"I'm... less excited about Scott's journal, because he came to such a depressing end" - exactly why I don't read about most South Pole expeditions, though I'm a big fan of travel journals and polar expeditions specifically. Feels a bit hypocritical on my side, like, I like adventure but only when the happy end is guaranteed? My edgy teen self is so ashamed :D I'm curious to know how you feel about it once you read it.
I think the haystacks and impressionism overall is hard to get for those of us who grew up with color photography. We just don't naturally get what the big deal is. Immersive, realistic 2D images are commonplace for us, but they didn't use to be so. The art that came before impressionism had good mastery of shapes, and even lighting as it applied to specific objects or the human body, but it's generally not immersive. There's hardly any landscape that you look at and can instantly place yourself in the middle of it, while knowing exactly what the time of day, atmospheric conditions and part of the season it depicts. The haystacks do exactly that, and I think it blew people's minds back then a bit. They're basically a collection of the subtle visual cues our mind uses to read the time of day and atmospheric conditions: how long and defined the shadows are, how clear the outlines, whether there are reflections or bounced light, color distortions and so on. You can take what Monet put there and apply it in other art and it will still work to give a sense of realism and precise time of the year and day. They're basically recipes for atmospheres. I didn't use to get the haystacks when I was younger either. They only grew on me when I started to look for ways to make art that feels familiar and relatable to the viewer, rather than just "cool looking" and imaginative. Not that I'm there yet, but I *get* them now :)
Sorry for geeking out there. I hope it didn't sound like I was lecturing you. It's okay if you still don't like them, I just get like this a bit when my favorites are mentioned, and impressionism is pretty big for me :D
no subject
I think the haystacks and impressionism overall is hard to get for those of us who grew up with color photography. We just don't naturally get what the big deal is. Immersive, realistic 2D images are commonplace for us, but they didn't use to be so. The art that came before impressionism had good mastery of shapes, and even lighting as it applied to specific objects or the human body, but it's generally not immersive. There's hardly any landscape that you look at and can instantly place yourself in the middle of it, while knowing exactly what the time of day, atmospheric conditions and part of the season it depicts. The haystacks do exactly that, and I think it blew people's minds back then a bit. They're basically a collection of the subtle visual cues our mind uses to read the time of day and atmospheric conditions: how long and defined the shadows are, how clear the outlines, whether there are reflections or bounced light, color distortions and so on. You can take what Monet put there and apply it in other art and it will still work to give a sense of realism and precise time of the year and day. They're basically recipes for atmospheres. I didn't use to get the haystacks when I was younger either. They only grew on me when I started to look for ways to make art that feels familiar and relatable to the viewer, rather than just "cool looking" and imaginative. Not that I'm there yet, but I *get* them now :)
Sorry for geeking out there. I hope it didn't sound like I was lecturing you. It's okay if you still don't like them, I just get like this a bit when my favorites are mentioned, and impressionism is pretty big for me :D
LK