Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Czechlist] Secession and Art Nouveau

Expand Messages
  • Rachel Thompson
    ... styles is, Jamie?
    Message 1 of 13 , May 28 6:07 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      > Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the difference between the two
      styles is, Jamie? <

      I think you'll find Jamie has already done this in quite a lot of depth -
      see his previous messages on this thread.

      Rachel
    • JPKIRCHNER@aol.com
      ... surprised ... architecture ... I don t know architecture well, and I m mainly educated in painting, so that s where I m coming from. One main part of the
      Message 2 of 13 , May 28 6:47 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 5/28/02 9:02:59 AM, mklimes@... writes:

        >To my ears, Art Nouveau and Secession (Czenglish or not) are one and the
        >same thing and I'm not aware of any difference between the two - other
        >than that they come from different languages originally. I'd be very
        surprised
        >if they left out a whole architectural style out of our history of
        architecture
        >classes.
        >
        >Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the difference between the two
        >styles is, Jamie?

        I don't know architecture well, and I'm mainly educated in painting, so
        that's where I'm coming from. One main part of the difference is not of
        style, but of organization. The Secession artists had seceded from the
        official academy in Vienna. I can spot the difference between a Secession
        painting and an Art Nouveau one, but I can't explain the difference very
        well. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Art Terms offers a plausible
        explanation in saying that the Secession artists "developed a more
        rectilinear form of Art Nouveau", and the Penguin Dictionary of Art and
        Artists ties them somewhat to Impressionism. If you look at a Klimt
        painting, for example, you'll see that it has the ornamentality of Art
        Nouveau, but it's not as flowing and full of curly-cues, and it's a bit more
        geometrical in composition than organic. The painting application looks more
        like impressionism than Art Nouveau. Or look at a painting by Egon Schiele,
        who was also a Secession-style artists, and you would probably never connect
        him with Art Nouveau, because, as I've just found in Britannica, "Schiele,
        however, emphasized expression over decoration, heightening the emotive power
        of line with a feverish tension." (That's about right.) Lovis Corinth was
        the head of the Berlin Secession, and his work looks quite far from the Art
        Nouveau style. If I were to put my finger on the difference, it would be
        that Secession style painting was more geometrical, less decorative, and more
        expressionistic (although some of the Secession artists opposed the
        Expressionist movement), and it has more of a serious Germanic quality, as
        opposed to that "Gay Par-ee" look you find in Art Nouveau.

        Jamie
      • Matej Klimes
        I see, sorry for not reading all of it, too much stuff in my Czeechlist folder to go through..... I think Jamie was talking about fine art/painting rather than
        Message 3 of 13 , May 28 7:03 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I see, sorry for not reading all of it, too much stuff in my Czeechlist
          folder to go through.....

          I think Jamie was talking about fine art/painting rather than architecture
          (eventhough the styles are known in both) - I was thinking of architecture
          and I'm quite certain that there's no difference between a building someone
          may refer to as Art Nouveau and that referred to as secession - no
          difference making it necessary to separate it into two distinct styles, that
          is. We may talk about early or late "secese", or French/Austrian/Czech, etc.
          "secese" (all of which I'd call Art Nouveau in English, I can see calling it
          Secession as well, but not to distinguish)....

          I'm not that much of an expert on art, but for example both Klimt and Mucha
          are referred to as "secese" in Czech (at least they were in my school
          days) - as Sarka said we don't have separate terms for Art Nouveau and
          Secession - or, rather Art Nouveau is the translation of "secese", which
          must be taken from secession....

          Do you think the distinction should be/is made in architecture as well,
          Jamie et all?

          Matej






          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Rachel Thompson" <rachel.thompson@...>
          To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:07 PM
          Subject: RE: [Czechlist] Secession and Art Nouveau


          >
          > > Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the difference between the two
          > styles is, Jamie? <
          >
          > I think you'll find Jamie has already done this in quite a lot of depth -
          > see his previous messages on this thread.
          >
          > Rachel
          >
          >
          >
          > Czechlist: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
          > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
        • Matej Klimes
          I see, not an expert on painting myself, but couldn t the difference be that what you refer to as Art Nouveau in painting (Mucha s tall women with flowers all
          Message 4 of 13 , May 28 7:18 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            I see, not an expert on painting myself, but couldn't the difference be that
            what you refer to as Art Nouveau in painting (Mucha's tall women with
            flowers all around) was done for posters, advertisements, etc. (uzite
            umeni - would that be applied art in E?), whereas what you refer to as
            secession (Klimt, for example) is artsy-fartsy - I mean it wasn't done for
            commercial purposes (at least without anybody talking into the process if
            you know what I mean).

            Sort of like an UMPRUM student who does "his" art in spare time and graphic
            design and layout to pay his bills...the two styles may be very different
            even if both are done using computers....

            I might be wrong, but I recall seeing some Mucha's work that wasn't posters
            or advertisements, but studies of figures and portraits that had the almost
            impressionistic quality you talk about and wasn't that far from Klimt or
            Schiele. I think Klimt and Schiele were said to have taken inspiration from
            "secese" and making their own style which doesn't follow all "secese"
            dogmas - organic ornamentation, etc., but we still rafer to them as "secese"
            painters (in Czech, that is) - at tleast that was my impression - correct?

            Artistically

            Matej




            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <JPKIRCHNER@...>
            To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:47 PM
            Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Secession and Art Nouveau


            >
            > In a message dated 5/28/02 9:02:59 AM, mklimes@... writes:
            >
            > >To my ears, Art Nouveau and Secession (Czenglish or not) are one and the
            > >same thing and I'm not aware of any difference between the two - other
            > >than that they come from different languages originally. I'd be very
            > surprised
            > >if they left out a whole architectural style out of our history of
            > architecture
            > >classes.
            > >
            > >Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the difference between the two
            > >styles is, Jamie?
            >
            > I don't know architecture well, and I'm mainly educated in painting, so
            > that's where I'm coming from. One main part of the difference is not of
            > style, but of organization. The Secession artists had seceded from the
            > official academy in Vienna. I can spot the difference between a Secession
            > painting and an Art Nouveau one, but I can't explain the difference very
            > well. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Art Terms offers a plausible
            > explanation in saying that the Secession artists "developed a more
            > rectilinear form of Art Nouveau", and the Penguin Dictionary of Art and
            > Artists ties them somewhat to Impressionism. If you look at a Klimt
            > painting, for example, you'll see that it has the ornamentality of Art
            > Nouveau, but it's not as flowing and full of curly-cues, and it's a bit
            more
            > geometrical in composition than organic. The painting application looks
            more
            > like impressionism than Art Nouveau. Or look at a painting by Egon
            Schiele,
            > who was also a Secession-style artists, and you would probably never
            connect
            > him with Art Nouveau, because, as I've just found in Britannica, "Schiele,
            > however, emphasized expression over decoration, heightening the emotive
            power
            > of line with a feverish tension." (That's about right.) Lovis Corinth
            was
            > the head of the Berlin Secession, and his work looks quite far from the
            Art
            > Nouveau style. If I were to put my finger on the difference, it would be
            > that Secession style painting was more geometrical, less decorative, and
            more
            > expressionistic (although some of the Secession artists opposed the
            > Expressionist movement), and it has more of a serious Germanic quality, as
            > opposed to that "Gay Par-ee" look you find in Art Nouveau.
            >
            > Jamie
            >
            >
            > Czechlist: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
            > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
          • Rubková
            I believe that Matej is right. Art Nouveau, secese, secession and Jugendstill are just different names for one artistic style, which has its ancestors, trends,
            Message 5 of 13 , May 28 1:20 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              I believe that Matej is right. Art Nouveau, secese, secession and
              Jugendstill are just different names for one artistic style, which has its
              ancestors, trends, movements and followers and descendants... Jamie said
              previously that "Art Nouveau was primarily in France, England and North
              America". He should rather say that this style was called Art Nouveau
              primarily in France, England and North America because what he calls the
              Secession style can be seen in Glasgow, Chicago and elsewhere in these
              countries.

              Sarka

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Matej Klimes [mailto:mklimes@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 4:19 PM
              To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Secession and Art Nouveau


              I see, not an expert on painting myself, but couldn't the difference be that
              what you refer to as Art Nouveau in painting (Mucha's tall women with
              flowers all around) was done for posters, advertisements, etc. (uzite
              umeni - would that be applied art in E?), whereas what you refer to as
              secession (Klimt, for example) is artsy-fartsy - I mean it wasn't done for
              commercial purposes (at least without anybody talking into the process if
              you know what I mean).

              Sort of like an UMPRUM student who does "his" art in spare time and graphic
              design and layout to pay his bills...the two styles may be very different
              even if both are done using computers....

              I might be wrong, but I recall seeing some Mucha's work that wasn't posters
              or advertisements, but studies of figures and portraits that had the almost
              impressionistic quality you talk about and wasn't that far from Klimt or
              Schiele. I think Klimt and Schiele were said to have taken inspiration from
              "secese" and making their own style which doesn't follow all "secese"
              dogmas - organic ornamentation, etc., but we still rafer to them as "secese"
              painters (in Czech, that is) - at tleast that was my impression - correct?

              Artistically

              Matej




              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <JPKIRCHNER@...>
              To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:47 PM
              Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Secession and Art Nouveau


              >
              > In a message dated 5/28/02 9:02:59 AM, mklimes@... writes:
              >
              > >To my ears, Art Nouveau and Secession (Czenglish or not) are one and the
              > >same thing and I'm not aware of any difference between the two - other
              > >than that they come from different languages originally. I'd be very
              > surprised
              > >if they left out a whole architectural style out of our history of
              > architecture
              > >classes.
              > >
              > >Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the difference between the two
              > >styles is, Jamie?
              >
              > I don't know architecture well, and I'm mainly educated in painting, so
              > that's where I'm coming from. One main part of the difference is not of
              > style, but of organization. The Secession artists had seceded from the
              > official academy in Vienna. I can spot the difference between a Secession
              > painting and an Art Nouveau one, but I can't explain the difference very
              > well. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Art Terms offers a plausible
              > explanation in saying that the Secession artists "developed a more
              > rectilinear form of Art Nouveau", and the Penguin Dictionary of Art and
              > Artists ties them somewhat to Impressionism. If you look at a Klimt
              > painting, for example, you'll see that it has the ornamentality of Art
              > Nouveau, but it's not as flowing and full of curly-cues, and it's a bit
              more
              > geometrical in composition than organic. The painting application looks
              more
              > like impressionism than Art Nouveau. Or look at a painting by Egon
              Schiele,
              > who was also a Secession-style artists, and you would probably never
              connect
              > him with Art Nouveau, because, as I've just found in Britannica, "Schiele,
              > however, emphasized expression over decoration, heightening the emotive
              power
              > of line with a feverish tension." (That's about right.) Lovis Corinth
              was
              > the head of the Berlin Secession, and his work looks quite far from the
              Art
              > Nouveau style. If I were to put my finger on the difference, it would be
              > that Secession style painting was more geometrical, less decorative, and
              more
              > expressionistic (although some of the Secession artists opposed the
              > Expressionist movement), and it has more of a serious Germanic quality, as
              > opposed to that "Gay Par-ee" look you find in Art Nouveau.
              >
              > Jamie
              >
              >
              > Czechlist: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
              > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >



              Czechlist: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
              Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


              ---
              Příchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry.
              Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
              Verze: 6.0.362 / Virová báze: 199 - datum vydání: 7.5.2002

              ---
              Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry.
              Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
              Verze: 6.0.362 / Virová báze: 199 - datum vydání: 7.5.2002
            • JPKIRCHNER@aol.com
              ... Take a look at Mucha s Slave Epic paintings, and you ll see a sensibility that is still very decorative and not as oriented toward some kind of scientific
              Message 6 of 13 , May 28 3:48 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 5/28/02 10:20:52 AM, mklimes@... writes:

                >I see, not an expert on painting myself, but couldn't the difference be
                >that what you refer to as Art Nouveau in painting (Mucha's tall women with
                >flowers all around) was done for posters, advertisements, etc. (uzite
                >umeni - would that be applied art in E?), whereas what you refer to as
                >secession (Klimt, for example) is artsy-fartsy - I mean it wasn't done
                >for commercial purposes (at least without anybody talking into the process
                >if you know what I mean).

                Take a look at Mucha's Slave Epic paintings, and you'll see a sensibility
                that is still very decorative and not as oriented toward some kind of
                scientific empiricism as in Impressionist paintings, or as wild and
                expressionistic as the Austrians and Germans would do. Mucha had to be able
                to see and transfer impressions to paper, but there are still elements
                floating in air and curling curling, that you won't find in work by someone
                like Schiele. And there is more precision in it.

                But Mucha's an odd case anyway, because he was a Secession artist who went to
                France and assimilated quite a bit. He's more Art Nouveau than Secession.

                In anything German, Austrian or Central European from any period, you can see
                a bit more expressionism and tragedy than in anything French. In the former
                German-speaking realms you see bloody crucifixes and the ugly reality in your
                face that you won't generally find in anything French or Italian in the same
                style. (Only the Mexicans outdo the Germans in this.) The same goes for the
                difference between Art Nouveau and Secession.

                JK
              • JPKIRCHNER@aol.com
                ... As I keep saying, they don t look the same. JK
                Message 7 of 13 , May 28 3:51 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 5/28/02 4:09:32 PM, rubkova@... writes:

                  >Jamie said
                  >previously that "Art Nouveau was primarily in France, England and North
                  >America". He should rather say that this style was called Art Nouveau
                  >primarily in France, England and North America because what he calls the
                  >Secession style can be seen in Glasgow, Chicago and elsewhere in these
                  >countries.

                  As I keep saying, they don't look the same.

                  JK
                • JPKIRCHNER@aol.com
                  ... Here is something I found in a website on fabric design: Designers in the early years of the century could choose fabrics with designs from the stylized
                  Message 8 of 13 , May 28 4:02 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 5/28/02 4:09:32 PM, rubkova@... writes:

                    >He should rather say that this style was called Art Nouveau
                    >primarily in France, England and North America because what he calls the
                    >Secession style can be seen in Glasgow, Chicago and elsewhere in these
                    >countries.

                    Here is something I found in a website on fabric design:

                    "Designers in the early years of the century could choose fabrics with
                    designs from the stylized organic motifs of Art Nouveau or the flat, abstract
                    designs of the Vienna Secession movement–both styles having originated in the
                    1890s."

                    Somebody is apparently able to tell them apart in decorative arts too.

                    JK
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.