I will be discussing the difference between the work of
Gustave Caillebotte specifically Floorscrapers, 1875 and an impressionist work
of Claude Monet On The Bank Of The Seine, Bennecourt, 1868. In the work of
Caude Monet he is taking realism to an extreme while Caillebotte’s work seems
to align itself more with realism. A clear line can be drawn between
Floorscrapers and the work of Gustave Courbet in The Stone Breakers. Both pieces
focus on the monotony and darkness of real work and the working class. Both
images depict men down on the ground grinding it out in hard repetitive work. This
contrasts Monet’s depiction of a seemingly rich bourgeois woman enjoying a beautiful
afternoon without work or obligation. I find the Floorscrapers piece to be an
amazing study of light and its effect in a poorly lit or unlit room. However it
is not a scientific snapshot of the way that light effects reflection and
shadow in the way that the Monet piece On the Bank of the Seine,
Bennecourt does.
The Monet piece is a textbook example of impressionist painting
featuring an outdoor depiction of urbanized Paris
depicting a split second in time. Perhaps the woman sitting on this bank only
sat down for a brief moment and surly the boats moved out of the frame moments
later. Yet comparatively in the Caillebotte painting this has the weight and
feeling of an activity that goes on all day or perhaps even days on end. In
Contrast as well, this is an indoor scene, it reminds me again of the grittiness
of realism because it shows reality. In order for these outdoor scenes of
modernized, industrialized paris to
exist the reality of the floorscrapers is what had to happen.
The Monet piece is painted in plein air and alla prima with
speed and impasto brush strokes. While Caillebotte’s painting seems to have
much more time spent with a thinner application of paint, again it is depicted
indoors. Comparitivly the Floorscrapers also features illusionism in
perspective with the room tilted up as in the woodblock prints from Japan
while Monet’s piece features very straightforward linear perspective. Floorsrapers
also depicts half naked men showing more of the academic interests in the
celebration of the human form and nudity. Comparatively Monet depicts a woman very
modestly covered. While Caillebotte is
aligning himself more with certain stylistic aspects that fit more with the
academy, the way that the men’s faces are turned down and obscured by darkness
would not have been approved of by the academy. It has that in common with the
work of Claude Monet, I suppose that neither composition would have sat well
with members of the academy. Both pieces seem to be inspired by photography. Based on the cropping of each composition,
the way the window and man on the left are cropped halfway in the Floorsrapers
and the way that Monet’s piece looks like it is perfectly framed for a
photograph. In conclusion while these paintings are similar in style, yet when
examined more closely they are very different. They may draw from some of the
same influences however the work of Caillebotte seems to me to have much more depth
in composition.
You said early in your post that unlike the woman on the bank the floor scrappers do not approach light in the same scientific way. I disagree with this. Caillebotte uses various different aspects from impressionism in his painting while still adding his own bit of flare. I feel as though light and dark is still being played with scientifically just not quite in the same manner. The light in the middle of the floor and on the beams is very vauge in the way its shown. It is almost smudged on to give a certain affect that the eye will eventually pick up. Both of these paintings are packed with meaning and although they may appear to be very different they each describe their own little bit of history using many of the same techniques fashioned to fit each artists' style and subject matter.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting because it seems that Caillebotte doesn't fall into any definite category. He has some impressionist characteristics like his use of light and color, he shows interest in anatomy which is favored by the academy, and he is showing men doing hard labor which is a characteristic of realism. This must be why his work is so intriguing.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in the portrayal of the wet wood in the Caillebotte piece. Both pieces have an accurate portrayal of light's interaction with water.
ReplyDeleteI also am very interested within the usage of lighting and color that Caillebotte applies to his works. I also think you have made an interesting comparison within these two artists.
ReplyDelete