The most beautiful painting I have ever seen in my entire life

[bascule]

...is now hanging on my wall. Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte:

 

(and ugh, this scan can't come close to doing it justice)

 

 

This painting embodies Seurat's disdain for the haphazard approach of the Impressionists and the crowning achievement of pointilism/neo-Impressionism. Seurat discarded the whimsical approach to color used by the Impressionists and sought out scientific and biological color theories when developing his pointilist technique.

 

The painting appears as splotches of contrasting colors up close, but from a distance blends into a beautiful, vibrant whole.

 

To me the painting represents the abandoment of a haphazard, unscientific, common-sense approach and the embracing of a sound methodology. And... the colors! There's really nothing else like it, but to appreciate it you really need to view a large print (or the original) from a distance.

 

Perhaps more to the point though, it represents a superbly executed conceptualist masterpiece.

 

Anyway, there's no painting I love more than this one so... just thought I'd share.

[Martin]

...is now hanging on my wall. Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte:

 

 

that is a refreshing and exhilarating painting

the man in red is playing a bugle

 

I count two steamboats

 

a woman by the water has her hand extended as if she is feeding breadcrumbs to ducks, but I cannot distinguish the ducks---I only see some white blotches on the water where ducks should be.

 

the original of the painting is in Chicago and is rather large, i believe, for a painting. Do you happen to know how the reproduction on your wall compares in size with the original?

 

Is that a monkey?

[Martin]

Bascule, the only person I am inclined to want to start a conversation with is the little girl in white. She has more personality than the others. Do you find that also.

[ecoli]

I've seen it at some art museum (perhaps the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC?). As far as impressionist works go, this might be one of the best. But, honestly, I'm not too impressed by the impressionists (no pun intended )

[YT2095]

the 1`st Human Ink-Jet printer

 

as the child in white, probably because it`s dead center of the print.

same applies with camera work, the items of interest are usualy 2/3`rd the way up in the frame (often reserved for eyes in TV work).

also Why is there a Monkey in the picture?

[aj47]

I too like this painting. 'Bathers at Asnières' is another one of my favourites by Seurat. We used to have a print in our old house but it mysteriously disappeared when we moved.

[bascule]

the original of the painting is in Chicago and is rather large, i believe, for a painting. Do you happen to know how the reproduction on your wall compares in size with the original?

 

My print is approximately 1/4 size of the original (39"x27") but still large enough for the color blending effect to work.

 

Is that a monkey?

 

Yes!

 

Bascule, the only person I am inclined to want to start a conversation with is the little girl in white. She has more personality than the others. Do you find that also.

 

For some reason in my print the young girl and her mom in the center are quite a bit dimmer, and her facial detail is more muddied.

 

I've seen it at some art museum (perhaps the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC?).

 

The original is at the Art Institute of Chicago

 

As far as impressionist works go, this might be one of the best. But, honestly, I'm not too impressed by the impressionists (no pun intended )

 

But this is neo-Impressionism!

[padren]

I can't say 100% but I am pretty sure I saw that one when the impressionist exhibit came through denver in...I think 2000ish.

 

I've seen it before so my brain may be fuzzing two instances together, but I am pretty sure I saw it there. I do recall liking that one especially, good aquisition.

[YT2095]

I like the one with those Dogs playing Poker, I`m sure I`m not alone in this?

[rewebster]

I read someplace that Seurat was influenced to paint like this after he examined a print of a painting and noticed all the 'dots' that made up the print.

[bascule]

I read someplace that Seurat was influenced to paint like this after he examined a print of a painting and noticed all the 'dots' that made up the print.

 

That almost certainly isn't the case. The halftone screen was invented by Samuel Simon in 1907, and Seurat died in 1891.

 

Seurat's main inspiration was biological research into the human perception of color and expressing in paint an additive color space which would come about through the long distance perception of juxtaposed colors (additive primaries and secondaries). Halftone screens utilize a subtractive color space, where cyan, magenta, yellow, and black tones are laid on top of one another and mix on the page (just like mixing paint on the canvas), instead of in the mind's eye. Seurat's work is more akin to looking at a TV screen than it is to full color art printed with a halftone screen process.

[ecoli]

The original is at the Art Institute of Chicago

I didn't mean the original, just a high quality print.

 

But this is neo-Impressionism!

For a not-art history person, it sounds to me like you are splitting hairs, yeah?

 

I like the one with those Dogs playing Poker, I`m sure I`m not alone in this?

"Looks Like Four of a Kind" by C. M. Coolidge (1844-1934)

[bascule]

For a not-art history person, it sounds to me like you are splitting hairs, yeah?

 

Seurat was one of the first people (if not the first person) to make use of additive colorspaces. Therein lies the distinction between Impression and Pointilism.

 

"Looks Like Four of a Kind" by C. M. Coolidge (1844-1934)

 

Most kitsch painting ever!

[DaveC426913]

Ah OK, I guess I am a philistine. I recognize Seurat's painting - and specifically the girl in white - from 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off'.

 

Despite being very short it was actually a rather poignant scene. And on my description of that scene alone, I inadvertantly convinced my mother to see the film.

[AzurePhoenix]

Is it wrong that the only reason I am even remotely interested in this painting is because I'm imagining that little monkey spreading some agonizing and gruesomely deadly jungle-disease to everyone? Including the personality-rich little girl, and that naked-mole-rat-like dog with the little bow.

 

Now, dogs playing poker? that one is a masterpiece, a mark of genius and creativity, life and absolutely meaningless "WTFness" (the keystone of good art ).

[bascule]

Ah OK, I guess I am a philistine. I recognize Seurat's painting - and specifically the girl in white - from 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off'.

 

That's the first place I ever saw this painting too, and didn't learn its name or history until recently, at which point I fell in love with it.

 

I do remember the scene with the little girl. The version I linked makes her face, and her mother's, appear much brighter than they do in the original, I believe. The interplay of light and shadow in the painting are simply brilliant, and in the original, while her face and her mothers show bright in the very center of the picture, their faces are both masked in shadow. That doesn't seem to come through in the scan I linked.

[-Demosthenes-]

I can't say 100% but I am pretty sure I saw that one when the impressionist exhibit came through denver in...I think 2000ish.

 

I've seen it before so my brain may be fuzzing two instances together, but I am pretty sure I saw it there. I do recall liking that one especially, good aquisition.

 

You'd be surprised how different Seurat was different from earlier Impressionists. The "pure" Impressionist, Monet, would paint a picture really quickly and try to capture the essence of the light from the image. Those like Seurat (a Post-Impressionist) would do something similar graphically, but worry less about how it captured an actual impressions of light.

 

Each piece was almost a scientific experiment. It's Impressionism with a scientific approach. Like this painting, every artist knows that when you mix paint to make a new color, that color is duller and less vibrant than the original colors used to mix it were. How can we fix this? Don't mix the colors, just put small dots on the canvass and allow the viewer to visually mix the colors, presurving the brightness of the mixed color!

 

But I believe this artistic movement was short lived, causing it to be lumped with the "Impressionist" movement by those of us looking back. They were extremely similar, the commonplace subject matter, the style, and most Impressionists were pretty different from each other anyway. Monet who would only paint what he could see right in front of him (the Realist without the realism ), Manet who seemed like he just wanted to be different, and Renior just trying show what the people were like around him. In the end maybe Impressionists were just the ones trying new things.