Inness is laughing at us.

Why is this great art ? What`s so great about it?


  • I think this is a great painting, sensitive use of chroma and tone. He was a fantastic painter with lots of influence.

    @KIngston Thomas Hardy is an exceptional writer and poet. He's not quiant at all. maybe you are mistaking the rural Victorian setting as quaint, but his views of Victorian society where not. Thomas hardy is one of the most humorous classical Novelists. I recommend 'The Mayor of Casterbridge'

    So here is another question for @Kingston - do you think that are appreciation of art is influenced by are cultural heratige. Ie.. You like American realism and I like English realism. Obviously I don't mean it quite so bluntly - but subtlety .
  • There is one thing that bothers me with this particular painting. The barn in the middle ground appears to be a 2 story barn. That would make the tree in the background absolutely gigantic. The colors and composition are okay and somewhat serene. That tree just kind of sticks out like a sore thumb. I like the lighting. It has the feel of a stormy day. I can say this with a fair degree of certainty. It's better than I can produce at this point in time.
  • Does it have to be real. A painting is an object in its own right, it can be liked for what it is, it does not have to be dependent on an external reality?
  • @Kingston I agree rural life, particularly farming is not an easy life. Farming is a 24/7/365 job. But isn't it human nature to long for what you don't have? People from upstate migrate to NYC and the suburbs because they think they will find work and it is a glamorous life. People in the cities think the country life is the way to go with its simplicity and slower pace. You don't see strung out drug addicted prostitutes on the street corners upstate and we don't have a manure spreading season in the 5 boroughs (thank God). There are good and bad points to both ways of life. I don't know how much the Hudson River School can bear the responsibility for that viewpoint.

    That tree really bugs me though.
  • edited September 2013
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. There really wasn't much else to paint in the 1800's in America besides landscapes and portraits unless you lived near the coast. Personally I appreciate the fact that they were able to capture the essence of this country before it got ruined with overpopulation and the industrial revolution and the automobile.

    Beauty usually leads to exploitation and eventual destruction of that beauty. I can see this happening right now in the Hamptons on Long Island. Millionaires and billionaires are gobbling up large tracts of farmland and woodland to construct gargantuan estates. Then they complain about the deer eating their expensive landscaped yards. It gets so choked out with traffic by people who say they go out there to relax, yet they don't know the meaning of the word. Whatever quaintness the Hamptons had possessed is almost all but a memory. Farmers markets without a single farmer, and selling wine and fish to yuppies from the city and New England. So I have to wonder, is it the portrayal of beauty whether real or false, or the human condition to spoil it through exploitation.
  • Whatever. You must be right. I don't know what I was thinking. Pardon the intrusion.
  • Here's Robert Hughes' take:
  • Folks

    These well crafted viewpoints are but two waypoints in a many sided conversation.
    Our perception of reality is socially constructed. Those who can interpret that construction (Hughes), communicate that construction (Inness, Whistler), demolish that construction (Warhol, de Kooning) stand to make a great deal of money.

  • Denis, you remind me of my lifelong friend. He has a way of cutting to the crux of an issue much like you. :-bd He contends that almost every decision comes down to money and he proves that point time and time again.
  • The light. It's gorgeous and he elegantly captures on land what is happening in the sky.
Sign In or Register to comment.