American painting and its tradition : $b as represented by Inness, Wyant, Martin, Homer, La Farge, Whistler, Chase, Alexander, SargentVan Dyke, John C.
History
American painting and its tradition : $b as represented by Inness, Wyant, Martin, Homer, La Farge, Whistler, Chase, Alexander, Sargent
Van Dyke, John C.
Painters -- United States; Painting -- United States
A love of the familiar landscape would seem to have always been with
Inness. After a period of following the Hudson River panorama of
nature undefiled by man, he gave it up. While in Rome he produced
some semiclassic landscapes, but he gave them up, too. Not so with the
Fontainebleau-Barbizon landscape. Rousseau and his band had broken
with the classic and were producing the _paysage intime_ to which
Hobbema (not Constable, of whom they knew nothing) had called their
attention through his pictures in the Louvre. They had done in France
just what Inness had sought to do in America: they had abandoned
the grandiloquent and put in its place the familiar. Inness was in
sympathy with them almost from the moment he first saw their work. Had
he been born in France, no doubt he would have been a member of the
Rousseau-Dupré group.
Again it is worth noticing in passing that all of the so-called “men
of 1830” were really provincial in what they produced. Corot painted
Ville d’Avray, Rousseau, Dupré, and Diaz the Fontainebleau forest,
Daubigny the Seine and the Marne. None of their work represents the
south or the east of France, and none of it carries beyond France.
It is localized about Paris. Just so with the work of Inness. It is
emphatically American, but limited to the North Atlantic States. The
appearances which he portrayed are peculiar to the region lying east of
the Alleghanies. In his pictures the light and coloring, the forms and
drift of clouds, the mists and hazes, the trees and hills, the swamps
and meadows may be recognized as belonging to New Jersey or New York
or New England, but none of them belongs to Minnesota or Louisiana or
California. He pictured the American landscape perhaps more completely
than any other painter before or since his time; but his “civilized
landscape” was nevertheless limited as regards its geographical range.
Nor would we have it otherwise. All the masters of art have been
provincial so far as subject goes. Titian, Velasquez, and Rembrandt
never cared to go beyond their own bailiwicks for material. And
Inness--though he may not rank with those just mentioned--found all the
material he needed within fifty miles of New York. It was the discovery
of this material, his point of view regarding it, what he did with it,
and what he made us see in it, that perhaps gives him his high rank in
American art.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account