Baudelaire Vs Aurier
Charles Baudelaire’s “The Painter of Modern Life” and G.-Albert Aurier’s “Symbolism in Painting: Paul Gauguin” are both pivotal works in the scholarship of nineteenth century French art. The essays of both authors express their acclaim and thoughts on a particular artist, while simultaneously projecting their own convictions on art through their discourse. Although almost thirty years apart, the works of Baudelaire and Aurier reveal some overlap among their perceptions of art and the artist, while maintaining some degree of difference to remain distinct. This paper will juxtapose the two works to evaluate the similarities between Baudelaire and Aurier’s artistic viewpoints and attitudes towards the artist, as well as their competing historical
…show more content…
The true art according to Aurier is ideist art, which is characterized by its expression of the idea as opposed to a mere reproduction of the world around him (Aurier 200-201). Meanwhile, art, for Baudelaire, is not that which is inspired by previous artistic traditions, but one that is original to the artist and his time. Just as Baudelaire rebuffs the artist who paints through a model, Aurier comparably declares that painting cannot be a direct representation of an object. Baudelaire, speaking in praise of Guys’ approach of painting, declares that “all good and true” artists are those who paint via memory. In doing so, the artist evokes all the feelings and observations of the memory and then allows a frenzy to overtake him as he transcribes the image onto his canvas (Baudelaire 16-17). Likewise, Aurier, believing firmly that the idea of art alone was essential, echoes a similar sentiment in his belief in “necessary simplification” (Aurier 194). He argues that from the objective reality of an object, the painter uses his discretion to select only elements that are necessarily to faithfully depict the object (200). Baudelaire even argues when an artist adopts Guys’ method, he will find the actual presence of a model will inhibit his labor (Baudelaire 16). Neither writer believes in the literal depiction of an image, but more of the interpretation of the artist based on memory and discretion. The artist must be imaginative and
The true art according to Aurier is ideist art, which is characterized by its expression of the idea as opposed to a mere reproduction of the world around him (Aurier 200-201). Meanwhile, art, for Baudelaire, is not that which is inspired by previous artistic traditions, but one that is original to the artist and his time. Just as Baudelaire rebuffs the artist who paints through a model, Aurier comparably declares that painting cannot be a direct representation of an object. Baudelaire, speaking in praise of Guys’ approach of painting, declares that “all good and true” artists are those who paint via memory. In doing so, the artist evokes all the feelings and observations of the memory and then allows a frenzy to overtake him as he transcribes the image onto his canvas (Baudelaire 16-17). Likewise, Aurier, believing firmly that the idea of art alone was essential, echoes a similar sentiment in his belief in “necessary simplification” (Aurier 194). He argues that from the objective reality of an object, the painter uses his discretion to select only elements that are necessarily to faithfully depict the object (200). Baudelaire even argues when an artist adopts Guys’ method, he will find the actual presence of a model will inhibit his labor (Baudelaire 16). Neither writer believes in the literal depiction of an image, but more of the interpretation of the artist based on memory and discretion. The artist must be imaginative and