Impressionism ( was Re: Borrowing terms from other art forms)
Luis Fontanills
lynn...@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
> Luis writes:
> > In bonsai, I could see this term used if one captured a moment in time -
> an
> > impression. For example: In a windswept form bonsai, if every leaf and
> twig
> > appeared as if the wind was just rustling through, it could be labeled
> > impressionistic. I'm going back to Walter Pall's most recent draft to
> study
> > this aspect: he has a good definition of how he would ascribe this term
> to
> > bonsai, in general he broadens it from the above definition for painting.
> >
> Luis,
> That would be the most meager description of a larger
> concept, if you intend that, okay, but I don't think that was the
> intention when it was suggested.
>
------- Lynn,
I was not suggesting that this was Walter's intent with the term
Impressionistic. It is totally simplified in my post, as it relates to
painting/drawing, to not continue to complicate the issue further;-) Whole
tomes could and have been written upon it (See your post response below - and
this ain't the half of it ;-) My take on the windswept bonsai was only one
way it could be applied.
BTW As in many of these movements, it was a not very admiring critic that
wrote of 'these impressionists' in a derogatory way, and the name stuck ;-)
Such is life.
<<> Impressionism was a Movement- not some decided upon category. As such it
> spread, it changed with artists and grew in concept to much more. It began
> in the mid-1800s under that name, but may have started a bit earlier. It
> moved to UK, to America and produced works by Turner, for example, that
> were close to nature's light and colors, became a Naturalistic and then
> Romantic even mode. The "bundle" is much more integrated with other
> effects. I cannot agree that it meant momentary in viewing - nor that it
> was intended to be such. The artist employed an instantaneous lighting
> effect for other purposes too.
> One of the difficulties of explaining the expansive use of
> Impressionism and Expressionism, and other terms is that they were
> Movements, lasting sometimes over decades, to a century or more, and
> accrued meanings that are much farther reaching than an initial effect.
> They now all encompass more than a few words re the beginning, and within
> each category are differences, often broken down often by just an artist's
> name. I f one says it is like a Monet, than it is different than if it
> is like a Renoir. There are even terms, like Pointillism, that fall under
> the term of an Impressionist beginning. The term is large enough to find
> home in more than one context. As is Expressionism and Romanticism, and
> Classic - and once past that initial categorization that is easily
> understood one in most cases must describe by simple words - Because no
> work of art is the same, and it deserves an individual recognition, so we
> often just use the name of an artist, as you speak of the Expressionist
> architect to be more specific.
> However, I suspect you were using it purposefully in its
> narrowest sense which is a description of its origin, not its maturity as a
> category.
>
> Lynn >>
Yes, I don't think this bonsai list would want an art/architecture history
course for me to answer Ernie's question, "Is there also an impressionist
movement in
architecture?" ;-) For those who have further interest in this art subject,
a good overall book is H. W. Janson's 'History of Art'.
So Lynn, do you feel that the term Impressionist is useful to describe
bonsai? I would post Walter's version but I need to get his permission first.
Walter you out there?
Luis Fontanills
********************************************************************************
+++++This list is supported, in part, by a contribution from Jim Ranshoff+++++
>>-->> The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ <<--<<
To leave the list, send SIGNOFF BONSAI to: LIST...@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Lynn Boyd
> So Lynn, do you feel that the term Impressionist is useful to describe
> bonsai? I would post Walter's version but I need to get his permission
first
Luis,
I think some refinement could improve, but I think if Walter and his
equally interested artists are in agreement on the term from their European
sites then I think it would be useful from the standpoint that it led to
softening edges (foliage in a natural manner, rather than tightly designed
clouds, more naturalism accepted in form, taking it close to romanticism.
A Euopean contingent should be heard from, too. This is an International
forum, yet we are hearing from a very few. I am wondering why, but I also
know that Walter has an art background in his family so comes by such terms
with a familiarity not in hand to everyone.
I have a copy of Walter's. I did not suppose he had completed his
refinement and have since sent him thoughts on it.
This movement was originated by Walter as a proposal and must include
other artists whom we are not hearing from, other than Colin Lewis and a
post from Reiner Burmeister congratulating Walter, no word so what others
are contemplating is lacking. I feel this lack . . . ??
My take was that Walter's proposal need not be the only one. If you and
Jay can present something that the artists find acceptable, good job!!
Walter has initiated the action, however, and I think has an awareness
others may not. If, as he stated, it is his plan to publish his proposal
then I would judge the response. If he wishes help with such a proposal
then you and Jay are good candidates for a "well-structured" offering
for him to take to press.
I thought too much was required to categorize trees at times in
Walter's, and that is a problem that can be corrected. There were some
overlapping categories is all.
I am not much impressed with a taxonomy that would impress Linnaeus.for
use in the arts.because of the nature of indivudualism in works of art.
I give room in description for a listener's adaptation to an aesthetic
response as painting styles do. Ole Linnaeus doesn't do that.
I seem to be unable to judge if the collection of styles in all my
bonsai books is needing a logical organization. You two get busy . . . I
am getting a headache - :))
Lynn
Walter Pall
Luis wrote:
> So Lynn, do you feel that the term Impressionist is useful to describe
> bonsai? I would post Walter's version but I need to get his permission
first.
> Walter you out there?
>
Luis,
here are some thoughts:
Impressionistic: In painting most people think of impressionism to be
connected with a totally new way of having treated light and color in the
last decades of the 19th century. Really it was more than that. Before
impressionism, painters would paint what they had learned to paint, what
they had learned to see. They would study in buildings with partially
artificial light and then paint a landscape and people not as they really
appeared but as the painter had learned. The impressionists looked at what
really could be seen and painted exactly that and not what they knew should
be painted. They painted their impression and did not express what they knew
should be painted. This meant that all sorts of new colors appeared which
somehow were overlooked before. They also painted the shapes they saw and
not the ones that they had studied and learned to paint. In bonsai we are
more concerned with shapes than with colors and light although they also
mean a lot.
Very much the same happens in bonsai art. Instead of designing a bonsai
according to well known guidelines as one knows it "must" look like, one
tries to capture the feeling of real trees. In the impressionistic bonsai
style the artist tries to design the tree so that the impression of what he
sees in natural trees is reflected. An impressionistic bonsai wants to look
like a tree rather than a bonsai. Typical are branch forms which are close
to natural vs. the stiff and over manicured look of classical branches. Also
uncommon trunk forms, features like holes, kinks, upward growing branches
would be found in this style. Trees are formed in the way the species grows
in nature. A spruce looks like a spruce. The new style is especially
conspicuous with deciduous trees. They are never formed to look like a
conifer. The impressionistic trees want to give the impression of a real
tree and not the impression of a bonsai. The impressionistic trees are
usually also naturalistic trees, but not necessarily. A naturally stunted
tree with extreme twists and fantastic deadwood can be turned into a bonsai
which is highly abstract and at the same time highly impressionistic. It's
the natural parts of the tree that make it impressionistic.
Expressionistic: This is the style where the artist has an inner image of an
ideal tree in general (mostly a pine tree) or an ideal tree concerning a
certain species. The design follows this ideal rather than what many trees
in nature really look like. An expressionistic tree wants to look as much as
a good bonsai as possible. Classical trees usually are expressionistic.
Deciduous trees that look like a conifer are typical examples of
expressionistic styles.
Expressionistic usually goes with the abstract style, but not necessarily.
One can design a bonsai which is highly naturalistic in the expressionistic
style. Nick Lenz has done very naturalistic trees which are sitting on
statues of goblins or on real skulls, spines or hands made of ceramics. This
is fantastic realism, which is expressionistic in nature.
best regards
Walter Pall
Walte...@t-online.de http://home.t-online.de/home/Walter.Pall
brand new gallery with 60 trees
Alan Walker
is considered very out of date for many plants. There seems to be one main constant,
and that is change is inevitable.
Alan Walker, Lake Charles, LA, USA
And the more things change, the more they remain the same!
> >>SNIP<< I am not much impressed with a taxonomy that would impress Linnaeus,
> for use in the arts, because of the nature of indivudualism in works of art. I