General Forums >> Polls/Discuss Portfolios >> Are you a Monet or a Manet fan?
Are you a Monet or a Manet fan?
back to top |
Posted 5 months ago So can you even tell the difference between them, and if so, which one do you prefer? |
back to top |
| Posted 5 months ago For the handling of paint, both are Gods. Manet tended to paint in the studio environment, where Monet tended to work outside. Manet was an influence on the Impressionists because of his willingness to buck the Academy system of the time, and his handling of paint which has some reference to Velasquez. These are just some quick observations. I will come back to this post again. Manet died at a fairly young age, I have probably been more influenced by Monet, so in that sense I prefer Monet. |
|
| Posted 5 months ago Manet was good, Monet sublime. Monet's "Houses of Parliament at Sunset" is one of the reasons I became an artist. To paraphrase Cezanne," Monet...what an eye!" |
|
| Posted 5 months ago Absolutely Manet hands down. |
|
| Posted 5 months ago Manet. They're both great artists but I like Manet because he seems like the lesser known (and therefore more interesting to me) artist. I say "I like Manet" and most will reply with something like "oh yeah, Monet was great." I'll take the path less traveled, just part of my personality, even though being stubborn about it hasn't always served me well... |
|
| Posted 3 months ago I think that Manet was the first "recognized" artist to break the academic rules rules of perspective, "curving" the horizon line of some of his earlier work, and also painting his figures in their "own" space in a single canvas, ignoring the classic rules of composition and Euclidean space- linear geometric space, these were rules that had gained notoriety during the renaissance and had gone uncontested for about three hundred years. Monet is largely given credit for painting an object as "color", instead of the traditional view of trying to render an objects color. His work eventually became almost unrecognizable by traditional standards,( ie. objective reality) and is probably the artist responsible changing the concept of what a "painting" could be forever. Really, both forever impacted the way people "see" things whether on a canvas, or in everyday reality, just huge contributions- they are both pretty equal in my book! |
|
| Posted 2 months ago Man Ray. http://savannaleigh.deviantart.com/
|
|
| Posted about 1 month ago For me Manet.... yeap... definitively! |
|
| Posted about 1 month ago I have a lot of respect for both. I'd have to say Monet though for breaking conventions and continually changing and developing his work. Manet is a favorite though. He was communicating something other than how light effects objects. He was more interested in human connections. |
|
| Posted about 1 month ago Monet for me. The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy is to go outside, somewhere where they can be quiet, alone with the heavens, nature and God. Because only then does one feel that all is as it should be. Anne Frank |
|
| Posted 29 days ago Monet all the way! |
|
| Posted 29 days ago Monet. but Dali and van gogh are intriguing too. i find i don't like religious art - i find it generally depressing. |
|
| Posted 29 days ago Neither |
|
| Posted 23 days ago I like them both about equally but they were quite different stylistically. Manet was the older man, and closer to France's first avant-garde movement, Courbet's "Realism." Monet was the younger upstart- he was primarily a Barbizon painter experimenting with broken color and outdoor light whose style eventually gave birth to the next avant-garde movement, Impressionism. Manet was a basically a salon painter who scandalized the salons with his frank realism, heavy use of black, and disregard for the standard use of chiaroscuro. Monet, despite his exaggerated broken color effects and quick oil sketches, retained good proportion, tone and some chiaroscuro, yet he interjected an inordinate amount of color in his shadows. Both broke some of the rules, but not all of them. Both could draw well (unlike so many artists who came after them) and they were both academically trained (Manet in Thomas Coture's studio, Monet in Charles Gleyre's). This foundation in good drawing served them well and set them apart from the next wave of Post-Impressionists, guys like Cezanne and Gauguin, who could not (or did not want to) draw well. Both Manet and Monet were not as revolutionary as most textbooks paint them. Yes, their slight defection from academic procedure shocked and horrified the public of their day, but in retrospect, they were in fact both respectable realists who were NOT forerunners of 20th century modernists. That was a fable invented by 20th century art historians who wanted to show a steady transformation from academic art to modernism. Disputing what the textbooks say, I believe Manet and Monet were the last painters of traditional realism (allowing that impressionism is but another species of realism). I don't see them as forerunners of expressionism. The breach or discontinuity between traditional painting and modernist painting begins with Cezanne- the father of modernism.
|
|
| Posted 16 days ago Monet's 24 paintings of the cathedral are amazing to me. My goal is to see all of them and I am getting there. I try to take a picture of each one and study them. I disagree with old bob there about either artist really truly being realists, to me they both are in a whole other category of styles. With the cathedral paintings, he did nothing but study the effects of light on the subject matter, hence making him an impressionist. These artists considered themselves to be people of science and tried to understand everything about light and color. Don't paint lime green just put blue and yellow dots beside one another and create the illusion of green to the viewer. I do agree with him on Cezanne not being able to draw well but with his lack of skill he began to produce the first "real" cubism paintings. It took him supposively so long to do an image that the shadows would change and the fruit would begin to rot before he was done the paintings. He did paint the fruit at different angles, however, most likely by mistake. I have come to appreciate him more than I use too. Even with his lack of ability, he is still a creative artist that came out with overall aesthetically pleasing works of art. I love the line in the movie clueless when she says he looks like a Monet. Implying that a person can look good from far away but when you get close up to them, Yikes. Its witty to me. hahah I'm going to start using that, but probably no one will get it. hahaha |
|
| Posted 16 days ago I have deep respect for Monet, although I also admire Manet's brush strokes. Out of deep admiration for Monet, I even was able to write a song for him called "Broken Colors", the label that the jury or critics of his time gave to their kind of style. One more thing, inspite of his handicap (he became color blind in the latter part of his career), he was still able to produce beautiful and amazing works. Long live Monet! |
|
| Posted 15 days ago Savanna Leigh's reply Man Ray was totally the best. Any other MAN artists out there? WOMAN ok, too! |
|
|
| Posted 15 days ago At one point, I'd definitely have them run together, but they're so different, both in styles and in influence, like when they started and who they led or irritated, although Manet later on did have a little Impressionist period. Manet was the catalyst, the one who both cherished being a rebel and cherished tradition, who got them all labeled as rebels thanks to Olympia and other works. Monet was a quiet leader, determined, steady, not all that interested in the past. In different ways, too, they changed the future. Manet made any future possible by making a stink about art. His broader brushstrokes also became a kind of norm for more conservative early moderns, like Americans (say, Sloan). But they're still thrilling. He also has stayed relevant thanks to his wildness. A Bar at the Folies-Bergere, though its social context and its mirrors, went from dorm poster to pomo theory study. Monet led a sweeping change, though, that has a direct line to Postimpressionism and then, via Cezanne in one direction and color dots in another, to Cubism and Matisse. His ability to lead got him a whole movement, with brief participation from someone as contrary in spirit as Renoir to the point that it's hard to tell them apart for a year or two. He set the idea of works in series that ripple through Modernism, like with Mondrian. The waterlillies anticipate late Modernism, like AbEX. So just enjoy. |
|
|
| Posted 15 days ago If I may be allowed to differ and present a completely unorthodox viewpoint: Modernists may like both Manet and Monet, and claim them as influences, but current classical realist thinking see these two as the last true "old" masters. I checked to be sure my sentiment was on the same page with the rest of the anti-modernist community, so I checked the ARC, the Art Renewal Center, the great repository of anti-modernist scholarship. See: http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=810 Sure enough, both Manet and Monet were heavily represented in the ARC museum, but starting with Cezanne, all modernist painters were excised for producing sub-standard work. Only 20th century artists like Hopper and Wyeth are represented in the ARC museum. Paintings by Picasso, Pollock and Warhol are not included- with the reasons why. I agree with the ARC that only twentieth century artists such as Wyeth are the direct cultural descendants of the great past masters. However, I disagree with the ARC that modernist art is worthless. I believe modernism IS a significant and valuable art when considered separately. I beg for a pluralist view, and for an end to Modernist monoculture. PLEASE! Let us separate "modernist" fine art from "realist" fine art and respect the differences. Let us follow music's example. Fifty years after its beginning, we respect rock and roll as a legitimate kind of music but we do not consider it classical music. It does not pretend to derive from classical music. Even the experimental rock that is not popular music is still defined as rock- not classical. Likewise, let us see modernist art as a separate kind of art- one that is not derived from traditional art! We champion Monet, Manet and the other impressionists as innovators within the boundaries of realism- not as vanguards of those later artists who abandoned it. (See my art bistro post "Standing up to the Kremlin of Modernism.) Today's realists disavow the following art movements: post impressionism, fauvism, suprematism, futurism, abstract expressionism, cubism, dadaism, surrealism, action painting, minimalism, pop art, conceptualism, and postmodernism. For us, academic realism never died and existed (albeit in diminished capacity) alongside all these other art experiments. In the 21st century, realism has resurged once again. Now we are strong enough to dispute the art history told to us in the 20th century textbooks. For us, MATISSE IS NOT THE LOGICAL NEXT STEP ART HAD TO TAKE AFTER MONET. If Matisse, Picasso, and Mondrian had a right to abandon tradition, we have an equal right to retain tradition. One branch of art is not superior to the other. One is not, as Clement Greenberg wrote in 1939, "avant-guard" (relevant art) and the other "kitsch" (non-art trash). Those are fighting words! Just as when Christianity emerged from Judaism and when the Reformation broke from Catholicism, we now acknowledge each individual religion as separate and equally valid paths. Take heed! The newer religion (or art) should not claim it is the only true religion (or art). Otherwise we shall have religious (or artistic) war. |