Was Impressionism "smoke and mirrors"?

[Bartc]

Interesting study: Air pollution inspired Monet?

 

[Enyaw]

Painting is smoke and mirrors. It's all an illusion. The palettes were from nature and not hand me down formulas. I would not think the subject matter invented the style but the style was well suited to the environment.

 

[Terri]

That's an interesting article. The atmospheric conditions of the time could have well played a part in palette selection, but Monet also suffered from worsening vision as he got older, and wouldn't do anything about it. He is said to have had cataracts, and it's a known phenonomenon that their presence will scatter light in unusual ways. People today with cataracts are advised not to drive at night because of this occurrence. Monet likely used it to his advantage.

James Whistler was also mentioned in the article - he was a Tonalist, painting in deliberate subdued palettes like his Nocturnes. Even his famous portrait of his mother follows the typical palette of Tonalism, and is an interior scene.

Not a great stretch to imagine different skies from countryside to city, so in that regard the smoky trains, boats, etc., could affect atmospheric haze.

Good link, though, and an interesting read.

 

[john]

Yeah some of those paintings were done in polluted hazy airs which gave those paintings more atmosphere than pre-industrial landscapes for sure. Couple that with the new industrial urban scenery and suddenly artists were seeing a new world in new ways and tubed paints helped also by getting artists outside. Plein air painting required beefy simple paint application. No time to make it perfect, just get the impression.

 

[Bartc]

Until the 80s London was called 'The Smoke" by the English. Our cities in the US were choked with smoke and smog, not the least of which was LA followed by NYC, and places with industrial might. Coal burning choked many country towns from the 1700s on, I believe. But the level of smoke were noticeably higher to the inhabitants following the Industrial Revolution use of steam power (not the original cleaner water power.) Monet deliberately did note that haze and coloration in many of his urban paintings, long before his cataract problems. So the hypothesis is quite plausible.

Obviously, that is far from the only thing that spurred Impressionism. It's just one factor in depictions of larger cities and towns. Note that those painters were often impressed with and painted scenes of the industrial age innovations, like iron buildings and structures too. Not just the smoke but their entire environmental change. They were far from blind to the societal alterations of their day.

 

[Dave Woody]

Yes, I saw this piece and it grabbed me.

 

[MurrayG]

I believe the atmosphere of the times did affect artists. In a way it is apparent even now in cities as pollution again is evident. Even simple weather systems can cause "haze" that at times can be an issue, especially around the Med.
But also, Monet had his cataracts removed and the kens of his right eye removed it changed his colour vision and acuity

Ophthalmology and Art: Simulation of Monet's Cataracts and Degas' Retinal Disease

Much has been written about the failing vision of Edgar Degas and Claude Monet, and theoretical arguments have been made about the extent to which it was or was not a factor in their late style.1-7 Contemporaries of both Degas and Monet noted that their late works were strangely coarse or garish...

jamanetwork.com

 

[artlines]

I agree with those who believe that Impressionism is an artistic style reflecting the perception of the surrounding world through light and color)

 

[txomsy]

From my limited knowledge, I can't see Giverny, Arlés or the Polynesia being too polluted at the time. Nor can I explain Greco, Bosco or Arcimboldo by eye/mental ailments. Much less Gaudi, Shostakovich, Profokiev, Ezra Pound, Kafka, or works like Dr. Caligari's Cabinet or Un Chien Andalou, or the Roaring Twenties, because of smoke, mirrors, or any other simplistic reasons. To name but a few. Plus, seeing the personal evolution of the likes of Monet, Van Gogh and Mondrian, and their impact on subsequent forms of expression, I find it hard to believe pollution or eyesight had an impact beyond eliciting a reaction against it.

OTOH, I see ciaroscuro, flou, bokeh, harmonics, suggestion, soft shapes in Architecture, Music, Literature, Sculpture... having been always used but specially blooming at the turn of the 19th-20thC. The proposition somehow reminds me of 60's engineers' claiming Amerindian Arts were made by aliens because they saw a similarity with astronauts which was what they "knew" (ignoring all other evidence).

I tend to agree with the critics who say that it is an oversimplistic explanation of what were artistic choices spanning not just the painting arts.