What's So GREAT About This Painting? Critiquing Monet
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 06. 2022
- Video courses, ebooks, live art instruction, lesson plans and more...thevirtualinstructor.com/members
***
Free course videos and ebooks...thevirtualinstructor.com/memb...
***
In this art history lesson and critique, we look at Monet's painting entitled "Camille Monet on a Garden Bench". We examine what makes this Impressionist painting so wonderful. We learn how Monet used compositional techniques to guide the viewer's eye and how he used light and dark sections of the painting for contrast and interest. We also see how he used color theory to make the painting pop a bit more. Most importantly, we take what we learn from this critique and apply it to own drawings and paintings.
*** - Jak na to + styl
I always learn from your critiques and I find I am getting better at applying your structured approach to my own work. Thank you. You are a very effective teacher.
You are so welcome!
Great analysis. All those same composition principles apply to photography, as well, (which is where I initially learned them, and have employed them since). Before cameras existed, artists had to be the photographers of their day, but after their advent, artists had to develope new techniques of expression such as stippling (Serat), impasto (Van Gogh), surrealism (Dali), & cubism (Picasso). As much as I appreciate the skill it takes to create a realistic painting, I still admire abstract representations more because of the ingenuity & imagination it requires to express and illicit a feeling or emotion - to capture that special essence of something without telling exactly what it is or looks like.
I have zero background for art. And I found it very interesting. Thank you.
I love the fact both are in shadow rather than in both sunlight...that attract me more
I just love the hue of her gown...that green is low saturated but so good
I love old masters for the simple reasons.... especially impressionist... who show everything in few brush strokes 🙏that's a genius for me like Sargent
See the sky light on the bench edge...that's so clever
This is all well and good however, the first thing I see is how well the gentlemen behind the bench is doing such a swell job in holding her and the bench down and keeping them from floating away! I don't see any supporting legs... :)
When it comes to sagacious, you define the term by your approach with your artwork and your ability to explain it to even the most ignorant and stubborn people. That includes myself. No need to challenge you for a verbal jousting
I feel maybe right side of their figure should have been little warmer
Didnt Monet have an eye disease that caused him to see a yellow color imbalance?
But why didn't he paint her hand? What is that black block where her arm and hand should be? Looks like she has a claw appendage
gloves
You say these things and none of it makes absolutely any sense, to be honest....I've been painting for many years now and this painting is honestly very awful, aesthetically. You say that the lines draw us in, nope, it draws you to the top left as lines pass through objects in pointed constraint, and there is lighter color there, eyes are drawn to the light first. So your eyes should immediately be drawn to the bush, it is the most vibrant. Your eyes will then glide slowly left and run directly into the clump of orange bloom which is off-putting, so your eyes will left to the nearest figure......that figure is low resolution, and horribly painted to push your eyes away. The closest line is the wall, pushing your eyes to the right and into the darkness, to the man. The man's figure is much better painted, much better resolution, almost without fault in comparison to the style of the painting itself. You say he is looking at her, but it's almost like he is side-eying the viewer. Feeling a little uncomfortable, you might glance over at her, but she is hideously slopped on the painting, far less detail than the man, so you are drawn back to him, he is the sink to this painting.
In fact, as you draw down on his figure and look at his pants through the slats, it becomes more noisy and distorted....the dress is garbage, the flowers on the bench are trash. Literally the man is the only thing that has feeling in this painting whatsoever. He also happens to be in a third, perfectly centered in one.
Hi Robert, Thanks for sharing your opinions. It sounds as though you may be an artist. What do you consider an aesthetic painting? There are lots of different forms of art and painting. This painting is widely considered a "masterpiece" and compositionally, it is quite brilliant. I really think that we can all learn from all the different types of art that have been produced.
@@thevirtualinstructor It's difficult to measure today's standards against yesterday's paintings though...using that, my statements stand for this painting, it's "value" is only that it was painted by a dead guy many years ago, but there's no real thought or theory behind his works. He sees something, he paints it, there's no real eye for tone and direction with him. I mean, Van Gogh was ten times better, but he was on acid most of the time.....but when it comes to theory, Da Vinci comes real close. Maybe Friedrich, Vermeer, Delacroix, possibly even Hopper....all of which captures the eyes in the right spots and gives a bit of feeling with the tones used on the outsets.
I mean, it's just my opinion on it, art is impossible to measure as each has their own thoughts of what is and isn't beautiful.
@@Asdsfdsf it takes death for your paintings to become art....so since I'm still alive, sure. I've painted many things, and the thing about an artist is that they always find flaws in their own works, so no, I wouldn't say they are particularly good.....but my friends and family all love my work, for some reason. Yeah, I am a bit of an asshole and hardheaded when it comes to perspectives....but there is no way anyone can convince me that a black dot on an empty canvas is art. That might be an extreme example, but there's a fuzzy line that separates good art from garbage....this painting is teetering on it. I said "my opinion" because I would think my opinion had a lot of weight to it considering my abilities and background....but you're right, it did sound like it was more of a way to soften my assholeness.
Yes, I am a programmer...I am also a mechanic, engineer, architect, carpenter and a published poet just to name a few hats I wear...so? I have done many things in life, to gain experience and knowledge, the things I thirst for. And no, it's not a "master of none" situation either, I suffer from eidetic memory, so the things I learn will always be with me until my brain explodes.
I think there are ways to review an artwork without using offensive words that offer nothing substantial to aid the review. What about the flowers make them "trashy"? What about the dress makes it "garbage"? The non renderization of it? A better description could make it better to understand a critique and take it objectively.
@@letym2271 Sure....to the artist.....where are they again?
He was famous painter but This painting is bad on so many levels. This could be a good example for bad painting.