While it is mystical, it gives too much quiescence that is there with the impressionistic style. This like Picasso's painting above is a happy trip and does not exhibit as much negative energy as Picasso. He also does not seem to be trying to summon any primitive energies. Rather Seurat's painting is very urban. He is obviously a product of a new city, with new sidewalks, parks and a newly affluent city where nature had been tamed, including the monkeys on the leash. While it may seem that the monkeys are almost a Darwian joke, it does seem to be in the same as the dog on the leash of the lady with the umbrella. The dog and the monkey almost seem to expensive accessories like a handbag that has no other purpose. Indeed, the monkeys all over the painting make one wonder who is really in charge.
The individual dots, dashes and small strokes are fascinating however. It is almost as if he is stitching together some kind of needle point. This meticulous, colored dot method, plays with the eyes and the perception of color and light. Its validity as a descriptive system is questionable and, in my opinion, incidental to what he is trying to achieve. He obviously wants the person to think about the scene and look underneath the bourgeois surface of the middle class society that he is portraying. This is why Seurat needs to be so meticulous, with so much extra details, contributions to depth and perception. He plays a lot with the light. I would make the argument that La Grande Jatte's was not so much a painting as a satire of middle class life. It is so subtle that someone has...
While this is understandable from the artist's point-of-view (they have to make a living after all), in terms of who goes down in my art hall of fame is the Picasso piece.
QUESTION #3)
a) The art that I like is cubism. This is because I appreciate the way that it takes a lot of chances and plays with the
human mind. It might not look like reality, but it reflects the real world in that it portrays the craziness of the world as it is. Reality has no real order and every kind of artificial constraint that we throw over it are like a gossamer shroud that only barely covers the ugliness of that reality. Rather, if we let the artist go and become less attached to "reality," we will actually capture more of it. This is why I believe that Picasso was a successful as he was. He really captured the craziness in our souls and explored it when were too scared or attached to reality or our petty jobs and existences. Away from the checking accounts, the cars and the mortgages (or in the landscape caused by them, they help us connect with the truly important things in life that make life worth living and being human worth doing.
b) The movement I disliked was
impressionism because it did not take enough chances. I know that I have harped on the essence of the mystical in art, but the only art that really matters is the art that breaks all of the conventions. Like in
psychology, we learn a lot more about
human nature and reality by breaking the rules and seeing art in the abnormal. After all, the human beast is unpredictable. Unlike most
animals, we are disconnected from nature but think that we have more control over it than any other animal. Impressionism is too subtle to let most of know that this control is very ephemeral at best. One needs art on the edge to discover the world at the center.
