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
This is perhaps reducing theories of painting to a very elementary
basis. The formula prescribes merely an omission of what you do not
care for and a strong characterization of the things you do care
for. But as a matter of fact is that not the process common to most
painters? The Meissoniers and Gérômes who paint the shoe-button and
the eyelash do so because they love shoe-buttons and eyelashes just
as Durand and Church loved birch bark and trailing ivy. Almost all of
our early landscapists made no discrimination whatever in what they
liked or disliked. A red sun in the background was of no more artistic
importance than a red September maple in the foreground. They took
nature in its entirety, omitting nothing, adding nothing. In result
they produced something only a grade above the colored photograph. But
Corot, Inness, Wyant, Martin had a more intelligent view-point. To
them there were certain features of nature that were characteristic
in their universality and permanence, and other features that were
merely casual or accidental. The introduction of the merely casual they
found did not lend to the characterization of the permanent, so they
discarded it and threw their strength into that which signified the
most.
What are the significant and permanent features in landscape? Well,
above all is light--the first of created things, and to this latest day
the most beautiful of nature’s manifestations. Corot spent his life
painting it and even on his deathbed was raving about it in delirium.
No wonder Martin was a great admirer of Corot, for he, too, was devoted
to the splendor of light. In all of his later pictures it is a leading
feature, and the eye is inevitably drawn at once to this beauty of the
sky. He greatly disliked anything like a story in his landscapes or any
literary climax dependent upon figures or houses or animals. They would
detract from the tale of light and were discarded. Nature was beautiful
enough by itself considered. No wonder he chose the uninhabited
mountains for his subjects. They were not only devoid of humanity, but
up there beyond the peaks was the most splendid manifestation of the
light he loved--the pure mountain light.
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