Re: Does anyone...

Alan Hope wrote:
chris_tine49@xxxxxxxxxxx goes:

Alan, what essential idea/s about impressionism and the evolution of
art does PJ need to convey in her kids book? Please state as you would
to an 11 year old--the age I aspire to become again.

They came at a particular point in history: the development of
photography is absolutely crucial. It removed the need to make things
look the way they look, and allowed them to paint things the way they
feel, which is something cameras can't (or couldn't, then) do.

They therefore rejected the old-fashioned idea of reproducing nature
in paint, and thus prepared the way for later painters who would move
away altogether from the attempt to represent reality, which had been
the concern of Western art for centuries.

Anyone who looks at a painting by Mondriaan or Pollock could, in
theory, trace its evolution back through Picasso to Cézanne to Monet's
eponymous Impression, Sunrise. Go any further back and you crash up
against the wall of representation.

So Impressionism was the start of all that abstract stuff, I suppose.

I have to say I think its importance is enormously overstated. I'd put
the crucial tipping-point later, at the time of Cézanne. Monet was
still trying to show a field of poppies, albeit unconventionally. When
Cézanne painted Montagne Sainte Victoire, on the other hand, he was
trying for something else.


That's very cool and interesting and clearly stated, ignoring the
(nearly always) gratuitous use of "eponymous." I hope PJ uses some of
it. She can if she wants to, right?