Answer Happy

Gauguin's attitude toward art marked a break from the past and a beginning to modern art. Like all Post-Impressionist artists, he passed through an Impressionist phase but became quickly dissatisfied with the limitations of the style, and went on to discover a new style that had the directness and universality of a symbol and that concentrated on impressions, ideas and experiences. The beginning of his modern tradition lay in his rejection of Impressionism. He considered naturalism an error to be avoided. He was preoccupied with suggestion rather than description, seeking to portray not the exterior, but the essence of things in their purest, simplest, and most primitive form, which could only be achieved through simplification of the form. He firmly believed throughout his life that ג€art is an abstractionג€ and that ג€this abstraction [must be derived] from nature while dreaming before it.ג€ One must think of the creation that will result rather than the model, and not try to render the model exactly as one sees it. This was the birth of ג€Synthetismג€ or rather Synthetist-Symbolic, as Gauguin referred to it, using the term ג€symbolicג€ to indicate that the forms and patterns in his pictures were meant to suggest mental images or ideas and not simply to record visual experience.Symbolism flourished around the period of 1885 to 1910 and can be defined as the rejection of direct, literal representation in favor of evocation and suggestion.Painters tried to give a visual expression to emotional experiences, and therefore the movement was a reaction against the naturalistic aims of Impressionism.Satisfying the need for a more spiritual or emotional approach in art, Symbolism is characterized by the desire to seek refuge in a dreamworld of beauty and the belief that color and line in themselves could express ideas. Stylistically, the tendency was towards flattened forms and broad areas of color, and features of the movement were an intense religious feeling and an interest in subjects of death, disease, and sin.Similarly, ג€Synthetismג€ involved the simplification of forms into large-scale patterns and the expressive purification of colors. Form and color had to be simplified for the sake of expression. This style reacted against the ג€formlessnessג€ of Impressionism and favored painting subjectively and expressing one's ideas rather than relying on external objects as subject matters. It was characterized by areas of pure colors, very defined contours, an emphasis on pattern and decorative qualities, and a relative absence of shadows.Gauguin's new art form merged these two movements and succeeded in freeing color, form, and line, bringing it to express the artists' emotions, sensibilities, and personal experiences of the world around them. His style created a break with the old tradition of descriptive naturalism and favored the synthesis of observation and imagination. Gauguin sustained that forms are not discovered in nature but in one's wild imagination, and it was in himself that he searched rather than in his surroundings. For this reason, he scorned the Impressionists for their lack of imagination and their mere scientific reasoning. Furthermore, Gauguin used color unnaturalistically for its decorative or emotional effect and reintroduced emphatic outlines. ג€Synthetismג€ signified for him that the forms of his pictures were constructed from symbolic patterns of color and linear rhythms and were not mere scientific reproductions of what is seen by the eye.Dempsey, A., & Dempsey, A. (2010). Styles, Schools and Movements: The Essential Encyclopaedic Guide to Modern Art. London: Thames & Hudson.Which of the following hypothetical pieces of evidence would diminish the authorג€™s claims about the importance of Gauguin?

A. Evidence that Gauguinג€™s style of painting was based on work by van Gogh and other painters active during the 1870s and 80s.
B. Evidence that both Gauguin and the Impressionists rejected the more formal and conventional realism of the early 1800s.
C. Photographic evidence that some of Gauguin's works bear no apparent resemblance to the landscape they were supposedly based on.
D. Evidence that the Impressionists' works were considered just as shocking and revolutionary in their time as Gauguin's work would later be.