Impressionism (According to Wikipedia) is:
Impressionism is a 19th-century
art movement characterized by relatively small, thin, yet visible brush strokes, open
composition, emphasis on accurate depiction of light in its changing qualities (often accentuating the effects of the passage of time), ordinary subject matter, inclusion of
movement as a crucial element of human perception and experience, and unusual visual angles. Impressionism originated with a group of Paris-based artists whose independent exhibitions brought them to prominence during the 1870s and 1880s.
So, 1870's - 1880's. Then I just came across this oil sketch by Constable which was done in 1810 (so around 60 years earlier). It looks so modern!
Comments
When I was young we had a framed reproduction of Constable's The Hay Wain on the wall and when I visited England in my twenties and drove into the countryside I remember thinking, yes, Constable got it right - the colour and the light - that's how rural England looks.
I think Constable was probably the first to paint real English landscapes in their true colours and without nymphs, ruined temples and other classical allusions. His were landscapes ordinary English folk would have instantly recognised.
The reproduction we had on our wall never failed to delight afresh each time I returned to look at it. Even though its gentle greens and soft light were nothing like the dry inland Australian landscape we inhabited it resonated with me because it clearly represented a real and beautiful landscape that one might one day visit and enjoy in person.
English artists or Italian masters don’t mean much to me.
However, like Bernini, if you can represent human flesh like this in Carrara marble, you have my full attention.
Denis
I'm a landscape artist! That's what keeps me awake at night! To me my Raphael, Poussin, Giotto are Rembrandt, Rubens, Constable, Turner, Monet & Co. (Oh God no! Not those! 🤮).
Unfortunately, I'm not trained in an academy. So, I'll remain a bad artist throughout my life perhaps. But, I'm more into lesser things like trees, grass, light, hills, fields, the sea, '..cheerful feelings on arrival in the countryside' etc.
To me, it's a matter of my preference rather than the greatness. These artists still continue to motivate me to remain an artist despite all the odds over a long period of time. I do love the old masters beyond measure; I mumble about them to my wife almost everyday; copy their work but I'm like one of those guys who are lurking in the bushes for scene hunting and getting too much sun!
@Cstontvary and @kaustavM
As a novice with no training I tend to view great art as something which comes from great artists and which is effective at communicating/causing an intended experience in the viewer. A great artist is one who paints from a certain inner conviction and authenticity which is immune to the temptations of "dumbing down" as well as immune to the temptations of second guessing and second hand comparisons to styles of the great masters. In a sense modernity for modernity's sake "because critics" or "great works" for greatness-sake because "someone long ago said so", are both flawed.
Works stand on their own with no backstory, explanation, or history lesson, and if you can look with fresh eyes on a work, with humanity, openness, and a willingness to understand what the artist is saying and seeing or asking you to experience by what you are seeing... then you can see whether the modern or the great master has succeeded, how, and in what ways.
There is no doubt many greats and moderns painted from an urgent sense of authenticity, whose primary purpose was not to emulate any other artist or style but to recreate what they see or experience in the world in the eye, mind, and soul of a viewer.
Perhaps the paint is meant to represent the object only and it is hoped that it reproduces the effect it has on the artist, or perhaps an attempt is made to infuse the effect it has on the artist into the work, others may be more interested in portraying the effect itself, only hinting at the objects and such which produced them, others still might wish to directly create the experience from fictional or abstract forms. Is the artist attempting to evoke an emotional response which is cognitive, moral, or something more akin to a feeling or sensation? Is it a sense of nostalgia, a sense of movement, a reproduction of the subjective experience of the peaceful smells and sounds of a meadow?
There is likely no single means by which these different goals are to be achieved, because they are so different.
Great art is great for being effective and authentic and it comes in a myriad of forms and styles. To my mind only disingenuous art, uninspired mimicry, and purposeless passionless art, is bad art.. and in fact might not even constitute art at all. What do you call soulless communication between souls which communicates nothing?
Just the humble opinion of a novice with no training.
Giovanni Strazza - Veiled Virgin