Of course not.
But going by this thread, it seems to be important what the "French" (or "Europeans") did or didn't do to Brits/Englanders.

Regina wrote:Of course not.
But going by this thread, it seems to be important what the "French" (or "Europeans") did or didn't do to Brits/Englanders.

Ah yes, I see what you mean.

Go team!

I've just watched another documentary about Turner which motivated me to search for this thread. Man, I see now the significance of Turner not just in the [later] development of a new style of painting which arguably gave rise to impressionism, but in the social commentary/take of his time and the importance [for him] of the industrial age. I'm kinda blown away, being an art dummy. I'm sure that there's all sorts of artists out there who most people don't understand and cannot fathom why they became famous. For whatever reason, Turner was the artist who finally tuned me in to what art is about and why it's important.

We should talk about art more in these parts.

I don't like the notion of 'fathers of' or 'inventors of', especially where it concerns topics that aren't rigourously defined products/objects.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I don't like the notion of 'fathers of' or 'inventors of', especially where it concerns topics that aren't rigourously defined products/objects.

Well, after seeing some of Turner's works, I'm definitely not happy reading that French artists from the late 19th century started the impressionist movement. That was the point of this thread, initially. I mean, if they "started" it then presumably they are the fathers/inventors of it? But to my untrained eye, some of Turner's work is as impressionist as impressionism can be, and he died a few decades before the movement took hold.

I repeat, I'm no art expert at all, but I've been to quite a few galleries. All I can say is that I have never ever seen a style of painting similar [at all] prior to Turner's [later stuff], which reminds me so much of the impressionist movement.

I wish I knew what I was talking about, but instead all I can do is say that from my limited knowledge Turner comes across [to me] as the unsung hero of modern art (painting). Not those [later] French chaps.

You should probably read up on what impressionism is, jamest. You can certainly draw parallels between what Turner was doing and what the impressionists were doing, but impressionism as a movement is those French guys at that time, with their particular themes. I tried to find if they even saw Turner's work that was originally panned but later praised as being impressionistic, but I couldn't find the answer. But for sure, to describe Turner as unsung is absurd.

^this

SafeAsMilk wrote:You should probably read up on what impressionism is, jamest. You can certainly draw parallels between what Turner was doing and what the impressionists were doing, but impressionism as a movement is those French guys at that time, with their particular themes. I tried to find if they even saw Turner's work that was originally panned but later praised as being impressionistic, but I couldn't find the answer. But for sure, to describe Turner as unsung is absurd.

Well, unsung in the sense that he wasn't credited with being the father of impressionism or modern art, is what I meant. But yes, I know very little and my comments have come from my gut.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:You should probably read up on what impressionism is, jamest. You can certainly draw parallels between what Turner was doing and what the impressionists were doing, but impressionism as a movement is those French guys at that time, with their particular themes. I tried to find if they even saw Turner's work that was originally panned but later praised as being impressionistic, but I couldn't find the answer. But for sure, to describe Turner as unsung is absurd.

Well, unsung in the sense that he wasn't credited with being the father of impressionism or modern art, is what I meant. But yes, I know very little and my comments have come from my gut.

You're still missing the point about how 'credit' is assigned and what the significance of that is when it happens. The guy's been dead for awhile, and I'm sure he doesn't mind being unsung according to you. YMMV. If you're offended by your conclusion that somebody's name is unsung, cry me a river. Get on a soapbox and protest. Do whatever your little heart desires.

The point here is that you are not accumulating points as a major art critic. So what was your initial aim? Fatherhood? Let's ask why your focus is on der Ursprung? You've never really clarified what you think is so compelling about 'origins'. I know that's what undergraduates have to memorize in history class, and that it is politically significant. Politics shifts.

Many years ago, I bought a book of Turner's paintings. Maybe it's just my imagination, but I noticed that, if you look at them from a particular, well off-normal angle, they seem to be pictures of something entirely different, maybe even erotic!

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:You should probably read up on what impressionism is, jamest. You can certainly draw parallels between what Turner was doing and what the impressionists were doing, but impressionism as a movement is those French guys at that time, with their particular themes. I tried to find if they even saw Turner's work that was originally panned but later praised as being impressionistic, but I couldn't find the answer. But for sure, to describe Turner as unsung is absurd.

Well, unsung in the sense that he wasn't credited with being the father of impressionism or modern art, is what I meant. But yes, I know very little and my comments have come from my gut.

Hell, even the MoMA didn't include Impressionism for years as a modern genre. Barnett Newman hounded the directors to include Impressionists in the collection. It's why Broken Obelisk is paired with Water Lilies today.

DavidMcC wrote:Many years ago, I bought a book of Turner's paintings. Maybe it's just my imagination, but I noticed that, if you look at them from a particular, well off-normal angle, they seem to be pictures of something entirely different, maybe even erotic!

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:You should probably read up on what impressionism is, jamest. You can certainly draw parallels between what Turner was doing and what the impressionists were doing, but impressionism as a movement is those French guys at that time, with their particular themes. I tried to find if they even saw Turner's work that was originally panned but later praised as being impressionistic, but I couldn't find the answer. But for sure, to describe Turner as unsung is absurd.

Well, unsung in the sense that he wasn't credited with being the father of impressionism or modern art, is what I meant. But yes, I know very little and my comments have come from my gut.

I understand, I tend to view art/music in a similar way -- drawing lines between things because of how they look/sound. I think if you look more into the movement of impressionism, you'll see what I mean. And you can certainly find plenty of examples of people drawing the line connecting Turner and impressionism, indeed it seems the revival of his later work was based on how "impressionistic" it was.

I think both Monet and Pissarro came to London and studied some of Turner's paintings, in about 1870. And as others have said, it's not difficult to see resemblances between Turner and impressionism.

However, 'father of' is a very strong claim, and I don't really know how one would establish it. As far as I can see, most artistic movements have multiple influences behind them, and to stake out one of these as paternal would be very bold.

One of the interesting connections is a breakdown in line and form, and Turner's late paintings were criticized as degenerate, as he seemed to be abandoning solid space. But then you can see this as a harbinger of modern art itself, where line and form often collapse, amounting to an abandonment of realism. Having said that, you can argue that the impressionists (and Turner) were indeed realists of a different kind. I think Picasso later somewhere argued that he presented reality, in a kind of multiple viewpoint, which broke down the traditional subject/object binary gaze. What is real? is one of the questions posed by modern art.

Mike_L wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Many years ago, I bought a book of Turner's paintings. Maybe it's just my imagination, but I noticed that, if you look at them from a particular, well off-normal angle, they seem to be pictures of something entirely different, maybe even erotic!

Yes, and that was just the "unhidden" part of his erotic art. In his later works, he used hidden (and therefore uninhibited) eroticism!

DavidMcC wrote:Yes, and that was just the "unhidden" part of his erotic art. In his later works, he used hidden (and therefore uninhibited) eroticism!

Ah yes! Layered paintings... much naughtier than the all prim alla prima!

Mike_L wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Yes, and that was just the "unhidden" part of his erotic art. In his later works, he used hidden (and therefore uninhibited) eroticism!

Ah yes! Layered paintings... much naughtier than the all prim alla prima!

Of course, I am not referring to over-painting, as I am sure you appreciate - the "layering" is not in the paint itself.

Yep, I'm punning the figurative into the literal.