Learning From the Old Masters

From Raphael to Renoir, the “Inspiring Impressionism” exhibition explores the teacher-student relationship between Old Master painters and Impressionist artists. Curator Timothy Standring explains how visionaries of the19th century reinterpreted established styles in order to simultaneously follow and forsake artistic tradition.

LEARN MORE: Northern Trust is proud to be the National Sponsor of "Inspiring Impressionism," an original exhibition of the great Impressionists featuring over 80 works of art from more than 40 museums and private collections around the world. We invite you to experience this one-of-a-kind exhibition in Atlanta, Denver or Seattle.

The Zuiderkerk, Amsterdam (Looking up the Groenburgwal), c. 1874 by Claude Monet (1840–1926) Oil on Canvas, 21 3/8 x 25 in. (54.4 x 65.4 cm) Philadelphia Museum of Art; Purchased with the W. P. Wilstach Fund, 1921

Lady in a Fur Wrap, c. 1577–80, by El Greco (1541–1614). Oil on canvas, 24 5/8 x 19 1/4 in. Glasgow City Council (Museums), The Stirling Maxwell Collection, Pollok House.

The Little Country Maid, c. 1882 by Camille Pissarro (1830–1903) Oil on canvas, 25 x 20 7/8 in. (63.5 x 53 cm) Tate, London, Bequeathed by Lucien Pissarro, the artist’s son, 1944

Art is equal parts beauty and science. And although the former can’t be taught — it’s in the eye of the beholder, after all — the latter most certainly can be, and has been for centuries.

Just ask Timothy Standring, Gates Foundation Curator of Painting & Sculpture at the Denver Art Museum and co-curator of “Inspiring Impressionism,” a groundbreaking exhibition that made its debut at Atlanta’s High Museum of Art in October 2007. Before and during the exhibition — which is currently featured at the Denver Art Museum through May 2008, and will travel to the Seattle Museum of Art in June 2008 — Standring intensely studied the work
of French 19th century artists and how it
correlates to that of their contemporaries.

All artists are simultaneously students and teachers, Standring says, soaking up knowledge like sponges, and then wringing it out onto their canvas for future generations of hungry scholars to digest.

As evidenced in “Inspiring Impressionism,” which includes more than 80 works of art from over 40 museums and private collections worldwide, the Impressionists were no exception. Like most students, they learned from their predecessors, borrowed from them, and, eventually, rebelled against them.

Wealth magazine recently spoke with Standring to discuss the significance of “Inspiring Impressionism,” which is sponsored by Northern Trust, as well as the juxtaposition of old with new, the relationship between master and pupil, and the artistic legacy left by two very different generations of painters.

What’s the significance of the “Inspiring Impressionism” exhibit?
Impressionists looked to the art of the past as they discovered their own artistic intentions of painting with loaded brushes, with vigor and passion, as they captured what was then considered modern life. Many came from academic art schools and learned from the important artists of the past, such as Velazquez, Hals and Rubens.

This exhibition is the first to examine the overall broad engagement that the Impressionists had with those former masters. After all, the Impressionists fought for space in the galleries of the Louvre with hundreds of other artists with their attempts to copy the Old Masters.

Describe the Old Masters versus the Impressionists. Who are these artists, and how do they differ?
Old Masters generally are those who painted before the 19th century, all roughly represented as examples in the Louvre, including Raphael, Claude, Rubens, Velazquez, Boucher, Fragonard and Goya. Impressionists are Manet, Cezanne, Cassatt, Monet, Pissarro, Renoir, Morisot and Degas.

Their primary differences lie in the finished product. In Old Master paintings, especially in the 16th and 17th century, there was a hierarchy of subject matter. Most important were history paintings, which would be mythological or religious, [followed by] portraits, then landscapes, then genre paintings — everyday life, for example — and then, at the bottom, would be still life.

The Impressionists basically abandoned that hierarchy, yet they borrowed a great deal of painting techniques from the Old Masters. You could easily see Morisot imitating a Boucher, trying to imitate the same feathery brushwork, but without its mythological content.

How are the Old Masters and the Impressionists interacting with one another on the canvas?
Well, the Old Masters were dead, so they couldn’t really interact. But I think that the Impressionists found their own artistic intentions toward freedom of the brush by looking closely at works by the Old Masters. Scumbling (softening colors or blurring outlines), loose brushwork, impasto (applying thick layers of paint) and working the surface with different viscosities of paint were some of the Old Master techniques that appealed to many of the Impressionists.

So how, exactly, does one group of artists — the Impressionists — learn from another group — the Old Masters — without any physical interaction?
The Impressionists were part of a long tradition, over a couple hundred years, in which they were encouraged to learn excellence of execution. How did they do that? They simply put up an easel at
the Louvre, put up their canvases and they were allowed to copy paintings right in the Louvre. There were hundreds of artists who did this. So by copying the Old Masters, they learned excellence of execution.

… and if the Old Masters had been alive to directly mentor the Impressionists?
I think Manet and Velazquez would have become close buds. They would have understood each other immediately and recognized that the essence of their art resided in almost execution alone, which is really modern.

This exhibit is all about learning. What can we, as viewers, learn from looking
at these paintings?
The thing we learn from this exhibition is how to look closely. We can still learn from Moby Dick, even though Herman Melville’s not around. Just the same way, Velazquez was dead, but Manet could still look at the surface of his painting, which still speaks loudly. It’s a mute way of teaching.

Finally, what is the legacy of these particular students and teachers?
The legacy of both is brilliant painting. Period.

For more information on “Inspiring Impressionism” or to purchase tickets, visit northerntrust.com/impressionism.

[top]