Talk:John Constable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Copyvio

This page was overwritten by an anon with the text from theartgallery.com.au. That looks like a very good source of information should someone want to integrate it into the article. I've reverted the changes and hope someone can expand this stub. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dedham?

It looks like Dedham has been the single most popular subject of Constable's paintings. However, I can't find any solid information about it, and nothing at all in WP. Has that place fallen off the map? Rl 15:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link

Bridge cottage link doesn't work, needs to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatford:_Bridge_Cottage

[edit] Stoke-by-Nayland?

Just passing by, but can anyone add information about Stoke-by-Nayland? It's a sketch and an oil-on-canvas painting. Blue Wizard 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] techinics

there should be moer about what techinces he used

[edit] Impressionism

In the intro to J M W Turner it rightly states that Turner was a major precursor of Impressionism. Should not the same be stated here for John Constable, who also shares this enviable privilege? While it does state that John Constable was such a precursor, in a low-key sort of way, lower down in the article, maybe it can be given the same frontline type of prominence we find in the Turner article? Just a suggestion I leave to others to ponder over. thanks Peter morrell 07:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But the Turner article may have the emphasis wrong (don't forget, this article is referenced, whereas J M W Turner is not). Anthony Bailey's biography of Turner makes but one reference to Impressionism, and that very cautious: "Many of these watercolours could be called 'hazy'. Many—with their quick dashes of paint and hatched strokes of colour—could (with our hindsight) be described as vital precursors of Impressionism and Pointillism" (p 377). And we also know that when Monet and Pisarro visited London, they didn't like Turner and preferred the Pre-Raphaelites. As for Constable, the only influence we can document is on Delacroix and on the Barbizon School, who both certainly influenced the Impressionists; so the influence is indirect. I would argue, therefore, that this article has the matter about right (if anything, the word "inspired" is a bit strong). qp10qp 08:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe...but I think you should provide a sound reference for your contention, as there are numerous references that claim J M W Turner and John Constable, as well as Boudin, as the major precursors of Impressionism. You have to counter those with an even better reference, I would suggest. As things stand it seems incontestible that all three were indeed just about equally precursors in technique of Impressionism. So I fail to see your objection to the mooted amendment.Peter morrell 09:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is up to you to provide a reference, not me. All I have done is looked this morning at my books on Impressionism, Constable, and Turner, and I am unable to do from those or I would have carried such an edit out. That Constable was a precursor of the Impressionists is undoubted and is a matter of art criticism. One can see that Monet's careful mapping of changes in atmospheric conditions, for example, was similar to that of Constable. If you want to add something like that to the article, with references, go ahead: no one could argue. But Bailey's word "hindsight" is crucial.qp10qp 09:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. I never used the word inspired, I said precursor....so how can you say 'inspired is a bit strong?' you clearly misread it.Peter morrell

I was referrring to the use of the word "inspired" in the present article.qp10qp 09:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope no one minds my jumping in, but my reading of the references on both Turner and Constable would suggest that QP10QP is on the safer ground. Leslie talks about Constable's relationship to the French painters. A handful of Constable's paintings were sent to Paris where they were viewed by Delacroix and others and much admired, particularly the Hay Wain. But Constable never followed up (he had strong feelings about the French). The word 'precursor' has much more meaning behind it than just 'occured prior to'. When used in this context it does indeed have elements of 'inspiration' implicit in it and should be used with great care. In Turner's case, if he is a precursor at all, it is largely in his focus on light, not in his technique which is quite distant from the impressionistic approach. Turner did sketches in plein air, but always returned to his studio to paint the final canvas, as did Constable. I have seen little that indicates that the impressionists turned to Turner or Constable as precursors. The argument has always been, and I think it is still sound, that the impressionists founded their interest in light on the new art of photography. I think the desire to see them as precursors is one made more in retrospect ("hindsight") that something similar seems to be going on in their canvases and those of the impressionists, and perhaps as a way of searching out the rather extraordinary fact that these two painters have no really accomplished successors or schools following in their wakes. No, the relationship between Constable and Turner and the impressionists is a difficult topic. If it goes in, I would recommend it be stated with great care, and that it include the sense of uncertainty the topic has raised in scholarly circles. Mddietz 16:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I very much agree with this.qp10qp 12:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)