Claude Monet remains one of the world’s most famous and successful visual artists. His many series illustrating nature themes developed him the name” the founder of Impressionism.” Two articles by Gary Storm and Colleen Carroll explore the techniques and inspiration Monet used while painting his series.
Gary Storm argues that Monet’s theme and variations technique attracts an audience the most. Storm explains the different appeals of theme and variations using Monet’s Grainstack painting series. This technique states a main theme and then continuously varies it, while still maintaining the original theme’s quality. Each variation presents a new perspective. Storm claims that using theme and variations creates immediate beauty and pleasure through its simplistic form, order, and logic. The audience can quickly and effortlessly capture the painting’s meaning, making the painting more relatable and inviting. Storm also claims that using theme and variations creates a fusion of paradoxes that represent human thought patterns and the natural world. An interrelated patterns system holds each experience. Monet wanted his audience aware that they are related to all they study, or in his paintings’ case, nature. Two other notable motifs Monet painted include Rouen Cathedral and Waterlilies. These theme and variations “reveal the beauties to be found in the accurate observation of nature,” providing the most genuine connection.
In the second article, Colleen Carroll calls Monet “the founder of Impressionism.” Impressionism defines a painting style where the overall tone and theme’s effect grab the focus, not the details. Eúgene Boudin inspired Monet to paint his landscape pieces outdoors. Monet explains that “only the surrounding atmosphere give subjects their true value.” While spending time painting outside, Monet developed interests in the lighting effects over the course of a day. Monet’s first and perhaps the most popular series exploring lighting effects is Impression: Sunrise. The audience can see the sea and waterscape influences of Turner, where the sunset was painted. The colors shine bright and pure, the brushstrokes loose and rapid, and the painting portrays a sense of movement. Monet’s impressionistic style allowed his audience to bond with a particular theme and enjoy its various perspectives.
Concerning the lighting and color Monet used, the articles express similar opinions. Storm claims that, “Monet sought to capture the essence of light itself.” Monet’s Grainstack paintings incorporate brown, purple, gold, blue, and black. The various colors reveal lighting effects during the day and the year’s changing seasons. Monet’s brush strokes, varying in size, thickness, and texture, created “false-color”. He claimed that “so-called ‘true colors’ do not reveal, and even camouflage, subtle realities.” Carroll presents similar claims, emphasizing how Monet’s impressionistic style depended on light effects.
The most significant difference between the two articles involves Monet’s detail use. Storm claims that Monet mastered the theme and variations art form. With this technique, Monet painted many variations reflecting one theme. The minor details, such as color palates, lighting effects, shading, and texture, distinguished his variations from one another. Although Monet adjusted very minor details, each variation portrayed a different idea, feeling, and perspective. Carroll claims that Monet mastered, and even founded, Impressionism. The overall tone and theme’s effect carry the most importance, not the details. She provides evidence of a reoccurring theme of lighting effects over the course of a day. With lighting being the main theme, other details such as color, texture, and size possess little importance.
I feel that Storm’s argument includes much more evidence, making it stronger and more convincing. Although the history behind Carroll’s argument that Monet painted using an Impressionistic style contains truth, the many subtle details Monet used may have been overlooked. Storm’s evidence proves Monet obsession with details, for they were the only way he could create various paintings, involving the same subject, without being redundant and boring. His varied brushstrokes and complementary color use exemplify the details that altered the entire painting’s image. Also, Storm’s brief explanation of how Monet believed that we must be aware of how we are related to all that we study digs deeper into Monet’s overall nature theme, and how all his theme and variations are related. Overall, Storm’s immense amount of detail and evidence disputes Carroll’s argument, such as Monet disputed us being disconnected from nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment