piece had, however, set a new standard in France by virtue of its supposedly non-virtuous subject – the nude female, sitting in the center foreground of the work, gazing directly at the painter/viewer, while in the presence of two bourgeois, clothed gentlemen, has always been assumed to be a prostitute.

More follows here (but later).

… there was a new realization. While struggling to place digital imaging within some context set by the classical and pictorial fine arts, and while forgetting chunks of what had seemingly been appreciated no more than six months earlier, there could be an advantage to writing things down! So, this is it – an attempt to build an online repository for thoughts and observations, maybe just my own, or maybe (even) later including some shared by others. The thoughts and observations themselves follow the byline given in the header above “photography as, and into, art”.  And the byway to be followed itself thus does not include the word digital. There is, in this day and age, simply no need to add that. Absolutely everything to be seen and read about here does have digital processing at its core.

However, there already arrives the very first paradox. Whilst digital engines running complex software routines have become invaluable generators in creating both two- and three-dimensional artwork, the Internet – as a sort semaphore driven by the same engine – does not do justice to the artwork itself. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate art via the tools of the web. Even true size and scale are hard to grasp, let alone the nuances of hue, reflectance, texture, etc.

But recall: these are notes on a journey. And though details of the thoughts and observations to be argued and presented are important, they don’t always need to be illustrated by a full work or image. Hopefully what will follow in the next posting is a sort of deconstruction of a current project of my own (though only if I get to master what appear to be some of the more complex components of the WordPress blogging arsenal) … please stay tuned.