. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
No, it’s not London – which I remember from 1991 as being beautiful in the snow. It’s Paris, painted from a ‘Japanese viewpoint’ borrowed from Hiroshige.
And this is beautiful too, Monet’s Boulevard des Capucines, from the First Impressionist Exhibition in 1874.
Like most Impressionism, it's far too out of focus for my taste. But I can see elements of it that would appeal to a lover of romantic art, or just someone who enjoys a lovely scene.
Out of focus; romantic; oh Gawd.The first Impressionist exhibition was in Eighteen Seventy-four, I think. If it were in Nineteen Seventy-four, everything would have been painted in lilac or beige
"The first Impressionist exhibition was in Eighteen Seventy-four, I think."Oops! Thank god for the art historians. Imagine Van Gogh in fuschia!
Paul,Sorry, maybe it's early, but I don't get your point.Background"(This picture is one of two versions, one of which was shown in the exhibition. The other version is now in the Pushkin Museum, Moscow)"
Jeff, 'out of focus' is a quality of a photograph, not a painting; Romantic art is very different from Impressionism.
"'out of focus' is a quality of a photograph, not a painting; Romantic art is very different from Impressionism."Wondered if that was it.Actually, "out of focus" can validly describe anything which lacks visual clarity or definition (paintings, photos, even a visual array you're looking at in real life).And, if you'll re-read the post, you'll find it easy to allow that I was not asserting that an instance of Impressionist painting was an example of Romantic art; I said it was a piece of art that someone who enjoyed romantic art could find worthwhile elements in. Also "romantic" (the general term) is not the same as "Romantic" the 19th century art movement.But I applaud your desire for accuracy in the use of words.pi
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.(Off-topic grandstanding, trolling and spam is moderated. If it's not entertaining.)