wiz-icon
MyQuestionIcon
MyQuestionIcon
1
You visited us 1 times! Enjoying our articles? Unlock Full Access!
Question

Art historians’ approach to French Impressionism has changed significantly in recent years. While a decade ago Rewald’s History of Impressionism, which emphasizes Impressionist painters’ stylistic innovations, was unchallenged, the literature on impressionism has now become a kind of ideological battlefield, in which more attention is paid to the subject matter of the paintings, and to the social and moral issues raised by it, than to their style. Recently, politically charged discussions that address the impressionists’ unequal treatment of men and women and the exclusion of modern industry and labor from their pictures have tended to crowd out the stylistic analysis favored by Rewald and his followers. In a new work illustrating this trend, Robert L. Herbert dissociates himself from formalists whose preoccupation with the stylistic features of impressionist painting has, in Herbert’s view, left the history out of art history; his aim is to restore impressionist paintings “to their socio-cultural context.” However, his arguments are not finally persuasive.

In attempting to place impressionist painting in its proper historical context, Herbert has redrawn the traditional boundaries of impressionism. Limiting himself to the two decades between 1860 and 1880, he assembles under the impressionist banner what can only be described as a somewhat eccentric grouping of painters. Cezanne, Pisarro, and Sisley are almost entirely ignored, largely because their paintings do not suit Herbert’s emphasis on themes of urban life and suburban leisure, while Manet, Degas, and Caillebotte—who paint scenes of urban life but whom many would hardly characterize as impressionists dominate the first half of the book. Although this new description of Impressionist painting provides a more unified conception of nineteenth-century French painting by grouping quite disparate modernist painters together and emphasizing their common concerns rather than their stylistic difference, it also forces Herbert to overlook some of the most important genres of impressionist painting—portraiture, pure landscape, and still-life painting.

Moreover, the rationale for Herbert’s emphasis on the social and political realities that Impressionist paintings can be said to communicate rather than on their style is finally undermined by what even Herbert concedes was the failure of Impressionist painters to serve as particularly conscientious illustrators of their social milieu. They left much ordinary experience—work and poverty, for example—out of their paintings and what they did put in was transformed by a style that had only an indirect relationship to the social realities of the world they depicted. Not only were their pictures inventions rather than photographs, they were inventions in which style to some degree disrupted description. Their painting in effect have two levels of subject: what is represented and how it is represented, and no art historian can afford to emphasize one at the expense of the other.

The author’s statement that impressionist paintings “were inventions in which style to some degree disrupted description” serves to:


A
strengthen the claim that impressionist sought to emphasize the differences between painting and photography
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
B
weaken the argument that style is the only important feature of impressionist paintings
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
C
indicate that impressionists recognized that they had been strongly influenced by photography
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
D
support the argument that an exclusive emphasis on the impressionists subject matter is mistaken
Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses
E
undermine the claim that impressionists neglected certain kinds of subject matter
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
Open in App
Solution

The correct option is D support the argument that an exclusive emphasis on the impressionists subject matter is mistaken
Option (D) is the correct answer. Check the video for the apporach.

flag
Suggest Corrections
thumbs-up
0
similar_icon
Similar questions
Q.

The painter is now free to paint anything he chooses. There are scarcely any forbidden subjects, and today everybody is prepared to admit that a painting of some fruit can be as important as a painting of a hero dying. The Impressionists did as much as anybody to win this previously unheard-of freedom for the artist. Yet, by the next generation, painters began to abandon the subject altogether, and began to paint abstract pictures. Today the majority of pictures painted are abstract.

Is there a connection between these two developments? Has art gone abstract because the artist is embarrassed by his freedom? Is it that, because he is free to paint anything, he doesn't know what to paint? Apologists for abstract art often talk of it as the art of maximum freedom. But could this be the freedom of the desert island? It would take too long to answer these questions properly. I believe there is a connection. Many things have encouraged the development of abstract art. Among them has been the artists' wish to avoid the difficulties of finding subjects when all subjects are equally possible.

I raise the matter now because I want to draw attention to the fact that the painter's choice of a subject is a far more complicated question than it would at first seem. A subject does not start with what is put in front of the easel or with something which the painter happens to remember. A subject starts with the painter deciding he would like to paint such-and-such because for some reason or other he finds it meaningful. A subject begins when the artist selects something for special mention. (What makes it special or meaningful may seem to the artist to be purely visual—its colours or its form.) When the subject has been selected, the function of the painting itself is to communicate and justify the significance of that selection.

It is often said today that subject matter is unimportant. But this is only a reaction against the excessively literary and moralistic interpretation of subject matter in the nineteenth century. In truth, the subject is literally the beginning and end of a painting. The painting begins with a selection (I will paint this and not everything else in the world); it is finished when that selection is justified (now you can see all that I saw and felt in this and how it is more than merely itself).

Thus, for a painting to succeed it is essential that the painter and his public agree about what is significant. The subject may have a personal meaning for the painter or individual spectator; but there must also be the possibility of their agreement on its general meaning. It is at this point that the culture of the society and period in question precedes the artist and his art. Renaissance art would have meant nothing to the Aztecs—and vice versa. If, to some extent, a few intellectuals can appreciate them both today, it is because their culture is a historical one: its inspiration is history and therefore it can include within itself, in principle if not in every particular, all known developments to date.

When a culture is secure and certain of its values, it presents its artists with subjects. The general agreement about what is significant is so well established that the significance of a particular subject accrues and becomes traditional. This is true, for instance, of reeds and water in China, of the nude body in Renaissance, of the animal in Africa. Furthermore, in such cultures the artist is unlikely to be a free agent: he will be employed for the sake of particular subjects, and the problem, as we have just described it, will not occur to him.

When a culture is in a state of disintegration or transition, the freedom of the artist increases—but the question of subject matter becomes problematic for him: he, himself, has to choose for society. This was at the basis of all the increasing crises in European art during the nineteenth century. It is too often forgotten how many of the art scandals of that time were provoked by the choice of subject (Gericault, Courbet, Daumier, Degas, Lautrec, Van Gogh, etc.).

By the end of the nineteenth century there were, roughly speaking, two ways in which the painter could meet this challenge of deciding what to paint and so choosing for society. Either he identified himself with the people and so allowed their lives to dictate his subjects to him; or he had to find his subjects within himself as painter. By people I mean everybody except the bourgeoisie. Many painters did of course work for the bourgeoisie according to their copy-book of approved subjects, but all of them, filling the Salon and the Royal Academy year after year, are now forgotten, buried under the hypocrisy of those they served so sincerely.

Which of the following views is taken by the author?
Q. Folk and tribal art forms a part of Indian art as a whole. It has undergone transformation since a long time. They have evolved along with classical art. Tribal and folk art belongs to the section of people who belong to different social groups and it has a native flavor. These are visual arts, for example, paintings that depict their lifestyle, tradition, and culture. They are the ones close to nature and this thing is regional. They have a set of belief system that allows them to interpret things in their own native ways and this influence them in their art even. Puranic gods and legends are often changed into contemporary manner. Tribal and folk art has the inclusion of fairs, festivals, local deities, fantasy in their representation. Indian art cannot do away with this section that has a regional and a mystic aura in it. Nomadic way of life is also an integral part of the tribal and folk art. Pithora paintings of the tribes of Rathwa, Bhilals, and Nayka of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh are another fine example of Indian tribal art. These paintings convey the joy and celebration of the community. Tribal paintings from Orissa, earlier done as household decoration, but now a commercial art-form done on raw silk fabric, have themes of everyday life. Madhubani paintings depict bright, lively deities, most popularly Krishna and his beloved Radha, and various stories associated with their legend. They are named after the village of their origin. Others such as Phad, Warli, Pithora, and Choittora also fall in this category of Indian art. Tribal art is a term covering the art products and performances of tribes. Indian tribes have definite artistic expression. Geographical, sociological, historical, and traditional factors determine the degree of primitiveness among tribes.
Indian tribal art is always delineated upon positive themes and ideas such as birth, life, harvest, journey, jubilation, or marriage. The Indian tribes pay due veneration and reverence to Mother Earth and its crucial elements. It is a tribal art form where life and ingenuity are fused. Indian tribal paintings and sculptures are of exceedingly high quality and are documents of their cultural heritage. Tribes have made their own place in the contemporary world of art. The art gives the tribes a power and responsibility to control and guide them through it. The symbols portray the imaginations of men and these imaginations are the representative emotions of the people of a particular period and society.
Indian tribal art is an art where life and creativity are inseparable. Indian tribal arts have a unique sensitivity. Their art is a manifestation of their life and holds their passion and mystery. The tribal art is one of the most fascinating parts of the tribal culture in India. The treasure of tribal arts is immense and has an astounding range, diversity, and beauty. Traditional Indian tribal art tries to wholly recreate the immortal charisma of Indian tribal life. One can easily come across exquisite pieces of Indian tribal art in different parts of India. The Indian tribal art is rich in expression and is a living form very much with the times. It has become an intrinsic part of the country's cultural identity.
Through solemn efforts, the Indian tribes try to keep alive a culture that is thousand years’ old, comprising music, traditions, rituals, and art. They live in complete harmony with nature by preserving their resources and blending with the environment. The Indian tribal art is the influence of the contemporary art and its narrative approach is deeply indebted to the contribution of the history of tribal art that cannot be obliterated.

The statement "geographical, sociological, historical, and traditional factors determine the degree of primitiveness among tribes" implies
Q. Read the following passage and answer the (four) items that follow:
Folk and tribal art forms a part of Indian art as a whole. It has undergone transformation since a long time. They have evolved along with classical art. Tribal and folk art belongs to the section of people who belong to different social groups and it has a native flavor. These are visual arts, for example, paintings that depict their lifestyle, tradition, and culture. They are the ones close to nature and this thing is regional. They have a set of belief system that allows them to interpret things in their own native ways and this influence them in their art even. Puranic gods and legends are often changed into contemporary manner. Tribal and folk art has the inclusion of fairs, festivals, local deities, fantasy in their representation. Indian art cannot do away with this section that has a regional and a mystic aura in it. Nomadic way of life is also an integral part of the tribal and folk art. Pithora paintings of the tribes of Rathwa, Bhilals, and Nayka of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh are another fine example of Indian tribal art. These paintings convey the joy and celebration of the community. Tribal paintings from Orissa, earlier done as household decoration, but now a commercial art-form done on raw silk fabric, have themes of everyday life. Madhubani paintings depict bright, lively deities, most popularly Krishna and his beloved Radha, and various stories associated with their legend. They are named after the village of their origin. Others such as Phad, Warli, Pithora, and Choittora also fall in this category of Indian art. Tribal art is a term covering the art products and performances of tribes. Indian tribes have definite artistic expression. Geographical, sociological, historical, and traditional factors determine the degree of primitiveness among tribes.
Indian tribal art is always delineated upon positive themes and ideas such as birth, life, harvest, journey, jubilation, or marriage. The Indian tribes pay due veneration and reverence to Mother Earth and its crucial elements. It is a tribal art form where life and ingenuity are fused. Indian tribal paintings and sculptures are of exceedingly high quality and are documents of their cultural heritage. Tribes have made their own place in the contemporary world of art. The art gives the tribes a power and responsibility to control and guide them through it. The symbols portray the imaginations of men and these imaginations are the representative emotions of the people of a particular period and society.
Indian tribal art is an art where life and creativity are inseparable. Indian tribal arts have a unique sensitivity. Their art is a manifestation of their life and holds their passion and mystery. The tribal art is one of the most fascinating parts of the tribal culture in India. The treasure of tribal arts is immense and has an astounding range, diversity, and beauty. Traditional Indian tribal art tries to wholly recreate the immortal charisma of Indian tribal life. One can easily come across exquisite pieces of Indian tribal art in different parts of India. The Indian tribal art is rich in expression and is a living form very much with the times. It has become an intrinsic part of the country's cultural identity.
Through solemn efforts, the Indian tribes try to keep alive a culture that is thousand years’ old, comprising music, traditions, rituals, and art. They live in complete harmony with nature by preserving their resources and blending with the environment. The Indian tribal art is the influence of the contemporary art and its narrative approach is deeply indebted to the contribution of the history of tribal art that cannot be obliterated

What are the intrinsic characteristics of Indian tribal art?Indian tribal art is delimited upon the human life style and its relationship with environment.
  1. (ii) and (iii)
  2. (i), (ii), and (iv)
  3. All of the above
  4. (i), (ii), and (iii)
View More
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
similar_icon
Related Videos
thumbnail
lock
Folk and Classical Art and Art Styles
HISTORY
Watch in App
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
CrossIcon