Posted: May 01, 2013 10:17 am
Regina wrote:jamest wrote:Regina wrote:
Eh? Turner's influence on the Impressionists is well recognized, so what exactly is your problem?
That being said, his an their intentions differ.
Problem? I'm obviously trying to find out why Turner wasn't credited with being the father of Impressionism, as some of his works seem utterly Impressionist to my untrained eye. I'm just enjoying being enlightened by those more in the know, so please feel free to express yourself.
Well, at the danger of repeating myself and what others have said, he is being credited as an influence. If the "father" bit is important to you, well, that's language. And, again, his artistic intentions and his technique differ significantly from those labelled "Impressionists". You could train those eyes of yours and have a look at a painting by Monet, for example, in comparison with a Turner. I find looking at things helps when dealing with visual art.
What are the significant differences between the works of Turner which seem Impressionistic and those of the Impressionists themselves? I have actually looked at works by the Impressionists which is why I noticed the similarities between them and some of Turner's paintings, which is the reason I started the thread. You say that Turner is credited as being an influence, but to what extent? Just how much of an influence was he? Could it not be said that he inadvertently started the movement? If not, then why not?