Expressionism vs Impressionism

[Enyaw]

you cant break the rule of gray distance or colors are disapear in distance, this is a rule. same as the sun is shine every day and you cant break that rule.

ok... I stand corrected .. you can break compositional rules and you can form distance without graying down if you do it with drawing perspective. But yes, you cannot get atmospheric color without graying down. That is like trying to defy gravity. However, nothing says you have to portray the distance and I guess that is what I was trying to get at. I personally like what the impressionist did and I like impressionistic expression or post impressionism. Sargent and a more modern painter Richard Schmidt had some real decent abstractions within their realities. And thank you Lazarus.

 

[P. Barrie]

Rule that can be broken isnt a rule.

Perhaps what we are talking about is “bending” rules of objective analysis. IMO, that is what many art movements have done over time. Impressionism, post impressionism, expressionism, etc., etc. IMO, the gist of comparisons lies in the Objectivity (visual realism) or Subjectivity (response to abstracted, distorted or lack of real world visual objectivity).

 

[Nufocus]

Oh well…..I guess that at the end of the day it all boils down to different strokes for different folks.
You can not knock a guy who stands in front of a super realistic piece and says “wow, I thought it was a photograph”. On the other hand, you can’t knock a guy who sheds a tears or two in front of a color fields piece by Rothko either. To each his own.

 

[Lazarus]

defy gravity

Call it crapvity

 

[Desforges]

No rules! But it is nice to know this and that.
That said: I love your work and your values, lights snd darks.
It reminds me of another time , another place and that’s where I want to go . Away, like.

 

[Lazarus]

Perhaps what we are talking about is “bending” rules of objective analysis. IMO, that is what many art movements have done over time. Impressionism, post impressionism, expressionism, etc., etc. IMO, the gist of comparisons lies in the Objectivity (visual realism) or Subjectivity (response to abstracted, distorted or lack of real world visual objectivity).

I think you are Adheres to much to the man made rules and its blind you a bit. rules are subjective, absolute and are not for compromise. therefore the thing you are talking about in art are not to break a rule but a fictious or theory and the prespective to stick to the rule is disappeared with it.

 

[Artyczar]

If you try to break or throw out all the rules of visual objectivity shouldn’t you end up with a piece that is totally non- representational? Or you could have a blank white canvas....or a blank spot on a wall representing a concept?
Is this comment subjective?

I think that's a black and white way of looking at "breaking rules." Why would you end up with a complete non-representational piece if you broke some rules of objectivity? There are many rules that make up reality and there are many in-between realities on the spectrum from complete obscurity to realism. Or conceptual and realism (if you're going even further out on a limb). But we are talking about specific genres. Not conceptual, or even non-representational.

Keeping it within the differences of artists like Sargent and Soutine, one is just more expressive than the other, so more rules were broken in the Soutine. That's the way I look at it. However, the Sargent isn't exactly realism either. It's also an impression of objective reality and it's also gorgeous, while the other is striking. I was not bashing Sargent in any way. I was just stating my personal preference.

 

[P. Barrie]

I think that's a black and white way of looking at "breaking rules." Why would you end up with a complete non-representational piece if you broke some rules of objectivity?

Arty, You wouldn’t. What I wrote was “If you try to break or throw out all the rules of visual objectivity shouldn’t you end up with a piece that is totally non- representational?” So the difference that is what i meant by bending rules of traditional objectivity . Pretty much the same as your take on it, lots of grey area indeed.

Lazarus, you have it backwards. Objectivity is unbiased and based in more facts. Subjectivity is the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

A good art critique would consider both.

 

[Lazarus]

Here is a piece of realism from Sargent.

 

[P. Barrie]

Lazarus, good segue. Sargent was influenced by Monet. Both used that abstraction at the brush stroke level that resulted in a convincing visual whole. Most amazing to me, like magic almost.