jamest wrote:Are you agreeing that some/many of the ingredients of Impressionism can be observed in [some of] Turner's works?

epepke wrote:

jamest wrote:Are you agreeing that some/many of the ingredients of Impressionism can be observed in [some of] Turner's works?

Of course. It's completely obvious if you look at the paintings. Funny thing about paintings: you can look at them.

But if you are reading commentary about paintings and stuff about movements, you're doing something else.

orpheus wrote:Two things to keep in mind. The first is trivial: "impressionism" was originally intended as an insulting critical term. Things are not always what they seem.

The second thing is much more important: art history is not linear. No matter what anyone says, it simply isn't. And for so many reasons. X does something, then Y does. Is it causal? Did Y have an opportunity even to see the work in question? Even if so, did X's work have any appreciable influence on Y's thinking (bearing in mind that Y is an active working artist with ideas and trajectories and other influences - and is not just a tabula rasa sitting there waiting for a specific influence)? Also, artists see many things and sometimes copy, sometimes reject, incorporate, modify, misunderstand, use for one's own's ends, etc.

And this is only limiting the factors to art itself - leaving aside everything else in the world that influences an artits's work.

I'm not saying influence doesn't happen, and sometimes it really is quite clear. But it's rarely simple.

epepke wrote:

orpheus wrote:Two things to keep in mind. The first is trivial: "impressionism" was originally intended as an insulting critical term. Things are not always what they seem.

The second thing is much more important: art history is not linear. No matter what anyone says, it simply isn't. And for so many reasons. X does something, then Y does. Is it causal? Did Y have an opportunity even to see the work in question? Even if so, did X's work have any appreciable influence on Y's thinking (bearing in mind that Y is an active working artist with ideas and trajectories and other influences - and is not just a tabula rasa sitting there waiting for a specific influence)? Also, artists see many things and sometimes copy, sometimes reject, incorporate, modify, misunderstand, use for one's own's ends, etc.

And this is only limiting the factors to art itself - leaving aside everything else in the world that influences an artits's work.

I'm not saying influence doesn't happen, and sometimes it really is quite clear. But it's rarely simple.

I totally agree.

But when art history is taught, at least in introductory classes, a kind of pseudo-linear presentation is given. Actually, it applies to many fields. People seldom talk about golems when discussing the appearance of robots in science fiction, and people seldom talk about the atomic model of Democritus when talking about atomic theory.

Why is Turner not credited as the father of Impressionism?

orpheus wrote:More accurate, but pedagogically impossible to start with, perhaps. 

epepke wrote:

orpheus wrote:More accurate, but pedagogically impossible to start with, perhaps. 

True, but we're all bright boys and girls here. We can see (or hear) how Turner relates to Impressionism, how Bosch relates to Surrealism, and how Beethoven relates to the Romantic composers. When I hook up an Arduino to some motors and wheels, if I say that I'm making golems, and my chems are called "sketches," well, maybe an average frosh would not know what I mean, but you can figure it out easily.

jamest wrote:I'm no art expert, but after watching a documentary on J.M.W. Turner and seeing some of his later works, I exclaimed to myself: "Fuck me, that's Impressionism!".

Well, it seemed like that to me. The problem was, he died a few decades before Impressionism started. So, what do the art experts here think? Consider, for example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... rn-railway

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slave-ship.jpg

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chich ... 828%29.jpg

So, did the Frenchies steal his thunder?!!!

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.

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.

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.

* Short, thick strokes of paint quickly capture the essence of the subject, rather than its details. The paint is often applied impasto.
* Colours are applied side-by-side with as little mixing as possible, creating a vibrant surface. The optical mixing of colours occurs in the eye of the viewer.
* Grays and dark tones are produced by mixing complementary colours. Pure impressionism avoids the use of black paint.
* Wet paint is placed into wet paint without waiting for successive applications to dry, producing softer edges and intermingling of colour.
* Painters often worked in the evening to produce effets de soir—the shadowy effects of evening or twilight.
* Impressionist paintings do not exploit the transparency of thin paint films (glazes), which earlier artists manipulated carefully to produce effects. The impressionist painting surface is typically opaque.
* The play of natural light is emphasized. Close attention is paid to the reflection of colours from object to object.
* In paintings made en plein air (outdoors), shadows are boldly painted with the blue of the sky as it is reflected onto surfaces, giving a sense of freshness previously not represented in painting. (Blue shadows on snow inspired the technique.)

Painters throughout history had occasionally used these methods, but Impressionists were the first to use them all together, and with such consistency. Earlier artists who used these techniques include Frans Hals, Diego Velázquez, Peter Paul Rubens, John Constable, and J. M. W. Turner.

His early works, such as Tintern Abbey (1795), stayed true to the traditions of English landscape. However, in Hannibal Crossing the Alps (1812), an emphasis on the destructive power of nature had already come into play. His distinctive style of painting, in which he used watercolour technique with oil paints, created lightness, fluency, and ephemeral atmospheric effects.
...

In his later years he used oils ever more transparently, and turned to an evocation of almost pure light by use of shimmering colour.

Regina wrote: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.