Please read Michael Kimmelman’s essay “The Art of Making a World” carefully and look at these reproductions of some of Pierre Bonnard’s paintings. On Wednesday we used Hass to start talking about some Big Themes at the end of this course–what do you think about Bonnard’s attempt to create a world through these paintings, through his use of color and light? Kimmelman cites the German poet Rilke, who writes “…you lift very slowly one black tree/ and place it against the sky: slender, alone./ And you have made the world…” (p 21). Can art (visual or literary) make the world?
Portrait of the Artist in a Mirror, 1939-1945
La Table de Toilette
Crouching Nude in the Tub
La femme au chat (Woman with cat)
Le Salle de Bain
Marthe in the bath
Pierre Bonnard c. 1906
The Almond Tree in Blossom
The dining room
The Window, 1925
Bathing Rituals
Joan Mitchell: After April, Bernie
Mitchell: Sunflowers
Joan Mitchell
The Bath, 1925
Young Women in the Garden, 1923
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: bonnard, charlotte, kimmelman
Bonnard’s multifaceted paintings that expose clear as well as foggy images are, for me, another kind of art that strives to encompass multiple dimensions. The layered material of Bonnard’s paintings, as well as their layered meanings, are indicative of the way that art can be emotionally symbollic as well as visually satisfying. The line of Rilke’s poem that states, “And you have made the world,” was very striking to me as I read the essay. Although this statement is incredibly broad and grandiose, I understand the feeling of being completely overcome by the presence of a piece of art. One piece of art can just be so captivating and I know it is possible to connect with art in a way that cannot be described, but in an emotionally connected sense. In response to the question about whether or not art can “make the world,” I would of course have to say yes. Just as Bonnard spent much of his life embarking in artistic endeavors and allowing his companion, Marthe, to be his subject, so a piece of art can reflect the world, and mean the world. Bonnard made the subject of his art the subject of his life, converging a hobby with social relations. Art enhanced the meaning of his world. Whether or not it means the world to me or any other spectator is unimportant; if it holds such high symbolic value for one person, such as Bonnard or Marthe, then it successfully can be accepted as a completing facet to one’s world. For some, art explains the world, is the world, and therefore, must be appreciated and held in high regard.
“As Bonnard proves, a circumscribed world can be made to seem enormous through a rich enough imagination.” (20)
After reading about Pierre Bonnard and his post-impressionism impressionism, I really felt that Bonnard didn’t so much create a world as re-contextualize his existing one. Much of it stemmed form his constant evaluation of his surroundings through intense study and observation by being confined with Marthe, I think. I thought it was very interesting his work was considered highly emotional, and therefore less meaningful, to Picasso, who condemned Bonnard’s paintings. Picasso remarks, “Painitng isn’t a question of sensibility: it’s a question of seizing the power, taking over from nature, not expecting her to supply you with information and good advice.” (10) To me, when I paint, it is absolutely an expression of emotion, not the detached, removed experience Picasso speaks of. Both are legitimate styles of art, but why does one have to be better or more acceptable? In many ways, I think of impressionism as more closely related to literary art because it reminds me of poetry. Each stroke, each color, each line and shape is exact and deliberate, but they seem to burst with freedom and are never confined to just their placement on the canvas. The pastel colors Bonnard uses in many of his paintings add to that effect, but they also have a kind of sickly sweetness to them that I think is reminiscent of the atmosphere of his home with Marthe.
Going back to the idea that art has meaning because of its context, it’s kind of the same thing with the black tree in the Rilke poem; it’s how we apply art and its many components into society that makes it meaningful and often times gives it entirely new meanings through the new context. And can art make the world? Really, I think it’s our world that makes art; it’s where every influence, every emotion, every feeling and visual comes from. We, as artists, have a response to these stimuli and we make our own worlds into art by putting it in a new context, a new way of seeing.
After reading Kimmelman’s essay, it is evident that Bonnard’s paintings are much in keeping with his personality. At first glance, it may seem as if they layers on the paintings were purely aestetic and done for pleasuring the viewer visually, but now it is clear that it is not. His style of painting is a way for him to express himself emotionally, as he seems to be a pretty complicated and deep person. For example, Kimmelman states that he enjoyed being by himself and was very independent. His paintings seem to give off a gloomy and lonely vibe as the images are blurry and ambivalent. I particularly enjoyed the picture of his wife, Marthe, in a bath as it really emphasizes the point that he expresses himself through his art. The author tells us that she was dealing with illness her whole life and by using dark and gray colors, Bonnard shows there is a depressing side to her story. His view of the world was expressed through his artistic style and shows us that there is often more to the painting than meets the eye.
I find it very intriguing that we talk about big themes and grandiose ideas. Yet this essay was so much just a simple study of the artist. Much of the essay was devoted to fact and biography. Even Bonnard painted seemingly simple subjects. A woman in a bath for example. However, there is more than meets the eyes and these simple studies bring about ideas and grand themes. Bonnard shows the world what he sees through his eyes. This, in turn, brings about many questions such as, what is it exactly that he sees and would it be any different to anyone else? What is real about his glimpse of the world and what is false? Is anything real or false? A single painting has the ability to form abstract, possibly unanswerable questions.
Kimmelman begins his essay with the idea that Bonnard’s critics view him as a post-impressionist impressionist (as Melanie put it,) but arguing that Bonnard does, in fact, embrace many Modernist ideals (subtly, subjectivity, etc.) I think that the debate over whether art can tackle these Big Ideas is what separates Modernism from earlier art historical movements. While many earlier Western artists, from the Middle Ages through impressionism, created work with Big Ideas in mind (from religious to aesthetic), Modern Art instead emphasizes ideas within their works, exploring canvas size and point of view. While I appreciated Kimmelman’s attempt to view Bonnard through a Modernist lens, I ultimately felt that, in fact, Bonnard intended to create a world from these paintings, and therefore was not really a modern artist (which doesn’t make him less relevant). I think that Bonnard thinks that art can make a world. I’m not sure what I think.
Bonnard seems to not really be making a world with these paintings, but mainly recreating a world–that is, the world that him and Marthe shared. In one sense, he is creating a world because the art shows his perspective, and that perspective is not the pure, unfiltered world. It’s his version of the world. But whatever the case there is a world being created. It’s made through the pose of a woman, bending over as she climbs into a bath, just as the dim lighting and the blurred features of her body do the same. Really, Bonnard’s work looks like pure impressionism to me, for he’s taking his own world and putting a twist on it. His self-portrait is the one that I think shows his world the best–he’s old, almost looks like a corpse, and is completely emaciated. That (hopefully) isn’t really him–but his percpetion of himself. In these ways, we gain access to the world he’s recreated.
So to answer the other question–yes, art can make the world. It’s what we use to make our world, focus on it and form some sort of understanding of what’s around us. Art is any medium used to express our understanding of the world, so by making art we end up recreating the world, or creating our own, new world. And to go back to what the course is about–I guess that’s what we’re then doing when we respond go art: we’re recreating the world that somebody else recreated based off their own world, a perspective influenced by another perspective.
I agree with Noveed. Bonnard is recreating a world, a world beautiful to him. Through Bonnard’s eyes beauty seems to be crude and purely natural. His abrupt and staccato-like brush strokes shade away from the modernist artist era, creating a visual-fuzz rather than the crisp lines of modernism. As for grandiose ideas, Bonnard definitely attempts to capture life in his images, with the development of his own world through the lens of a “post-impressionist impressionist.” Art can make the world. Art is the production of images vivid and familiar to the artist’s imagination, producing their own world. So art can literally produce a world, but as well enhance and sophisticate the world we all share, reality.
Sorry for getting this out so late…
I’m not sure I would say that art can make a world; so much as it reinterprets the world we all experience and allows us to see it in a new light. In that sense, yes it does create a new world. But I think that the idea of generating a new realm of existence is the wrong concept for what art does. Art open a window into the mind and perceptions of another human being. It allows us to feel that person’s emotions and thoughts through a medium that at the same time allows us to add our own interpretations of the views of the artist. When I look at the picture of the man with the pipe, I do not think of him as being on a different planet. I recognize that he lived and breathed on this earth, be it at a different time and in a different place. I can relate to him in the very fact that we share a common theme of living and existence in this world. The picture does not give me insight into a different world, then, but it allows me to see what the photographer was seeing and thinking at that moment and place in time.
Bonnard s art is full of love and energy he he of this world and of that…one his color lives through his forms andthe shapes in nature, of the figure of the world through him. A saimple man enraptured with Marthe and embued with a grat love of what it is to be alive . He makes his world more alive by painting it . Some of his works are meticulus and others are so ephemeral and foggy. Some of his paintings have few and simple shapes. Others have miriads of colors and forms as sthe canvas bursts with soo much and yet all are visable and readable. His work is at once
comprehensible and dreamy.He is a true original and master of light and the emotion his paint exudes is amazing.
Bonnard s art is full of love and energy he isof this world and of that… for one his color lives through his forms and shapes in nature, of the figure ground relationship they are one . All is of improtance from the person to the ant to the wall behind the world is intensified through his lens and heart. A simple man enraptured with Marthe and embued with a great love of what it is to be alive . He makes his world more alive by painting it . Some of his works are meticulus and others are so ephemeral and foggy. Some of his paintings have few and simple shapes. Others have miriads of colors and forms as if the canvas bursts with soo much, too much…. and yet all are visable and readable. His work is at once incomphrehensible, not, it is truly
comprehensible and dreamy. He is a true original ,a master of light, the emotion his paint (ings),exudes is amazing.