Friday, 2 October 2009

‘Paris Street: Rainy Weather’ – Gustave Caillebotte

rainy

A symphony of umbrellas and pedestrians inhabit a wet and unforgiving Parisian street. But there’s something going on here, isn’t there . . .

11 comments:

  1. ...yep, post-commune capitalist Paris, all very bourgeois same same...

    This is where googlemaps is great, Place de Dublin....

    ReplyDelete
  2. PC - Do explain. I can't spot it.

    I like the look of the painting.

    But re the meaning - the best I can come up with is something to do with the rain and all the wealthy people.

    I.E something is coming down on the rich.

    Or am I pulling crap out of my postmodern "lets over interpret this" arse?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I find it to have a bold composition, rhythmic, and flat. I like the first two elements, but not the last. Notice the kind of smudged blurriness of their faces. And Peter, doesn't the stoop look like it is on the same height or below the cobblestones?!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alienation constructed within a Haussmannian urban landscape,
    and the Metro's on strike again???

    ReplyDelete
  5. My eye is drawn by pyramid-like form of the building in the background. The perspective was very carefully chosen and depicted, and suggests surveillance, and the social control that surveillance brings.

    L

    ReplyDelete
  6. The man (+ woman) with the umbrella looks like young Ken, when he was there in Paris in a different time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There an essay on this painting here:

    http://sites.google.com/site/beautyandterror/Home/bourgeoisie-and-proletariat

    ReplyDelete
  8. Essay on the painting here.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peaceful but busy day in Paris. The way he's picked up the light on top of the umbrellas and the reflection of the lamp suggests a photo it is a pleasent rain. I don't know...but it's kinda photographic?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, Peter, there certainly is something going on there: Monet has put the Flatiron Building on a Paris street! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, not really Monet after all, was it....oops.

    ReplyDelete