Whereas the paintings have the character of a drawing in Heinrich Wolfflin's terminology — the sketches give a "painterly" effect: fleeting impressions which as such have nothing to do with Impressionism. They were simply sketches, devoid of any stylistic intent, provisional jottings that he typically did not sign. Despite their provisional character, however, they often have a great, very artistic density. Rousseau himself regarded them as unfinished, and therefore incomplete and imperfect. He obviously had at his command an artistic freedom which he, however, did not "need" for his art: he was concerned with other things — works that have the char-acter of finality and permanence. It is strange that Rousseau's later admirer. the young American painter Max Weber, who often visited him and bought works from him, preferred the sketches to the finished versions, a prefer-ence with which he did not do justice to his artist friend.
In 1886 Rousseau exhibited a lovely painting entitled A Carnival Evening (illus. p. 17) in the Salon des Independants. There has been aston-ishment that the artist, who after all dated the beginning of his painting career only to the mid-t88os, should have set out on his artistic path with a masterpiece of such maturity, however little his contemporaries may have recognized this. How was it possible that a master just 'fell from the sky' like this? He must surely have tried his hand at painting earlier, although we have no evidence for this. If there were earlier attempts, re-mained in obscurity. tiniest detail, as we can see from surviving pencil drawings. He did however sketch trees In the flesh," so to speak, with a freedom that he never permitted himself in his finished pictures. What he noted down summarily in his sketches — often of great aesthetic appeal — was translated in the paintings into a neat agglomeration of branches, twigs, and leaves. There are about ten surviving examples in his artistic oeuvre that demonstrate this step from the free sketch to the definitive work. It is as though the artist was neglecting to use a proficiency that was obviously within his grasp. These sketches are often called "impressionistic: This is erroneous, as Impressionism cannot be defined merely through loose brushwork. Rousseau was never affected by Impressionism, he never employed the "comma script" of the Impressionists, he never made us of the prismatic breakdown of color, and he never regarded as his concern the liberation of color from the object and as an end in itself. His sketches had a tonal quality — in other words, they were pre-Impressionist in character and their freedom was just that of the brushstroke and was restricted to the
Whereas the paintings have the character of a drawing in Heinrich Wolfflin's terminology — the sketches give a "painterly" effect: fleeting impressions which as such have nothing to do with Impressionism. They were simply sketches, devoid of any stylistic intent, provisional jottings that he typically did not sign. Despite their provisional character, however, they often have a great, very artistic density. Rousseau himself regarded them as unfinished, and therefore incomplete and imperfect. He obviously had at his command an artistic freedom which he, however, did not "need" for his art: he was concerned with other things — works that have the char-acter of finality and permanence. It is strange that Rousseau's later admirer. the young American painter Max Weber, who often visited him and bought works from him, preferred the sketches to the finished versions, a prefer-ence with which he did not do justice to his artist friend. In 1886 Rousseau exhibited a lovely painting entitled A Carnival Evening (illus. p. 17) in the Salon des Independants. There has been aston-ishment that the artist, who after all dated the beginning of his painting career only to the mid-t88os, should have set out on his artistic path with a masterpiece of such maturity, however little his contemporaries may have recognized this. How was it possible that a master just 'fell from the sky' like this? He must surely have tried his hand at painting earlier, although we have no evidence for this. If there were earlier attempts, re-mained in obscurity. tiniest detail, as we can see from surviving pencil drawings. He did however sketch trees In the flesh," so to speak, with a freedom that he never permitted himself in his finished pictures. What he noted down summarily in his sketches — often of great aesthetic appeal — was translated in the paintings into a neat agglomeration of branches, twigs, and leaves. There are about ten surviving examples in his artistic oeuvre that demonstrate this step from the free sketch to the definitive work. It is as though the artist was neglecting to use a proficiency that was obviously within his grasp. These sketches are often called "impressionistic: This is erroneous, as Impressionism cannot be defined merely through loose brushwork. Rousseau was never affected by Impressionism, he never employed the "comma script" of the Impressionists, he never made us of the prismatic breakdown of color, and he never regarded as his concern the liberation of color from the object and as an end in itself. His sketches had a tonal quality — in other words, they were pre-Impressionist in character and their freedom was just that of the brushstroke and was restricted to the
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..