The painter Courbet inspired impressionists. That seems a bit strange since Courbet was the inventor of realism in art. How could this be so?
Courbet painted from his experience, starting his career by painting characters and scenes of his peasant village. His “realism” did not result in digital photograph-like representations, but he did focus on aspects of a scene that other painters of his time were likely to refrain from capturing. For some reason, Courbet believed that painting commoners was realistic and that painting the elite was not. He knew the people and places where he lived, so he painted them in a way to capture their essence and to negate any idealism.
Painting to negate idealism from what one directly experiences ironically opens up the possibility of painting one’s impression of reality. Every place has objective properties, but not everyone sees the same objective properties. Some see color more than shape. Some see lighting more than depth.
As in most instances of understanding and representing the world, people of different times bounce between different perspectives. If I take you to New England, I might point out the pinkish granite in one place and the grayish granite in another and then explain the mineralogical differences between the two. Or I might point out the exfoliation of the rock as one form of weathering and narrow valleys as evidence of glacial erosion. In short, I might focus on the physical makeup and physical processes of the New England region. If you take me to New England, you might point out the majesty of big exposed rocks, deep valleys, and beautiful forests. Both you and I portray the area in a realistic manner. Your way, however, combines something of what you are with the place you explain. My way, by contrast, eliminates me, or strips my explanation and perspective down to a set of scientific facts.
I can appreciate your impressions, and you can appreciate my science. Both of us can bounce between impressionism and realism. Both of us demonstrate a duality with bouncing aspects.
Every place has an objective reality, and every person has an impression of place that derives from previous experience and knowledge, from emotional history and current feelings, from physical health and from mental focus. Today, ask yourself about the place where you find yourself. What part of the bounce dominates your explanation of where you are? If you could paint that explanation, would it be realistic or impressionistic? Is your form of reality just an impression?
Courbet painted from his experience, starting his career by painting characters and scenes of his peasant village. His “realism” did not result in digital photograph-like representations, but he did focus on aspects of a scene that other painters of his time were likely to refrain from capturing. For some reason, Courbet believed that painting commoners was realistic and that painting the elite was not. He knew the people and places where he lived, so he painted them in a way to capture their essence and to negate any idealism.
Painting to negate idealism from what one directly experiences ironically opens up the possibility of painting one’s impression of reality. Every place has objective properties, but not everyone sees the same objective properties. Some see color more than shape. Some see lighting more than depth.
As in most instances of understanding and representing the world, people of different times bounce between different perspectives. If I take you to New England, I might point out the pinkish granite in one place and the grayish granite in another and then explain the mineralogical differences between the two. Or I might point out the exfoliation of the rock as one form of weathering and narrow valleys as evidence of glacial erosion. In short, I might focus on the physical makeup and physical processes of the New England region. If you take me to New England, you might point out the majesty of big exposed rocks, deep valleys, and beautiful forests. Both you and I portray the area in a realistic manner. Your way, however, combines something of what you are with the place you explain. My way, by contrast, eliminates me, or strips my explanation and perspective down to a set of scientific facts.
I can appreciate your impressions, and you can appreciate my science. Both of us can bounce between impressionism and realism. Both of us demonstrate a duality with bouncing aspects.
Every place has an objective reality, and every person has an impression of place that derives from previous experience and knowledge, from emotional history and current feelings, from physical health and from mental focus. Today, ask yourself about the place where you find yourself. What part of the bounce dominates your explanation of where you are? If you could paint that explanation, would it be realistic or impressionistic? Is your form of reality just an impression?
RSS Feed