When did modern painting begin?
It is generally believed to have begun with the Impressionist movement in the second half of the 19th century.
Judging only by the results presented on the canvas, this is probably true.
Since the Renaissance, the unified visual image pursued by Western European painting for four hundred years has reached its peak here in Impressionism, and at the same time it has disintegrated and collapsed from here, and has been replaced by a new term " modern painting " .
From 1874 to 1886, eight impressionist group exhibitions were held like a death knell, announcing the end of the Chinese revival worldview in the field of painting.
Claude Monet, Impressions, Sunrise
Impressionism, however, did not appear suddenly.
It is widely known that although the Impressionists now win many enthusiasts, they are initially badly criticized and ridiculed.
That is to say, even if the Impressionists did not intend it, they entered the stage of history as rebels for the so-called "official exhibition school" that was the mainstream of the art world at that time.
In this regard, they are clearly the successors of Courbet and Manet.
Indeed, when we think about the historical significance of the Impressionists, we cannot bypass their predecessors, Courbet and Manet.
This is not only in terms of expressive style, but also in terms of historical status, and there is a deep and direct relationship between the two authors of Ornans and Olympia and the youth who gathered on the Gabshu Avenue in 1874.
Courbet "Hello, Mr. Courbet"
Courbet had radical revolutionary ideas, even vowing to "burn down the Louvre", but his expressive technique surprisingly preserved a large number of traditional elements.
Although Manet tried extremely bold innovations in pictorial expression, he maintained a strong connection with the official exhibition school at the level of consciousness.
The two are quite different, but both have repeatedly eaten the closed doors of the salon, the stronghold of the official exhibition school, when most viewers and critics believed in the traditional academic school as painting orthodoxy and violently criticized them.
In response to the "official exhibition school", the Impressionists called themselves "independentists", rejecting the mainstream tendencies of the time and preferring the path of "rebellion", in this sense, Courbet and Manet were the earliest "independent schools".
Manet's Lunch on the Grass
Needless to say, this tendency is even more pronounced in the so-called post-Impressionism that followed Impressionism. At that time, Cézanne, Van Gauguin, Gauguin could not even publish their works satisfactorily.
As we all know, the history of painting in the 20th century was shaped from the beginning of these "rebels" who did not meet with talent.
It can be said that a series of "independent schools" existed in the second half of the 19th century, centered on impressionists. This is perhaps a major feature of "modern" painting.
Of course, in addition to the dominant "mainstream" in a certain era, there are also non-mainstreams that can be called "tributaries" and "heretics", which can be seen in any era.
After the death of an artist who did not meet a talent before his death, the true value was recognized, which is not uncommon in history.
Mediocrity High Self-Portrait
But the tributaries of the past leaped with overwhelming force to become the protagonists of history — in other words, such a great division between history and the times — that had never been seen before modern times.
Moreover, the protagonists who called themselves "independents" at that time, each of them truly owned an "independent" art world.
Although they also appeared in the Impressionist group exhibition, Monet, Cézanne, Renoir, Degas, each with a completely different style.
In addition, there are artists such as Odino Redon, who are completely contemporaries of Impressionism, but have been strongly critical of Impressionism from the beginning.
Redon "Cyclops"
The split exists not only between the "official exhibition faction" and the "independent faction", but also exists multiple times within the "independent faction".
Only France, the main stage for the unfolding of modern painting, has shown such diversity. In addition, artists of different personalities such as Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, and Italy have also participated in history.
This has to confuse us as to what the characteristics of modern painting really are.
That's why Rudolf Zettler, in one of the New Art Series, Art of the 19th Century, points out that the 19th century was an era when the concept of "style" was no longer universal.
Indeed, as Zettler points out, we can no longer say "19th-century style" or "modern style" as we say "Baroque" or "Venetian style.".
Rather, the absence of a unified style is the essence of "modern times".
Monet's "Water Lilies"
We should not explore which of the diverse faces presented in modern painting is its original appearance, but we must understand that there are multiple faces that are the true face of modern painting.
It is not until modern times that art with multiple faces like this has entered the historical stage, and for its reasons, Zeitler explains, this is because artists no longer seek formal unity, but prefer to pursue their own individuality, heart and subjectivity.
This explanation is probably correct within a certain range. However, if this is the case, then for the beginning of modern painting, we must at least go back to the Romantic era, which predates Courbet and Manet.
Because, whether it is the pursuit of individuality, or the inner and subjective expression style, it was the first time for the romantic painters.
It can be said that Delacroix was an "independent faction" in the 19th century, because although he was active in the salon, he was scolded every time he published his works, and was completely disliked by the academics.
Delacroix, "Freedom Leads the People"
The modernity of the Romantics
Victor Hugo, the romantic standard-bearer of literature, defined Romanticism this way: "The belated French Revolution." ”
This sentence is a good illustration of the nature of Romanticism—or, in other words, what the Romantic artists believed to be.
That is to say, the Romantic movement, which flourished from the late 1810s to the 1820s, was to give up the same mission as the Revolution that began in 1789, and to be realized in the field of art about thirty years after the Revolution.
In the field of art, classicism is the equivalent of the "old system" that collapsed as a result of the Revolution.
David's Death of Marat
In fact, the classical aesthetic view, culminated in the immaculate ideal beauty, is neatly arranged below the beauty of the various stages, which is very similar to the social structure of absolute kingship:
The self-proclaimed divine king of kings is high above, and the following people and so on are filled in the framework of a definite and unswerving class system.
In order to maintain this social system, just as the Palace of Versailles prescribed strict court etiquette, classical aesthetics also imposed norms to be emulated and laws to be observed in the literary and painting circles.
In this regard, the Romantic artists led by Hugo categorically denied the hierarchy of beauty into nobility and vulgarity, advocated free creative activities, and opposed the shackles of purity.
Here, "freedom" and "equality" remained the slogans of the Romantic movement.
Miller's "Evening Clock"
For example, Stendhal, the author of The Red and the Black, in his 1823 critical essay Racine and Shakespeare, forcefully criticized the principle of the triad required by classical drama, arguing that writers should be allowed more "freedom."
Victor Hugo, in his famous preface to Cromwell in 1827, made it clear that beauty does not exist in fixed forms, but in "character."
Therefore, from the classical point of view, there is also "beauty" in things that are considered "ugly".
Just as echoing the views of these writers, Rico and Delacroix construct a unique world of beauty in vivid and vivid real-life events and free-spirited imaginations.
Rico's Raft of the Medusa
If classical aesthetics are based on reason, it is natural to think that the Romantics give priority to sensibility.
As baudelaire, who considered himself a proponent of the Romantics and was twenty-five years old, clearly asserted in his essay "Salon of 1846", "Romanticism lies in the way of feeling".
Classicism is based on the universal rationality of mankind, so of course it is necessary to pursue the beauty of the ideals common to all people.
In contrast, Romanticism attaches more importance to the sensibility of the individual, advocating the negation of the norm of beauty, breaking this hierarchy, and at the same time giving birth to a variety of "beauty" rooted in the artist's individuality.
As a painter and excellent critic, it is no accident that Delacroix left a review article entitled "The Diversity of Beauty".
Classicism holds that people in the world are interconnected through reason in the same world, and when this concept is replaced, and the Romantic idea that every individual is different in the "way of feeling" appears, "modern" painting, which has lost its stylistic unity, is not far from birth.
That is to say, the so-called "modern times" are, at least on a spiritual level, the product of Romanticism.
Goya, "Shooting the Rebels on the Night of May 3, 1808"
The young artists who promoted the development of the Romantic movement had a clear understanding of this. Since there is no precedent to follow, and there is no norm to follow, what they want to create must be something new that has never been precedentd in history.
For them, romanticism is the most new, that is, the art of "modern times".
In fact, Stendhal said in Racine and Shakespeare that "classicism is the art of pleasing the ancients, and romanticism is the art of pleasing the present."
Baudelaire asserted more explicitly that Romanticism is "the latest and most recent manifestation of beauty" and that "to talk about Romanticism is to talk about modern art."
Victor Hugo, who was committed to destroying the "old system" and achieving a "belated revolution", was even more convinced of the "modernity" of Romanticism.
As such, in terms of trusting the "novelty" of history—as do the revolutionaries in reality—it can be said that the Romantic artists were the children of the Enlightenment of the 18th century.
Turner "Shipwrecked"
In his novel Les Misérables, Hugo depicts the young Gaphroche standing on the barricades of the July Revolution singing, singing that "voltaire is all to blame, all to Rousseau."
The revolutionary barricades are like this, and the struggle around Onani is, in a sense, "all blame Voltaire" and "all blame Rousseau". It is no accident that the Romantic generation, represented by Hugo, was also a believer in the utopian socialism of Saint-Simon.
Of course, even so, the artists of the Romantics were not all "progressives" of Lotte.
On the contrary, many people are deeply touched by the insurmountable estrangement between themselves and others, and are troubled by their own divisions with society.
The "modern afflictions" that became a huge shadow of the artist's mind at the end of the 19th century also began to sprout in the era of the Romantics.
Doumière", "Third Class Carriage"
This is a contradictory situation for the Romantics, under the banner of "freedom" and "equality", who aspire to achieve a "revolution" in art, but this is also the contradiction that "modern times" must bear.
From the recent history after the Romantics, we will find that this contradiction clearly pointed out by Baudelaire has been changed and re-emerged many times.
In this sense, romanticism is the starting point of modern times.
The content of this article is excerpted from the "History of Modern Western Painting"
History of Modern Western Painting
[Day] by Gao Jie Xiu'er
Pricing: 98.00
China Pictorial Publishing House
Publication date: 2021.8
Click on "