/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3226991
>So what ends up guiding the avant garde is drawing below the level the artist is capable of.
If by that, you mean "the more detail / time / work in it, the better", then you have an economic, most unartistic way of measuring quality.

> I wouldn't be surprised if what inspired Monet to create Impressionism was looking at what amateur artists were doing at the time. Their palettes were probably clumsily colorful, and their brushstrokes unmixed, and it made him angry when that work which was far less technically capable than his was getting attention.
Impressionism wasn't invented by Monet alone. And it's way more analytic (take Georges Seurat) than you make it seem. The culture of amateur, sunday painters has only just come to being after WWII, I would say, as the middle class had enough time and financial stability to persue such hobbies. And their dirty color pallets were certainly not as rich and inspiring (that would rather apply to the unconventional, crass colors of expressionism). The impressionism of Seurat for instance was much more influenced by the science of optics.

If you really believe that the motivation was to "hide what [they were] capable of", you are painfully mistaken. Impressionism is an advancement to conventional realism. Monet was taking it even further at the time when his eyesight was deteriorating, which was a very organic, clinical reason behing his style in painting at the time.

>in the way Monet probably saw his fellow lesser Frenchmen painting and considered their colorful work "primitive"
Are you confusing Claude Monet with Eduard Manet?

>but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the root cause of Impressionism.
Theory without evidence is :-[