|
Vlaminck The Orchard 1905 |
What do you
make of using all this intense color to create a landscape? The reds, blues and yellows are like those
found in a basic box of crayons. They
are chosen for reasons other than depicting trees and brush. Emotion is expressed here; that of the artist
and of the viewer, as well. Blue and
green constrain the energy of red and yellow.
That’s a start. The frenetic, oil
laden brush strokes stir up an overall agitation. The trunk of the tree gives our eyes a
resting spot. It’s 1905 and this is the
work of Maurice de Vlaminck – one of the early practitioners of Fauvism. The expressive brushwork reminds us of van
Gogh but the charged colors point elsewhere for its source. We’ll be looking for someone unconcerned with
dimension. His choice of colors might
seem arbitrary.
|
van Gogh Self Portrait 1889 |
|
van Gogh Wheat Field 1889 |
Let’s first
look to van Gogh. He shows little
concern for modeling form. Such an
approach would distract from the mood he intends to convey. The mountains flow as a river, separating the
sharp glint of sky from the warm turbulence of wheat ready for harvest. Amidst it all a man swings his scythe. Can he be representing us? We are strangers on this Earth. Our life a pilgrim’s progress – a passage
from Earth’s womb to the uncertain realm that is God’s. Of
course it could just be the scene of a man reaping the late summer harvest.
|
Gauguin Tahitian Landscape 1897 |
|
Gauguin Self-Portrait with Halo 1889 |
Gauguin freed
color from representing nature. Where
van Gogh might choose deep blue to depict a mountain shadow Gauguin would
ignore what he saw and instead provide a flat field of red if it suited his
purpose. His self-portrait of 1899 foretells
the work of Henri Matisse by about fifteen years. Decorative design substitutes for the illusion
of form. The painting insists on
remaining flat. Color is as much the topic
as is Gauguin’s sardonic portrayal of himself.
|
Matisse Lady on a Terrace 1907 |
Why would
one of the great Twentieth Century artists deliberately give his painting the
look of a crude postcard? Imagine the
impact of the colors if the scene had been skillfully rendered. Carefully considered design and color would
be swept aside by our admiration for storyline and the masterful modeling of
form and depth. We might mistake landscape
for the subject when Matisse is actually exploring the matter of yellows and
reds.
|
Matisse Self-Portrait in a Striped T-Shirt 1906 |
Someone gave
the name of ‘Wild Beasts’, or Fauves, to the followers of Matisse. They were the Beastie Boys of Parisian art salons. How could anyone find art in these garish pictures?
This is the work of anarchists who knowingly perpetrate fraud on those
foolish enough to purchase these insults to Western civilization.
|
Picasso Self-Portrait 1907 |
|
Picasso Nude Women 1906 |
Henri
Matisse was undisputed leader of the Fauves while his greatest artistic rival defied
categories and would be known simply as Picasso. He mastered classical oil painting while
still a youth living with his parents.
He could have made a splendid living for himself painting portraits of
the wealthy. Ha! Look at this self-portrait. Picasso is an arrogant son-of-a-bitch. The only person good enough to judge his work
is himself. The best of his work dares
you to say otherwise. The Fauves may
have coaxed him away from a rose palette but he would always be a movement of
one – except for his brief collaboration with Georges Braque and the development
of Cubism.
|
Dufy Self-Portrait 1899 |
Raoul Dufy
would become one of the Beastie Boys
of color. A few years prior to his
transformation he painted himself as a disdainful, callow youth with a
pugnacious tilt of the hat. Compare the
image with that of Picasso. They are of
similar age. One wishes to sell you on
his self-assurance. The other doesn't care what you think.
|
Dufy Boats at Martigues 1908 |
|
Dufy Martigues |
Now look at
Dufy under the influence. He’s absorbed
the intensity of Vlaminck and the audacity of Matisse. Such is the fire that burns within
youth. Dufy’s running with the bulls would
be spectacular but short-lived. He
returned to the portrayal of substance.
Forms once again exhibited weight.
His return to the subjects of classical masters was refreshed with the
influence of Cézanne.
|
Macke Self-Portrait 1906 |
|
Macke Woman with a Yellow Jacket 1913 |
August Macke
is all of nineteen in this portrait he painted of himself. Possibly he’s struggling at growing a
beard. It’s 1906 and the Fauves are the
talk of the avant-garde. Within a year
he will be swept up by the excitement of the Paris art scene. Macke is enraptured with color. He composes luminous fields of reds, yellows
and blues. The people populating his
paintings are barely implied. His love
affair with Fauvism lasts but a couple of years. He’s intrigued by Robert Delaunay’s work at
coloring Cubist structure. Form once
again matters. See the woman before the
window. Look at all the unexpected
facets that required his expertise in color.
What painter of illusion could resist this play of light and dark?
|
Macke Woman in front of a Large Window |
|
Malevich Self-Portrait 1910 |
Here’s the
portrait of the Russian painter, Kazimir Malevich. He’s giving us the look of serious
intent. The back of his mind, though, is
filled with thoughts of sex. How can you
not savor the sensual backdrop he provides us?
Now view his study of the crucified Christ – it’s nearly drenched with
runny yellow. Everyone, including the
pious old saints, is stripped to their unadorned flesh. Kazimir will likely undress you with his
eyes. So what direction does this man of
sensual desire take himself? He arrives
at the doorstep of Piet Mondrian – the artist celebrated for painting pure
abstraction: a few black lines,
intersecting perpendicular to one another; a white background; a box or rectangle
here and there, filled with basic blue or red or yellow. For Malevich these compositions are
music. It views like Stravinsky sounds –
a romance unadorned. Malevich exiles all
things organic. Make abstract
geometric. Make it simple, simpler,
simplest. Finally, Malevich falls off
the deep end with White Box on White. The box is curiously set ajar. Actually it’s not really a box because it
doesn’t quite fit in the canvas. It’s
five-sided. It only gives you the illusion
of being square. Brilliant! Malevich gives us the simplest geometry, void
of primary colors. He nearly renounces
the pictorial narrative. Still, we have
to ask ourselves, “Why is the box askew?”
Actually, it’s not a box. It’s a
square. Wait! It can’t be a square if there are five
sides. But there really are only four
sides because part of the square is out of the picture. Who says – the artist? Hmm. Guess
who created a storyline out of radically minimal abstraction?
|
Malevich Sketch for Fresco 1907 |
|
Malevich White Box on White 1917 |
No comments:
Post a Comment