
Always the Model, Never the Artist - prismatic
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/07/24/always-the-model-never-the-artist/
======
Daub
I use Berthe Morisot in my teaching, to address the difference between a great
painter (which she undoubtedly was) and a great artist. It’s a hard topic to
address... but even as an undergrad, I always found her work a bit hollow. She
was a master of the craft, but did not have the analytical prowess of Manet,
the Colour craft of Monet or the verve of Renoir (an artist of far less
craft).

Never addressed is the fact that she was a graduate of the academy, whereas
most of the key impressions artists came from the atelier system... two
entirely different educational systems.

If anyone is looking for an ignored genius, try checking out Gwen John. Her
biggest disadvantage was her unique British under understatedness, but for her
single-minded vision she has few peers.

~~~
kemiller2002
Since I understand very little about painting, am I correct in understanding
that you are saying that she is very technically adept, but not good at
creating art per se. I guess an analogy would possibly be that someone can be
a great pianist and play all the notes exactly correct but doesn't understand
how to play the inflection of the notes correctly?

~~~
kleer001
more like: someone can be a great pianist but not necessarily a great
composer, someone can be a great coder but not necessarily a great software
engineer...

It's those additional stacks of human interface skills above a specific craft.

~~~
notfashion
I've spent quite a lot of time in graduate art training and I'd go further:
this isn't about a high level of technical skill or performance, it's about
personality. A composer is not a pianist writ large; a software engineer might
be a coder working at a high level of abstraction. But an artist is someone
who works with their whole personality, engaging with the craft of painting
(in this case). To have a "whole personality" that is compelling is very rare,
and it's not something that happens by stacking up skills. It might manifest
through an appearance of highly analytic vision or graphic composition but it
is not quantifiable in those terms. It has to do with wit.

I'm going to cheekily (not in a sexist way) link this to something said by the
fashion photographer who discovered Melania Trump, because I think it is
exactly the same ineffable quality that is under discussion:

'Jerko thought at first that Melania had a very good future in modeling but
after two sessions, he lost enthusiasm. “Her exterior was very good to be an
excellent model, but she lacked energy, a certain charm that if you have, you
transmit it through your eyes, through your personality. If you have something
that, shall we say, comes from the heart, it shows in the photo,” the
photographer said.'

~~~
kleer001
Yes, exactly, charisma.

------
hillz
> the bare edges of the canvas suggest that the woman has agency, physical and
> otherwise; in Morisot’s garden scenes or beflowered interiors, the dresses
> melt into the background, refuting the viewer’s possession of the figure.
> Morisot’s messy brushstrokes—some of the most daring among her
> contemporaries’—suggest that “woman” is pure fiction, an idea bursting at
> the seams of the experience it supposedly names.

Seems like the author is projecting their own opinions onto Morisot's art.

That being said, it's incredibly sad that women were so devalued and minimized
in that time.

~~~
dblotsky
Can you explain which part of that quote is projecting their own opinions?

Can you also compare and contrast with another, more objective art criticism?

~~~
redis_mlc
> more objective art criticism?

That made me smile. :)

