Naturalism the end goal to acquire material from

Naturalism
and Impressionism are two vital movements in history of art amid which
unmistakable types of art including painting, literature, architecture, music,
reflecting the belief systems and aesthetic methods of insight amid that time.

Until the
early nineteenth century both landscape and the human figure in art tended to
be idealised or stylised according to conventions derived from the classical
tradition. In the nineteenth century there was a pattern towards speaking to
things in a more realistic manner. In Britain this was spearheaded by John
Constable who broadly stated, ‘there is room enough for a natural painture1′.
Naturalism wound up plainly one of the major trends of the century and, joined
with authenticity of the subject, led to impressionism and modern art. Amid the
nineteenth century, it had turned out to be normal for artists like Camille
Corot and Claude Manet, to forsake their studios keeping in mind the end goal
to acquire material from nature, this plein air hone is regularly connected
with the development of Naturalism. Although the outskirts amongst naturalism
and impressionism are fluid; it is difficult to make an obvious historical or
conceptual refinement between them.2 This essay will first analyse
both art historical movements and their features, throughout their analysis this
two art movements will be compared and distinguished. With this premise, this essay is therefore intended to demonstrate the
differences between these two art movements, and confirm that Impressionism was
the start of modern art whereas Naturalism was still linked to traditional
rules.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Naturalism
was touted as a cultural movement by important figures such as the widely read
novelist Emile Zola, it played across discipline and media and might be discussed
in terms of the theatre.
Naturalism
in the visual arts, as in literature dealt with matters of the moment and with
common experience3.

In art, these movement arose in France around 1870 as a
continuation and development of realism whose major theorists were Gustave
Courbet, Honoré Daumier, and Jean-François Millet, from which it derived the opposition to classical and romantic
idealism on the basis of a claim of value. of
objective reality as a theme of representation valid even in its less pleasing
and edifying aspects. However,
even if these requirements of truth and of expressive sincerity derive from
realism, naturalism attenuated its political and social commitment, while
emphasizing relations with the natural sciences, in correspondence with the
positivistic ideals and with the rationalistic mentality of the moment. From
France, where the movement reached high expressions and created the cultural
premises of the Impressionist turn, this push towards reality spread throughout
Europe and America: in Germany naturalist artists such as A. von Menzel, H.
Thoma and landscapists
from the schools of Worpswede and Dachau; in Italy, the naturalism engraved on
the formation of the Macchiaioli.

 

Naturalistic
painting has two characteristic which need to be grasped at the outset. First,
it was flexible adaptable to different subjects and purposes accommodating to
individual manners of painting within its broad compass of the descriptive.
Second, it was modern, it depicted the present and the tangible. Yet its modern
character resided not merely in its descriptiveness but also in the way which
representation of the actual elided with broader ideological and philosophical
understandings of how the world worked4.

 

During
the 19th century in France another movement was start developing:
Impressionism.             In 1874, a
gathering of artists called the Anonymous Society of Painters, Sculptors and so
on sorted out an exhibition in Paris that propelled the movement called
Impressionism. This group was originated Paris-based artists, including Berthe Morisot, Claude Monet,
August Renoir, Edgar Degas, Camille Pissarro, and Alfred Sisley, as well as the
American artist Mary Cassatt. The group was bound together just by its freedom from
the official yearly Salon, for which a jury of artists from the Académie des
Beaux-Arts chose fine arts and granted decorations. These artists, regardless
of their differing ways to deal with painting, appeared to counterparts as a
group5. While preservationist
commentators panned their work for its incomplete, outline like appearance,
more dynamic scholars commended it for its portrayal of current life. Edmond
Duranty, for instance, in his 1876 paper La Nouvelle Peinture (The New
Painting) 6, composed of their
delineation of contemporary topic in an appropriately inventive style as an
upset in painting.

 

The
improvement of Impressionism can be viewed as halfway as a response by artists
to the test displayed by photography, which appeared to cheapen the artist’s
skill in recreating reality. Notwithstanding this, photography really roused
artists to seek after different methods for creative articulation, and as
opposed to rival photography to copy reality, impressionists tried to express
their view of nature and current city life. Scenes from the middle-class way of
life, and additionally from the world of entertainment, for example, cafés,
dance halls, and theatres were among their favourite subjects.

 

The
Impressionists captured ordinary subjects, engaged in day to day activities in
both rural and urban settings. They typically painted scenes of modern life and
often painted outdoors. However, numerous Impressionist works of art and
prints, particularly those delivered by Morisot and Cassatt, are set in local
insides. Impressionist specialists loose the limit amongst subject and
foundation with the goal that the impact of an impressionist painting
frequently looks like a preview, a piece of a bigger reality caught as though
by shot. In their genre scenes of contemporary life, these artists endeavored
to capture a minute in their quick paced lives by pinpointing particular
environmental conditions, for example, light flashing on water, moving mists,
or city lights falling over dancing couples. The impressionists’ abandonment of
subject matter implied, and was necessarily accompanied by, some distinct
formal features, some basic shapes of style within the works of art themselves.
Perhaps the most obvious of these features was that they dropped what is called
composition.

Once
again, it should be emphasized, the impressionists’ rejection of composition, a
traditional element in the concepts and practice of art, followed naturally and
directly from the very essence of the thought and attitude of the movement.
Various ages and schools have offered slightly different formulations of this
concept. All, however, agreed that composition is the combination of the
elements of a picture or some other work of art into a satisfactory visual
whole. All ages and schools also agreed— some openly, some only implicitly—
that composition originates with the artist. It is the artist’s intervention in
the process of observation, study, and representation. In the sense used here,
we do not find composition in nature, it is imposed by the artist on what he
sees7.

Their
capacity to imitate light and its transient impact on shading and shape
precisely as they watched was the primary commitment to naturalism of
Impressionist painters, for example, Claude Monet, Renoir, Alfred Sisley and
Camille Pissarro. Thus, huge numbers of their works contain an assortment of
non-naturalist hues, for instance a pink bundle at nightfall; dim grass on a
winter’s night. Every impressionistic
picture is the deposit of a moment in the perpetuum mobile of existence, the representation
of a precarious, unstable balance in the play of contending forces8.

 

While
the impressionists’ attitude to composition, to the outline of a painting
conceived in the mind and preceding any visual experience, remained implicit
and must be reconstructed from what was, or was not, acceptable to their line
of thought, their views on colour were explicit, and have often been formulated
in words. Again, this formulation is only fragmentary. The impressionists’
concept of colour is one of the best-known aspects of their ideology and
pictorial doctrine, which reveals their general attitude more clearly perhaps
than any other element of their theory. Several strands of thought, and the
experience of several schools of painting, flowed into the impressionist
doctrine of colour to form a synthesis9. Many of the independent artists
chose not to apply the thick golden varnish that painters customarily used to
tone down their works. The paints themselves were more vivid as well. The
nineteenth century saw the development of synthetic pigments for artists’
paints, providing vibrant shades of blue, green, and yellow that painters had
never used before.
The treatment of colour and the brushwork that remains visible in the
paintings, are based at least in part, as we shall shortly discuss in some
detail, on theoretical considerations. They diverge too strongly and abruptly
from established and accepted models of art to have come about without the
artists being aware of some general principles of their own approach. Clearly,
then, there is a kind of theory underlying impressionistic painting. On the
other hand, however, impressionist painters did not formulate a “theory” in the
simple sense of that term10.

 

Stylistically, impressionism is a greatly complex phenomenon. In a few
regards, it speaks to only the legitimate improvement of naturalism. For, if
one interprets naturalism as meaning process from the general to the, from the
typical to the individual, from the abstract idea to the concrete, temporally
and spatially conditioned experienced, the impressionistic reproduction of
reality, with its emphasis on the instantaneous and the unique, is an important
achievement of naturalism. The representations of impressionism are closer to sensual
experience than those of naturalism in the narrower sense, and replace the
object of theoretical knowledge by that of direct optical experience more
completely than any earlier art. But by detaching the optical elements of
experience from the conceptual and elaborating the autonomy of the visual,
impressionism departs from all art as practised hitherto, and thereby from
naturalism as well. Its method is particular in that whilst pre-impressionism
art bases its representations on a seemingly uniform but in fact, heterogeneously
composed world-view, made up of conceptual and sensual elements alike,
impressionism aspires to the hegemony of the purely visual. It constructs its subject
from the bare data of the senses, it, therefore goes back to the unconscious psychic
mechanism and gives us to some extent the raw material of experience, which is
further removed from our usual conception of reality than that the logically
organized impressions of senses. Impressionism is less illusionistic than
naturalism; instead of the illusion, it gives elements of the subject, instead
of a picture of the whole, the bricks of which experience is composed. In
comparison to older art, naturalism marked the increase in the elements of the
composition, in other words an extension of the motifs and an enrichment of the
technical means. The impressionistic method, on the other hand, involves a
series of reduction, a system of restrictions and simplification. Typically,
they portrayed overall visual effects instead of details, and used short,
“broken” brush strokes of mixed and unmixed colour to achieve an effect of
intense colour vibration.

Furthermore,
their brushwork and other painterly techniques can sometimes intrude too far,
lending the work an atmospheric, even expressionist, quality, which is not
naturalistic.

 

 

Nothing is
more typical of an impressionist painting than that it describes things with
the omissions inevitable in them when seen from a distance. This neutralization
and reduction of the motifs to its bare material essentials can be considered
an expression of the anti-romantic outlook of the time and seen as the trivialization
and stripping bare of all the heroic and stately qualities of the
subject-matter of art, but it can also be regarded as a departure from reality and
the restriction of painting to subjects of its ‘own’ can be looked upon as a
loss from the naturalistic point of view11.

 

Because of their unconventional technique, brisk and fragmented, and
their vivid hues early impressionists abused the guidelines of scholastic
painting. In nineteenth century France, the Académie des Beaux-Arts
(“Academy of Fine Arts”) which overwhelmed French art was the
preserver of conventional French painting guidelines of content and style.
Historical subjects, religious topics, and representations were esteemed, and
the Académie favored precisely completed pictures that looked realistic when
examined closely. That is why naturalistic paintings characterized by detailed technique
and brushwork
dark colours
still linked to the movement of realism, were still accepted by the Académie.

The aim of the study was to explore two meaningful French
art periods which characterized the 19th century: Naturalism and Impressionism.
The result indicated that they both share some peculiarities, but they can
still be recognized as two different movements. After this
essay widely analysed their features, it can be stated that the main
differences between Naturalism and Impressionism reside mainly in the technique
and in the colours used by artists. Moreover, Impressionism can be viewed as
the primary unmistakably current development in painting. In spite of the fact
that the last Impressionist display was held in 1886, the development stays a
standout amongst the most prevalent ever. Considered by many to be the
principal vanguard development of the Modernist time frame, Impressionism
filled in as a springboard for some aesthetic movements of the twentieth
century.

 

 

1 Isaacson,
Joel. “Constable, Duranty, Mallarme, Impressionism, Plein Air, and
Forgetting.” The Art Bulletin 76, no. 3 (1994): 427.
doi:10.2307/3046037.

 

2
Hauser, Arnold. The Social
history of art: naturalism, impressionism, the film age. London: Routledge,
1999.

 

3 Thomson,
Richard. Art of the actual naturalism and style in early Third Republic
France, 1880-1900. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012

 

4 Thomson,
Richard. Art of the actual naturalism and style in early Third Republic
France, 1880-1900. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012

 

5 Herbert, Robert L.
Impressionism: Art, leisure, and Parisian society. Yale University
Press, 1991

6 The New
painting, Impressionism, 1874-1886: an exhibition organized by the Fine Arts
Museums of San Francisco with the National Gallery of Art, Washington.
Geneva, Switzerland: Distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, University of
Washington Press, 1986.

7 Barasch,
Moshe, and Moshe Barasch. Modern theories of art, 2: from Impressionism to
Kandinsky. New York: New York University Press, 1998.

 

8 Hauser, Arnold. The Social
history of art: naturalism, impressionism, the film age. London: Routledge,
1999.

9 Barasch,
Moshe, and Moshe Barasch. Modern theories of art, 2: from Impressionism to
Kandinsky. New York: New York University Press, 1998.

 

10 Barasch,
Moshe, and Moshe Barasch. Modern theories of art, 2: from Impressionism to
Kandinsky. New York: New York University Press, 1998.

 

11 Hauser, Arnold. The Social
history of art: naturalism, impressionism, the film age. London: Routledge,
1999.