Paul Gauguin MFA visit

I recently went to the Gauguin exhibition at the MFA, where I saw works from his time in Tahiti, and I was disappointed by them. Looking at some of the works, I can’t remember the name of one, but it was one of the tropical scenes, and it looked like it had a large patch of yellow grass in the right corner. What I found agitating was that it was all painted with the same stroke angle. Maybe that was his intention? I’m not sure, but I didn't like it.

 I could see the brush stroke in the work, but what I didn’t like was that it was this repetitive up and to the right, I think, it's been a little bit, so I can’t remember exactly. However, the point is that throughout the exhibition, I kept seeing this repetitive angle in the stroke, and it just agitated me. Then I saw the human figures, and they were devoid of structure, with poorly defined hands.

 I understand impressionism is supposed to look unfinished, but sushi is uncooked, and that's a masterclass in cooking because it's about doing less and getting more out of it. I think of impressionism like the sushi of art, we are capturing the raw moment of vision before we see any major deep shadows or defined shapes, and yet we still feel this connection, and experience much the way raw food hits my palette, when done well, it's flavor country, when done poorly, it's, well…bad.

Reading more about his change in approach, I realized he was past impressionism by his time in Tahiti, but I just couldn’t get on board with it. Although the color palette for the time was amazing and the rich variation was super cool, I loved that he used so many different vibrant colors to capture his experience. The different yellows, blues, and reds had to have made people step back and really look at the work; from that perspective alone, it was definitely worth seeing in person.

The exhibition had tons of people, and I felt overwhelmed. The exhibits have too many works for me, so I sometimes go back multiple times. But because I didn’t like the works he had at this time, I was left with a bad opinion of this artist and couldn't understand why people appreciated him.

Fast-forward about 6 months-ish, and I’m watching The Great Courses: From Monet to Van Gogh: A History of the Impressionists. I got a different take from Dr. Richard Bretell, in which he discussed Gauguin and how he fits into the impressionists, and seeing his work before the journey to Tahiti makes way more sense of how he got to where he went, and was a much better explanation of why he did what he did in his work. 

For instance, growing up in a wealthy family and transitioning from the business world to the art world, I understand. His having this wild background of travel and education gave him more insight into the world. Then I saw some of his works before the Tahitian work, and it was very good. I really enjoyed the work that Dr.Bretell showed, the Study of the Nude. 

It showed me he is capable of much more than what I saw of the Tahitian work. Even though he is known for his use of color and interesting subjects, his execution seems untrained compared to other techniques. While he was working on a technique that wasn’t impressionist, I still think it took him a really long time to get to where he was trying to go, and it still kind of looked impressionist to me.

The only piece I saw that really impressed me was the fruit bowl right before he died. That piece had focus and the clear technique, but with better composition and a more effective use of color, light, and shadow. 

I was overwhelmed by the crowd. I was not impressed with Gauguin’s work. I decided to leave. I walked into a much less crowded part of the museum, where a collection of works by Hudson River School artists was on display. I stopped at one work where Thomas Cole had painted this unbelievable scene of a river with a mountain in the backdrop. Still, the complexity of balancing lights, darks, composition, subject, and color was so the opposite of Gauguin that I felt cleansed of that mess of work. Or maybe it was just the whole experience, less about the work. 

In another take, I’ll write about my experience with Thomas Cole because his work is among the finest I’ve seen. I'm a big fan, even if my own art is nothing like that, or maybe because it's nothing like that; he definitely got the movie in my head going.