Vienna: Art

November 08, 2024

The last thing I wanted to touch on considering the trip to Vienna is art because we visited a LOT of art museums. My back was so sore from standing in the galleries and I swear the sound of old floorboards creaking still haunts me. (I don't understand why they don't fix the floors so you can actually concentrate on the art and not all the noise). By the end, I was honestly a little tired of the art museums. But, hey, I checked a lot of famous paintings off my list. The problem is that I know paintings are famous, but I don't always know why. Seeing them in person can be even more confusing because half the time they're the ugliest ones in the gallery, or simply "mid".

Anyway, I saw Klimt, Picasso, Breugel, Rembrandt, and Monet, to name a few. (honestly, I don't know the names of all the artists, I just know I recognized the paintings. 😅) My favorites were Rembrandt and Monet. I love Monet's work because it inspires the idea of places instead of trying to replicate them. He recreates the colors of sunlight hitting the water, for example, or the way the light appears when it falls through the trees without actually adding much detail. Somehow, this makes his pictures feel even more real although they are less detailed/true-to-life. I think that is because they leave just enough room for one's imagination. So, every picture he paints feels like a place you may have visited once, a life you lived a long time ago. It's not about the location itself, but the feeling of a location, a time of day, or a season. The point is not a pond of lilies, the point is what it feels like to watch the light break through the shady willows and hear the water gently lapping against the shore, making the lilies move like dancing girls. I guess maybe that is why his style is called impressionism. Good job Monet; you did it.

Rembrandt's work was also incredible to see. It was our last day when we visited the exhibition, and we were lucky enough to catch it the day it opened. Up to that point, much of the work we'd seen was either commissioned art for patrons and the church, or that really strange art that has subliminal messaging which is rarely clear and often quite arbitrary. But not Rembrandt. Rembrandt did art for the sake of art. His whole goal was to experiment with the illusion of reality that art can create. He loved to use lighting to create optical illusions; people reaching out of the picture frame, or giant canvases that could be placed behind a real door to trick people into believing there was a room beyond it. He and his student were known for placing paintings around their houses and waiting to see how long it took people to discover that they weren't real objects, just well-placed canvases.

I loved the playful and creative attitude he had towards art and the fact that he didn't manipulate art into a means of communication. I think that art is one of the most powerful means of communication we have, and I'm not criticizing that at all, but art is also just art, and not every picture needs to be an ode to one's wealth or a discussion on political and ethical issues. Sometimes art for the sake of art speaks louder and clearer and is capable of communicating much more. In the case of Monet and Rembrandt; the goal of their works was simply to emphasize a shared experience; life. This is a subject we can all relate to.