What's your opinon of this piece of writing?

[sandyRoe]

The critic, Jules-Antoine Castangary, when reviewing the Salon exhibition of 1863, wrote:
“The purpose of painting is to express, according to the means at its disposal, the society that produces it...”
(Castagnary, 1863, in Harrison et al., 1998, p. 411)

If that were true, then the tumult throughout 19th Century French political life should have helped produce avant-garde art as exciting as the times.
Whatever was actually bubbling under the surface in the world of art, the Ancien Régime seem to have had the prestige and power to keep a lid on it for most of that time. The members of The Academy of Fine Arts had appointed themselves arbiters of what was acceptable. They would have seen themselves as guardians of all that was best in the world of art and must have looked on Cézanne's work with some bemusement. The more tactful of the judges may have thought him no more than a hopeless artist manqué. Their 'no' to his work could have been more than a diplomatic refutal of a particular painting.

Reactionaries on both sides of The Channel were of a like mind when it came to modern art. The critic, Ruskin, in his publication, 'Fors Clavigera', (July2, 1877) famously dismissed Whistler and his work, 'Nocturne in Black and Gold', with the caustic observation:
“... he had never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face.”

Cézanne fared no better with his first critics. One, using the nom de plume, 'Prouvaire', vituperatively condemned his paintings as being as much a burden to him as was Christ's cross as he walked to Calvary. He also mocked the fact that Cézanne was supposedly famous for never having had a painting accepted by any jury.
('Prouvaire',1874 in Moffat, 1966, p. 126)

[sandyRoe]

It's that bad, eh?

[jackthehat]

I not sure if I'm supposed to comment on the subject matter, or the style..........

[sandyRoe]

Any thoughts on either would be appreciated.

[jackthehat]

Those that can......do.
Those that can't.........criticise.

[jake-the-peg]

Your original quote does not make it clear whether or not Castangary was speaking in approval or disapproval of the art selected for the exhibition.

And which Salon are we talking about here - this was the famous Salon des refuses - is he takilng about the original Paris Salon or the Salon des refuses held by all the radicals that couldn't get in

It's not clear which side of the fence he's on

perhaps there's more and I'm seeing it out of context

Your first sentence seems to imply that htere was no exciting avant garde art being produced - clearly there was otherwise the Salon des refuses would not have been held and you seem to recognise and contradict that in the rest of the writing

Does that help any?

[Davethedog]

Like most things in the arts - you can't point at one aspect or criticism and its gospel.

I find most crtique either motivated by bias or snobbery. You can review anything and give an opnion as long as you understand that no matter how pro or con someone somewhere will disagree.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and for someone to say "this is my opinion and it is set in stone" exhibits an arrogance that should ensure that you avoid the writer.

[sandyRoe]

Food for thought. Thank you.

[sophie_1003]

It sounds ok to me; I would change the 'must' in "...must have looked on Cezanne's.." to 'likely' though because the 'must' makes a very large assumption as opposed to a speculation. Also; what reference system are you meant to be using?

[jno]

avant-garde art was being produced (the Impressionists, most obviously); it didn't get into the official exhibitions, but it wasn't burnt in public or anything, and the artists succeeded in exhibiting it at unofficial shows, as jake says. They faced initial mockery (the word 'impressionism' was at first used as an insult) but found support and popularity really quite quickly. So don't overstate the Academy's powers.

I don't think your use of artist manqué is correct, as I've said before. And I think 'rejection' would sound better than 'refutal' (which means something like 'proving wrong').

If you're quoting Rusikin, don't include the word 'he' in the quotation because he didn't say 'he', he said 'I'. The full quote is: "I have seen and heard much of Cockney impudence before now, but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face."

You could write this either as "I... never expected to hear" etc or as "he observed caustically that he 'had never expected to hear' " etc.

Apart from that, it's not bad. I assume Docspock is not your tutor.

[sandyRoe]

Again, thank you all for your comments. Some were more useful than others. This was the start of a piece for the Open Uni. It was already submitted before I asked for comment here. I didn't want to be cheating. But I'll heed whats been said.

[jno]

I don't see why asking others for their opnion would be cheating... it's not as if we even know what the question is, let alone the answer. It's just research, like any other.