Etretat, Sunset, February 5th, 1883, 4:53 PM local time
January 25, 2014 11:00 AM Subscribe
Dating an Impressionist's Sunset. "Famed French Impressionist Claude Monet created a striking scene of the Normandy coast in his 1883 painting, Étretat: Sunset. Now a team of Texas State University researchers, led by astronomer and physics professor Donald Olson, has applied its distinctive brand of forensic astronomy to Monet’s masterpiece, uncovering previously unknown details about the painting’s origins." [Via]
I tried dating an impressionist's sunset once. But I lost my job and she broke up with me cassatt the time I degas manet monet.
posted by oulipian at 12:28 PM on January 25, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by oulipian at 12:28 PM on January 25, 2014 [14 favorites]
I would like to point out the whole premise of this article is invalid because:
1. Monet might have painted the sun in a different position than it actually was, to improve the composition.
2. Monet had cataracts.
but it's a good excuse for a vacation in Normandy.
posted by charlie don't surf at 1:03 PM on January 25, 2014
1. Monet might have painted the sun in a different position than it actually was, to improve the composition.
2. Monet had cataracts.
but it's a good excuse for a vacation in Normandy.
posted by charlie don't surf at 1:03 PM on January 25, 2014
I would like to point out the whole premise of this article is invalid because:
1. Monet might have painted the sun in a different position than it actually was, to improve the composition.
2. Monet had cataracts.
I would like to point out that the whole premise of your objection is invalid because:
1a. Monet painted en plein air. So while the sun was certainly moving across the sky while he painted this, the point where he selected to place the sun would certainly have been within its actual trajectory that day.
1b. He couldn't just randomly pick a different place in the sky "to improve the composition," because then it wouldn't correlate with rest of the composition's color, shadows, and reflections -- all of which derive from the position of the sun. In other words, if he significantly altered the position of the sun, he would have had to alter most of the details of the entire painting, thus negating the point of working en plein air in the first place.
2a. Monet didn't develop cataracts till about 20 years after this painting was made.
2b. The specific ways in which his work was affected by his vision problems (in particular, further blurring of composition and use of muddier colors) are not evident in this painting, nor would they be relevant to his placement of the sun on the horizon relative to the cliff.
posted by scody at 1:28 PM on January 25, 2014 [21 favorites]
1. Monet might have painted the sun in a different position than it actually was, to improve the composition.
2. Monet had cataracts.
I would like to point out that the whole premise of your objection is invalid because:
1a. Monet painted en plein air. So while the sun was certainly moving across the sky while he painted this, the point where he selected to place the sun would certainly have been within its actual trajectory that day.
1b. He couldn't just randomly pick a different place in the sky "to improve the composition," because then it wouldn't correlate with rest of the composition's color, shadows, and reflections -- all of which derive from the position of the sun. In other words, if he significantly altered the position of the sun, he would have had to alter most of the details of the entire painting, thus negating the point of working en plein air in the first place.
2a. Monet didn't develop cataracts till about 20 years after this painting was made.
2b. The specific ways in which his work was affected by his vision problems (in particular, further blurring of composition and use of muddier colors) are not evident in this painting, nor would they be relevant to his placement of the sun on the horizon relative to the cliff.
posted by scody at 1:28 PM on January 25, 2014 [21 favorites]
Scody FTW, lol.
posted by Annika Cicada at 1:33 PM on January 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Annika Cicada at 1:33 PM on January 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
“Monet observed this sunset on Feb. 5, 1883 at 4:53 p.m. local mean time.”
But, but, is that when he finished the painting, or when he started it? Or was it, like a dream, accomplished in the instant of awakening consciousness?
Yes I know dreams aren't really instantaneous but seriously, if it can all be timed so meticulously how long do they think it took to actually paint the thing and at what point did he fix on the sun's position?
posted by glasseyes at 1:38 PM on January 25, 2014
But, but, is that when he finished the painting, or when he started it? Or was it, like a dream, accomplished in the instant of awakening consciousness?
Yes I know dreams aren't really instantaneous but seriously, if it can all be timed so meticulously how long do they think it took to actually paint the thing and at what point did he fix on the sun's position?
posted by glasseyes at 1:38 PM on January 25, 2014
Many years ago, I read some interesting articles by climatologists who looked at the skies in paintings from the 16th through 19th centuries to compare weather patterns with written records (or the lack thereof) and see what new could be extrapolated. Even when you account for an artist's choice(s) to alter things for composition, you have to also take into consideration the fact that many artists want to make scenes recognizable to folks.
I find these sort of cross-disciplinary investigations fascinating for the insights they can provide about an artist and about the world around them. To think Monet would explore difficult terrain to capture a particular view is a really interesting facet of the man I hadn't considered.
posted by julen at 1:55 PM on January 25, 2014
I find these sort of cross-disciplinary investigations fascinating for the insights they can provide about an artist and about the world around them. To think Monet would explore difficult terrain to capture a particular view is a really interesting facet of the man I hadn't considered.
posted by julen at 1:55 PM on January 25, 2014
1b. He couldn't just randomly pick a different place in the sky "to improve the composition," because then it wouldn't correlate with rest of the composition's color, shadows, and reflections -- all of which derive from the position of the sun. In other words, if he significantly altered the position of the sun, he would have had to alter most of the details of the entire painting, thus negating the point of working en plein air in the first place.Sure, in principle. But really there are two questions here: (1) how far *could* the artist have moved the sun before the rest of the scene became recognizably incongruous to either the viewer or the artist himself, and (2) do we have other reasons to believe the artist would have chosen to position the sun more accurately than required, or would refuse to move it slightly if that seemed to improve the composition of the piece otherwise.
As far as (1) goes, I'm not convinced that moving the sun by two or three diameters in the horizontal direction would noticeably make anything else look wrong in the painting. It's possible the artist (or a local viewer) would place a tighter constraint. Regarding (2), I don't know enough to comment, but the surprising accuracy of everything else shown in the examples makes it seem plausible.
I was initially skeptical about the five day window given in the article. But, in Étretat in early February the sun's declination at sunset changed by about half its diameter (0.3 deg) per day. So, the Feb 3 to Feb 7 date given corresponds to an uncertainty of roughly +/- 1 solar disc in position. That seems pretty reasonable, even allowing for some time between observation and recording and lack of scale-setting foreground objects on the right.
Assuming the artist intended to paint the scene from a specific day including the sun's accurate position, the researchers do seem to have nailed it. But, applying the same one-diameter uncertainty to the altitude gives a 12 minute window, so nitpickers may want to treat the plus-or-minus one minute claim at the end with more skepticism.
To be clear, even if there were good reason to believe the painted was not meant to refer to a specific day, it's still a fun exercise and well worth doing and writing about. But, if you ask me, an excessively critical reading makes the whole thing even more fun.
posted by eotvos at 2:01 PM on January 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Monet observed this sunset on Feb. 5, 1883 at 4:53 p.m. local mean time.
Forensic sciences are AMAZING
posted by Renoroc at 2:09 PM on January 25, 2014
Forensic sciences are AMAZING
posted by Renoroc at 2:09 PM on January 25, 2014
I would like to point out the whole premise of this article is invalid because:
In addition to scody's excellent points, the article points out that the researchers actually walked the area to gather additional data about location and conditions to hoof it to them, and combed through his correspondence at the time, which makes it clear that he was there and he was painting while he was there. Back that up with tide tables and their evidence looks pretty tight.
posted by rtha at 2:14 PM on January 25, 2014
In addition to scody's excellent points, the article points out that the researchers actually walked the area to gather additional data about location and conditions to hoof it to them, and combed through his correspondence at the time, which makes it clear that he was there and he was painting while he was there. Back that up with tide tables and their evidence looks pretty tight.
posted by rtha at 2:14 PM on January 25, 2014
I'll accept that the position of the Sun in the painting depicts the date and time from the location they arrived at. To conclude that Monet actually painted the Sun while it was at that position is more iffy.
For example, he may have positioned "his" Sun horizontally and/or vertically for a better composition, on that date or a week later. The exact time of 4:53 is, well, more une hypothèse.
Fascinating stuff.
posted by Twang at 3:00 PM on January 25, 2014
For example, he may have positioned "his" Sun horizontally and/or vertically for a better composition, on that date or a week later. The exact time of 4:53 is, well, more une hypothèse.
Fascinating stuff.
posted by Twang at 3:00 PM on January 25, 2014
But how long had the corpse been breeding mayflies? It's not enough to just place him at the scene.
posted by dhartung at 3:01 PM on January 25, 2014
posted by dhartung at 3:01 PM on January 25, 2014
Many years ago, I read some interesting articles by climatologists who looked at the skies in paintings from the 16th through 19th centuries to compare weather patterns with written records (or the lack thereof) and see what new could be extrapolated.
Sunset Paintings May Shed New Light on Climate Change
posted by homunculus at 5:29 PM on January 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Sunset Paintings May Shed New Light on Climate Change
posted by homunculus at 5:29 PM on January 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Oooh, that's interesting, homunculus. I was thinking about articles on clouds/fog/storms in 16th and 17th century Dutch exterior paintings (looking at the types of weather portrayed, comparing it to modern weather experienced, discussing issues of art not necessarily being akin to a photograph, etc), variables in sky colors or cloud forms or visibility levels in art from different countries/regions as displayed in art, cloud styles in art, etc. When combined with other evidence (archaeological, botanical, written, geomorphological, meteorological, maritime, etc), and filtered through some fundamental qustions (do clouds like that exist in that formation and in the conditions shown? Does that storm depicted meteorologically correct? Is that color likely or influenced by real life events - like volcanos erupting or storm conditions? Do those kind of clouds produce that kind of precipitation?) it can provide a richer understanding that some periods were wetter or dryer, colder or warmer, snowier or rainier, foggier or clearer, more prone to drought, etc.
posted by julen at 6:59 PM on January 25, 2014
posted by julen at 6:59 PM on January 25, 2014
In addition to scody's excellent points, the article points out that the researchers actually walked the area to gather additional data about location and conditions to hoof it to them, and combed through his correspondence at the time, which makes it clear that he was there and he was painting while he was there.
Monet's presence at those locations was never in dispute. Any decent art history research library has books full of documentary photographs taken at the locations where Impressionist landscape paintings were created. Some of these photos were even contemporaneous with the artist, so we can see the vistas before they were overgrown with trees, buildings knocked down, etc. My professors used to show these photos to me and I insisted I did not want to see them, it kills the magic. Sometimes these photos would appear in art history slide lectures, side by side with the original. I would avert my eyes. It occurred to me, these photos were works by some guy who actually spent years following in the footsteps of famous impressionists, searching through the countryside, and setting up his camera in a spot as close as possible to the original place where the artist's easel stood. Except this guy wasn't some professor gamboling across Normandy with undergrad students on an overseas study junket / paid vacation, with a few photos of paintings made at sites within a small area. That guy spent years tramping all over France and throughout Europe, investigating hundreds of sites, photographing them, and producing books inches thick, in the name of art historical research. This struck me as the most unoriginal idea that could possibly be imagined. Someone determined that the world needed to know what the artist would have seen if he had taken a photo instead of painted a picture. Well if that was what the world needed, the artist would have taken a damn photo in the first place, instead of creating a painting that was the result of lifetime spent achieving virtuosity in the extremely difficult medium of oil painting.
But more importantly, the locations can be precisely specified for two main reasons.
1. These spots were often "beauty spots" and well known tourist locations or local outlooks.
2. The artist told you where the painting was done. It's the title of the painting.
Additionally, the time of the painting's creation is already specified with some degree of precision because:
1. Historical records show that Monet went to Étretat in early February 1883.
2. The date is written on the front of the painting.
It is still entirely speculative as to whether the sun's position on the canvas could be precise enough to determine the exact time and date down to a minute of accuracy. Theoretically, any perspective drawing constructs a precise point of view, you can do the geometry back off the 2D image and know where the exact eye position is. This is the mathematical theory behind those tedious "Then And Now" photoshop jobs (and even those images are usually fudged a bit).
But Monet's paintings aren't photographically accurate projective geometry, they're loose impressions. Monet didn't care if the paintings were geometrically accurate, he was interested in the impression the light made on the scene. It might offer an impression of where the sun was some time or other during the creation of this work, but its geometric placement is not sufficiently precise for astronomical accuracy. And there are no other details in the painting (such as precise shadows) to fix the sun position.
But let's look at a high rez image of the painting. Perhaps this dab of paint, applied with a broad brush, could be somewhere along the line where the sun appeared during the painting. That would have been an arbitrary choice. Features of the landscape do not appear to represent any actual interaction with the sunlight. We can see the dark reflection of the land, in the waves of the left foreground. But there is almost no orange-red color in the sea on the right, as would be reflected from the sun. The weather conditions are more interesting than the sun position. The sun is high enough over the horizon that it still illuminates the high clouds, but the sun is partially occluded by dark clouds, which we see in a bluish aura around it, and these clouds are blocking direct sunlight from the scene. It is illuminated with diffuse sunlight reflected off the high clouds, computer graphics people call that "global illumination."
Ultimately, without even looking at the work, it can be said with absolute certainty that this painting could have been in progress on Feb. 5, 1883 at 4:53 p.m. local mean time. That is a moment that is certainly within the known trajectory of Claude Monet during February of 1883. But as to whether this painting was executed at that moment, or on some other hour or day of the week, is surely of complete and utter insignificance except to Texan astronomy professors seeking publicity and perhaps funding for future junkets.
posted by charlie don't surf at 7:37 PM on January 25, 2014
Monet's presence at those locations was never in dispute. Any decent art history research library has books full of documentary photographs taken at the locations where Impressionist landscape paintings were created. Some of these photos were even contemporaneous with the artist, so we can see the vistas before they were overgrown with trees, buildings knocked down, etc. My professors used to show these photos to me and I insisted I did not want to see them, it kills the magic. Sometimes these photos would appear in art history slide lectures, side by side with the original. I would avert my eyes. It occurred to me, these photos were works by some guy who actually spent years following in the footsteps of famous impressionists, searching through the countryside, and setting up his camera in a spot as close as possible to the original place where the artist's easel stood. Except this guy wasn't some professor gamboling across Normandy with undergrad students on an overseas study junket / paid vacation, with a few photos of paintings made at sites within a small area. That guy spent years tramping all over France and throughout Europe, investigating hundreds of sites, photographing them, and producing books inches thick, in the name of art historical research. This struck me as the most unoriginal idea that could possibly be imagined. Someone determined that the world needed to know what the artist would have seen if he had taken a photo instead of painted a picture. Well if that was what the world needed, the artist would have taken a damn photo in the first place, instead of creating a painting that was the result of lifetime spent achieving virtuosity in the extremely difficult medium of oil painting.
But more importantly, the locations can be precisely specified for two main reasons.
1. These spots were often "beauty spots" and well known tourist locations or local outlooks.
2. The artist told you where the painting was done. It's the title of the painting.
Additionally, the time of the painting's creation is already specified with some degree of precision because:
1. Historical records show that Monet went to Étretat in early February 1883.
2. The date is written on the front of the painting.
It is still entirely speculative as to whether the sun's position on the canvas could be precise enough to determine the exact time and date down to a minute of accuracy. Theoretically, any perspective drawing constructs a precise point of view, you can do the geometry back off the 2D image and know where the exact eye position is. This is the mathematical theory behind those tedious "Then And Now" photoshop jobs (and even those images are usually fudged a bit).
But Monet's paintings aren't photographically accurate projective geometry, they're loose impressions. Monet didn't care if the paintings were geometrically accurate, he was interested in the impression the light made on the scene. It might offer an impression of where the sun was some time or other during the creation of this work, but its geometric placement is not sufficiently precise for astronomical accuracy. And there are no other details in the painting (such as precise shadows) to fix the sun position.
But let's look at a high rez image of the painting. Perhaps this dab of paint, applied with a broad brush, could be somewhere along the line where the sun appeared during the painting. That would have been an arbitrary choice. Features of the landscape do not appear to represent any actual interaction with the sunlight. We can see the dark reflection of the land, in the waves of the left foreground. But there is almost no orange-red color in the sea on the right, as would be reflected from the sun. The weather conditions are more interesting than the sun position. The sun is high enough over the horizon that it still illuminates the high clouds, but the sun is partially occluded by dark clouds, which we see in a bluish aura around it, and these clouds are blocking direct sunlight from the scene. It is illuminated with diffuse sunlight reflected off the high clouds, computer graphics people call that "global illumination."
Ultimately, without even looking at the work, it can be said with absolute certainty that this painting could have been in progress on Feb. 5, 1883 at 4:53 p.m. local mean time. That is a moment that is certainly within the known trajectory of Claude Monet during February of 1883. But as to whether this painting was executed at that moment, or on some other hour or day of the week, is surely of complete and utter insignificance except to Texan astronomy professors seeking publicity and perhaps funding for future junkets.
posted by charlie don't surf at 7:37 PM on January 25, 2014
But, but, is that when he finished the painting, or when he started it? Or was it, like a dream, accomplished in the instant of awakening consciousness?
In The Poppy Field near Argenteuil (1873) his wife and son appear twice because by the time he had finished painting the left and scanned across to the right, they had walked just far enough to still be in shot.
From this it should be possible to estimate Monet's typical speed.
posted by Segundus at 7:45 PM on January 25, 2014
In The Poppy Field near Argenteuil (1873) his wife and son appear twice because by the time he had finished painting the left and scanned across to the right, they had walked just far enough to still be in shot.
That is an hilariously absurd notion of how an artist works. "In shot"? You're suggesting that Monet was some kind of mechanical scene-transcribing machine. You're also suggesting that he could fill an entire 50cm by 65cm canvas with paints of a bewildering variety of colors in about 20 seconds (which is also the problem with the silly piece of research in the FPP).
posted by yoink at 7:44 AM on January 26, 2014
That is an hilariously absurd notion of how an artist works. "In shot"? You're suggesting that Monet was some kind of mechanical scene-transcribing machine. You're also suggesting that he could fill an entire 50cm by 65cm canvas with paints of a bewildering variety of colors in about 20 seconds (which is also the problem with the silly piece of research in the FPP).
posted by yoink at 7:44 AM on January 26, 2014
From this it should be possible to estimate Monet's typical speed.
This assumes a Newtonian Monet, otherwise it would be impossible to simultaneously fix his position and determine his speed.
This calculation would not satisfy anyone who theorized that Monet had a second easel on The Grassy Knoll.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:07 AM on January 26, 2014
This assumes a Newtonian Monet, otherwise it would be impossible to simultaneously fix his position and determine his speed.
This calculation would not satisfy anyone who theorized that Monet had a second easel on The Grassy Knoll.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:07 AM on January 26, 2014
The artist can create a sketch painting at the site, then spend days, weeks, months completing it in the studio. Depending on the artist's photographic accuracy is dependent on intimate knowledge of stylistic choices and design decisions.
The researchers have done a pretty thorough investigation, and we still cannot say with 100% certainty unless we can go back and question the artist. The work is still admired and we also gain an interesting bit of discussion.
posted by mightshould at 4:13 PM on January 26, 2014
The researchers have done a pretty thorough investigation, and we still cannot say with 100% certainty unless we can go back and question the artist. The work is still admired and we also gain an interesting bit of discussion.
posted by mightshould at 4:13 PM on January 26, 2014
You're suggesting that Monet was some kind of mechanical scene-transcribing machine.
Absolutely. His two guiding principles were: first, never spend more than ten minutes, tops, on the execution of any canvas, and second, never, but never, use brown.
posted by Segundus at 1:23 AM on January 27, 2014
Absolutely. His two guiding principles were: first, never spend more than ten minutes, tops, on the execution of any canvas, and second, never, but never, use brown.
posted by Segundus at 1:23 AM on January 27, 2014
« Older Looking like standing stones, out there on our own | SOP Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:13 AM on January 25, 2014