Charles Baudelaire’s “The Painter of Modern Life” and G.-Albert Aurier’s “Symbolism in Painting: Paul Gauguin” are key texts in understanding the creation of modern art in France. When looking at art produced from the 19th century, art changed forms from traditional, naturalistic styles towards modern styles is clear. Baudelaire and Aurier wield their conceptions of art and beauty against the Academy and its traditional style in the two texts. The different theories established in each article express a non-academic sentiment in the realms of style as well as subject and contest the authority and taste of Academic styles. In order to understand influence these texts, it is fundamental to catalog the arguments they are making. In
…show more content…
Baudelaire points to the rapid, loose, and simplified style of Guys’ indicates it’s effectiveness in capturing the modern. He claims pace of modern life could not be portrayed in the tight, finely worked, and highly descriptive style preached by the Academy. Innovations such as the locomotive and electricity had added a new rapidness to society. That aspect combined with the blurring of sexual, political, and societal boundaries lead to the inevitable shift in style according to Baudelaire. He proclaims Guys’s rapid and ambiguous portrayal of daily life as an authentic representation of modern life; claiming that he depicted the modern world as it was to most people: changing and confusing. Airier’s praise of Gaugin is quite different. Airier highlights Gaugin’s art as being ”purely decorative“ just as primitive art was (source). Because his art was purely subjective, and only had a few natural elements Gauguin's paintings were not simply his reproduction of an object or a place but rather a commentary and projection of …show more content…
Devoid of academic style, tight, naturalistic, detailed, works with an emphasis on the nude, both Guy and Gaugin were able to push the boundaries of art in France during the 19th century. Both the style of Guys and the subjects of Gaugin presented new and exciting works that were not aligned with the Academy. In doing so, the Academy and its role of authority in realms of artistic style and education was questioned. By presenting alternatives to the Academic style, Aurier and Baudelaire advocate for nonacademic art and instead encourage new styles to
Baudelaire points to the rapid, loose, and simplified style of Guys’ indicates it’s effectiveness in capturing the modern. He claims pace of modern life could not be portrayed in the tight, finely worked, and highly descriptive style preached by the Academy. Innovations such as the locomotive and electricity had added a new rapidness to society. That aspect combined with the blurring of sexual, political, and societal boundaries lead to the inevitable shift in style according to Baudelaire. He proclaims Guys’s rapid and ambiguous portrayal of daily life as an authentic representation of modern life; claiming that he depicted the modern world as it was to most people: changing and confusing. Airier’s praise of Gaugin is quite different. Airier highlights Gaugin’s art as being ”purely decorative“ just as primitive art was (source). Because his art was purely subjective, and only had a few natural elements Gauguin's paintings were not simply his reproduction of an object or a place but rather a commentary and projection of …show more content…
Devoid of academic style, tight, naturalistic, detailed, works with an emphasis on the nude, both Guy and Gaugin were able to push the boundaries of art in France during the 19th century. Both the style of Guys and the subjects of Gaugin presented new and exciting works that were not aligned with the Academy. In doing so, the Academy and its role of authority in realms of artistic style and education was questioned. By presenting alternatives to the Academic style, Aurier and Baudelaire advocate for nonacademic art and instead encourage new styles to