Posted: Jun 21, 2017 3:24 pm
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.
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.