The Great Art Debate

[thebish]

You name it Monet did it before Van Gogh.

errrr.... cut off his ear?

[thebish]

errrrr.... appeared in Doctor Who?

[thebish]

errrr... had a popular NE Van-rental company named after him?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

My next suggestion was going to be that Monet could at least have been influenced by Van Gogh's colour pallette, but I see MK has already got there.

Certainly Van Gogh was a pioneering user of yellow, when innovations in commercially available pigments in his liftetime made that more possible. It's possible that Monet was himself only taking advantage of these innovations in his use of the colour, but it is also seems likely to me that Van Gogh's work made an impression on him.

Meadow in the Sun at Giverny and An Orchard in Spring used the new fangled yellow. They were painted in 1886, well before the 1888-90 period when Van Gogh went crazy using yellow (now there's a theory maybe the yellow sent him mad!), so even his pioneering use of yellow turns out to be not so pioneering as Monet's use.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

You name it Monet did it before Van Gogh.

errrr.... cut off his ear?

Monet cut off his ear in 1882 and sewed it back on again. without anaesthetic.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

only joking.

[thebish]

You name it Monet did it before Van Gogh.

errrr.... cut off his ear?

Monet cut off his ear in 1882 and sewed it back on again. without anaesthetic.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But why would it? Monet was one of the leading artists of the impressionists; Van Gogh was largely unknown. Everything that Van Gogh did that you might claim as an influence on Monet's landscape painting, well, simply put Monet had done [demonstrably] earlier than Van Gogh. Monet painted Vase of Tulips in 1885, three years prior to Van Gogh painted any one of his now famous flower still lifes. Monet painted "Haystack" two years before any of Van Goghs famed Hayfield themed paintings. You name it Monet did it before Van Gogh.

I'll go and lie down in a minute.

I think you're probably right, but these things aren't dealt with via quick put downs, or are rarely so emphatically proved that they can sensibly called a 'demolition'!

The point is, if Monet's post 1890 landscapes seem to look a bit more like Van Gogh's work than those he painted before, then it's not unreasonable to wonder whether the younger painter's handling of paint might (along with others) have made some slight impact. Look at his willow trees for example - there's definitely something of the Van Gogh about them even if that's (a) a coincidence or (b) attributable to developments more generally, wouldn't you say?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Great discussion anyway, MK - let's get this documentary commissioned. We'll get on TV somehow...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

But why would it? Monet was one of the leading artists of the impressionists; Van Gogh was largely unknown. Everything that Van Gogh did that you might claim as an influence on Monet's landscape painting, well, simply put Monet had done [demonstrably] earlier than Van Gogh. Monet painted Vase of Tulips in 1885, three years prior to Van Gogh painted any one of his now famous flower still lifes. Monet painted "Haystack" two years before any of Van Goghs famed Hayfield themed paintings. You name it Monet did it before Van Gogh.

I'll go and lie down in a minute.

I think you're probably right, but these things aren't dealt with via quick put downs, or are rarely so emphatically proved that they can sensibly called a 'demolition'!

The point is, if Monet's post 1890 landscapes seem to look a bit more like Van Gogh's work than those he painted before, then it's not unreasonable to wonder whether the younger painter's handling of paint might (along with others) have made some slight impact. Look at his willow trees for example - there's definitely something of the Van Gogh about them even if that's (a) a coincidence or (b) attributable to developments more generally, wouldn't you say?

Sometimes, when interacting via 'electronic' means, the tone of the interlocutor is lost in translation. I am not attempting to 'put down' or 'demolish' anything or anyone. Verbs theory is a fine theory - the fact that I feel it can be 'destroyed/demolished/knocked-down' so quickly has nothing to do with its fine quality, more a lack of appreciation as to just how revolutionary Monet truly was.
I am of the opinion that Monet was a superbly talented painter who accomplished many things in painting, and not just in composition, but also in style and technique. I also accord little value to Van Gogh - I find him overblown and very dramatic, but in no sense revolutionary. Therefore my main aim in this 'discussion' is to assert the traditional view that Monet influenced Van Gogh, but this funky new idea that Van Gogh influenced Monet is to my ear* an affront, because to put it in the bluntest of blunt terms how can a crap painter influence a genius like Monet - there, colours (yellow included) firmly nailed to mast. * d'ya see what I did there?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Also, and this is something I have noted but upon which I may be entirely wrong, you prefer long winded finely-crafted-utilising-minute-intricacies-within-tiny-parts-of-a-picture type discussion, whereas my good fellow, I prefer fecking big dramatic take it or leave it statements. Therefore we were fated to clash over this. But Mr Kint has been accepted into my reception class and starts this September.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

PS I'm going to search through Monet's back catalogue to try and find a willow tree he painted earlier than Van Gogh. If I fail I solemnly swear to accept that Van Gogh might, just might, have influenced his willows, but even then it was probably Manet what did it.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

PS I'm going to search through Monet's back catalogue to try and find a willow tree he painted earlier than Van Gogh. If I fail I solemnly swear to accept that Van Gogh might, just might, have influenced his willows, but even then it was probably Manet what did it.

Triumphant return to the debate:

Monet 1880 Woman sitting under the willows


Van Gogh painted a pollarded willow in 1882, a bunch of pollarded willows in 1884 but no willows as such until 1888.

[mrkint]

That is the great thing about debates - from small things do ideas ferment and explode, as two sides fervently debate what is what. In this case, from a single, throwaway sentence...

I get your point LLS but just posting pictures of stuff that Monet painted before Van Gogh did doesn't really prove anything...I've no quarrel to pick with the idea that Monet was the grandaddy, and that Van Gogh was influenced heavily by him. But a tragic figure such as Van Gogh, however you look at him, does have an impact.

How was Van Gogh's death treated at the time by his contemporaries? I'm aware he was rather unknown to the wider world then, but did his peers revere his work as modern day folk (well, apart from LLS) do now?

I'm just interested as after a (brief) comparison of the two, they seem to be two sides of the same coin. Both started off working and being impoverished during their early career, and while Van Gogh's descended into madness, Monet got ALL the money...interestingly, at around the same time Van Gogh bid farewell. Van Gogh yearned for some kind of collective artists' utopia. Monet, in a sense, had that with the impressionists. While him and others (Renoir?) worked before, during and after the entire life span of VVG, this little Dutch fella burned brightly then burned out within the space of ten years. Would make an interesting dramatisation, that. Or at least some better research than I can do

Anyway, the point being that I can picture Monet feeling quite sorry for this poor Dutch chap...or at least, seeing some sort of reflection of his life in another direction. Again, I'm just dramatising here but it is an interesting thought. My mind does this sometimes.

[mrkint]

Great discussion anyway, MK - let's get this documentary commissioned. We'll get on TV somehow...

Thanks! Amazing where a throwaway line can lead you

Might bob down to the national gallery actually at the weekend if your about. Compare some Monets, or summat.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

That is the great thing about debates - from small things do ideas ferment and explode, as two sides fervently debate what is what. In this case, from a single, throwaway sentence...

I get your point LLS but just posting pictures of stuff that Monet painted before Van Gogh did doesn't really prove anything...I've no quarrel to pick with the idea that Monet was the grandaddy, and that Van Gogh was influenced heavily by him. But a tragic figure such as Van Gogh, however you look at him, does have an impact.

How was Van Gogh's death treated at the time by his contemporaries? I'm aware he was rather unknown to the wider world then, but did his peers revere his work as modern day folk (well, apart from LLS) do now?

I'm just interested as after a (brief) comparison of the two, they seem to be two sides of the same coin. Both started off working and being impoverished during their early career, and while Van Gogh's descended into madness, Monet got ALL the money...interestingly, at around the same time Van Gogh bid farewell. Van Gogh yearned for some kind of collective artists' utopia. Monet, in a sense, had that with the impressionists. While him and others (Renoir?) worked before, during and after the entire life span of VVG, this little Dutch fella burned brightly then burned out within the space of ten years. Would make an interesting dramatisation, that. Or at least some better research than I can do

Anyway, the point being that I can picture Monet feeling quite sorry for this poor Dutch chap...or at least, seeing some sort of reflection of his life in another direction. Again, I'm just dramatising here but it is an interesting thought. My mind does this sometimes.

I do see what you are saying, but I just don't believe that VVG influenced Monet in any way.

As for the picture above (willows), that is purely in response to PB's idea that Monet's willows were Van Gogh like, but if Monet was painting willows before VVG and developed them over a ten year period and we then look at Van Gogh's and say they are similar, well the obvious direction of influence is from early to late.

On a further point, as it had never occurred to me before, but virtually all of Van Gogh's later signature stuff - vases of flowers, willows, hayfields seems to have been painted by Monet in the early 1880s and then used as a theme by VVG in the 1888-1890 period, in fact it's so uncanny that I've just looked and yes, he (Monet) painted Sunflowers seven years before VVG.
In fact I haven't found a single subject that VVG painted that isn't part of Monet's back catalogue [with the singular exception of portraiture which VVG concentated on but Monet did not].

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

PS I'm going to search through Monet's back catalogue to try and find a willow tree he painted earlier than Van Gogh. If I fail I solemnly swear to accept that Van Gogh might, just might, have influenced his willows, but even then it was probably Manet what did it.

Triumphant return to the debate:

Monet 1880 Woman sitting under the willows


Van Gogh painted a pollarded willow in 1882, a bunch of pollarded willows in 1884 but no willows as such until 1888.

The subject matter is not itself what's important. I was just saying that his later willow trees like these had a bit of a VG flavour to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Claud ... Willow.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As it happens, I think I am a pretty objective partcipant in this debate because I am not, on this occasion, prejudiced by strong feelings on the artists' respective merits and contribution to painting.

I can't think now what I have said that has left you with the impression I am fixated on the detail. Interesting.

[mrkint]

To LLS: You're just scared of the truth, MAAN. You've been conned by the BOURGEOIS ART ELITE and now you can't see the truth for their cash dollarS!1!!!

Nah, I know I'm just spitballing. And you are probably right. But it is a nice idea to play about with if you're not the most anti-Van Gogh person ever and as I say, might be a nice dramatisation.

As an aside, I went to the National Portrait Gallery at lunch. Saw that Kate Middleton painting. More annoying in real life.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I can' think now what I have said that has left you with the impression I am fixated on the detail. Interesting.

There has been nothing specific that's been said in this debate. It's more a feeling I've got from other stuff where if when somebody makes a big statement and you disagree then your prefered method of attack is in the detail lying behind the big statement, not the big statement itself. Not that it matters, as such, 'twas just a passing observation.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I can' think now what I have said that has left you with the impression I am fixated on the detail. Interesting.

There has been nothing specific that's been said in this debate. It's more a feeling I've got from other stuff where if when somebody makes a big statement and you disagree then your prefered method of attack is in the detail lying behind the big statement, not the big statement itself. Not that it matters, as such, 'twas just a passing observation.

Ah ok! Yes, possibly a fair general point.

Which I why I was interested in whether or not this had crossed over into how I look at art without my necessarily being aware of it (although detail is important!).