Whenever I see an Impressionist painting, I can't help but think, "That's what things look like when I don't have my glasses on."
2006-08-17 00:43:45 · 5 answers · asked by thebuffettour 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
Colourshift is right about Monet but only at the end of his life. Art critics of the time thought exactly the same thing, they considered impressionists paintings as 'unfinished' but they missed the whole idea behind impressionism. The impressionists tried to capture the effects of light on nature and this made them work extremely fast because light is constantly changing so they didn't have the time to smoothen the painting like other artists at the time who spent most of their time indoors.
2006-08-17 05:06:23 · answer #1 · answered by Lumas 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They DID, for example Claude Monet. But it's not the "out of focus" look of impressionist paintings that make them great. It's the way they capture the feel of things, "impressionistically". Perhaps that has something to do with the way impressionism seems to capture time and movement.
2006-08-17 07:54:17 · answer #2 · answered by artful dodger 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe I read that some of them actually had glaucoma. (sp?)
Explains a lot...but I love it anyway.
Pity, it would make me nuts to paint a piece while squinting the entire time, lol, to get the similar effect.
2006-08-17 09:28:43 · answer #3 · answered by colourshift 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many of them did wear glasses.
And your question has been asked many times before in many different versions. It is a highly cliched art joke brought back to life by you.
2006-08-17 12:22:01 · answer #4 · answered by Doc Watson 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very cute question and I think your analogy is great. But they are beautiful are'nt they.
2006-08-17 10:56:05 · answer #5 · answered by deedleydee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋