Shrunk wrote:This article from the Tate Gallery's website speaks directly to your question, jamest:

http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/ ... rk-prophet

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I would call his work impressionistic, but my guess is the title of "father" of something is reserved usually not for the first to implement it but the first to influence the rest of the community and start the movement.

Turner may have been an impressionist, but might not have been influential enough to be recognized as the "Father of Impressionism".

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I would call his work impressionistic, but my guess is the title of "father" of something is reserved usually not for the first to implement it but the first to influence the rest of the community and start the movement.

Wiðercora wrote:


My five-year-old could do that! Baa!

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Wiðercora wrote:


My five-year-old could do that! Baa!

I'm sure you are taking the piss but there is a lot more consideration to shape, color and composition than a five year old could manage. I've studied art in college and this piece is sublime.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Wiðercora wrote:


My five-year-old could do that! Baa!

I'm sure you are taking the piss but there is a lot more consideration to shape, color and composition than a five year old could manage. I've studied art in college and this piece is sublime.

Wiðercora wrote:I think it's a beach, is it? The white bits look like waves, and the brown bits look like they could be the ruins of a rowing boat, or a pier or some such construction.

jamest wrote:
Perhaps it is sublime, but what is it?

jamest wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I would call his work impressionistic, but my guess is the title of "father" of something is reserved usually not for the first to implement it but the first to influence the rest of the community and start the movement.

Turner may have been an impressionist, but might not have been influential enough to be recognized as the "Father of Impressionism".

Was there somebody before him who painted in such a style?

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

jamest wrote:
Perhaps it is sublime, but what is it?

What it is could be subjective, but isn't always an important question. More importantly is, what do you see in it; how does it make you feel; what path does it cause your eyes to take across it; does it intrigue you?

jamest wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

jamest wrote:
Perhaps it is sublime, but what is it?

What it is could be subjective, but isn't always an important question. More importantly is, what do you see in it; how does it make you feel; what path does it cause your eyes to take across it; does it intrigue you?

Psychologists would have a field day examining our interpretation of this stuff. I'm ashamed to say that I saw a couple of giant insects on a bed. Gave me the creeps.

ramseyoptom wrote:I suspect one reason the Turner is not credited as the father of Impressionism is a form of art world snobbery. For some continental art critics the idea that a major art movement could be traced to a British artist would be anathema, especially that quite a few of the Impressionists were French.

This may seem a chauvanistic statement, but I have noticed that in the art world, especially the European, that the idea that Britain/England could contribute originality to art is treated as laughable.

Calilasseia wrote:

ramseyoptom wrote:I suspect one reason the Turner is not credited as the father of Impressionism is a form of art world snobbery. For some continental art critics the idea that a major art movement could be traced to a British artist would be anathema, especially that quite a few of the Impressionists were French.

This may seem a chauvanistic statement, but I have noticed that in the art world, especially the European, that the idea that Britain/England could contribute originality to art is treated as laughable.

The Pre-Raphaelites blow that canard out of the water with a nuclear depth charge.

Regina wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

ramseyoptom wrote:I suspect one reason the Turner is not credited as the father of Impressionism is a form of art world snobbery. For some continental art critics the idea that a major art movement could be traced to a British artist would be anathema, especially that quite a few of the Impressionists were French.

This may seem a chauvanistic statement, but I have noticed that in the art world, especially the European, that the idea that Britain/England could contribute originality to art is treated as laughable.

The Pre-Raphaelites blow that canard out of the water with a nuclear depth charge.

I find it mildly amusing that the construct of "nationality" still seems to play a role in discussions of art. Or does it still rankle that the Court considered Holbein and van Dyck to be superior to the local talent of the time?