Seurat Quotes

Glück malt man mit Punkten, Unglück mit Strichen", sagte sie. "Du musst, wenn du unser Glück beschreiben willst, ganz viele kleine Punkte machen wie Seurat. Und dass es Glück war, wird man erst aus der Distanz sehen.

If I did not move and dance between them the three would turn to stone, for they are passive [...] They would fall asleep if I lay still somewhere. Henry, Gonzalo, Hugh. [...] It is only my dancing, my dancing which animates them. I slide out of Gonzalo's bed like a snake. I slide out of Henry's bed. I slide out of Hugh's bed. [...] I dance untrammeled - return to each full of the space in between, that change of air. Dancing, I find my flame and my joy, because I dance, slide, run, to the boat, to quai de Passy, to Villa Seurat; I keep the wind in the folds of my dress, the rain on my hair, and light in my eyes.

Anyway, for whatever interest is to be derived therefrom. Bacon, Balthus, and Magritte are my three favourite painters, along with Dubuffet, of the whole post-impressionist period, by which I mean that before them Bonnard, Vuillard, & Seurat are my favourite painters of that time.

Your outrageous and reckless chaos is the only reason you are able to beat me in any strategy game,” Seurat said. “It certainly has nothing to do with your innate skills.

Ah! Seurat! Prophetic pointillism a century before the pixel!

But now I saw the emotional landscape quite differently—more like the pointillism of a Seurat painting: each color made up of many other colors. Look closely, and it’s dots. Stand back, and it’s an afternoon on the lake—all the colors relying on each other for texture and meaning.

Seurat’s flowmetal face gleamed in the lights from his update ship’s cockpit. “Then I regret having been such an excellent teacher.

Perhaps the rivers of ink that have been expended discussing the nature of the “continuous” over the centuries, from Aristotle to Heidegger, have been wasted. Continuity is only a mathematical technique for approximating very finely grained things. The world is subtly discrete, not continuous. The good Lord has not drawn the world with continuous lines: with a light hand, he has sketched it in dots, like the painter Georges Seurat.

Vor stared for a moment at his own reflection in the familiar mirrored face, remembering some of the stupid jokes his friend had told and the innovative military games they had played together. Seurat had never harmed him in any way.

Someties it is hard to criticize, one wants only to chronicle. The good and mediocre books come in from week to week, and I put them aside and read them and think of what to say; but the "worthless" books come in day after day, like the cries and truck sounds from the street, and there is nothing that anyone could think of that is good enough for them. In the bad type of thin pamphlets, in hand-set lines on imported paper, people's hard lives and hopeless ambitions have expressed themselves more directly and heartbreakingly than they have ever expressed in any work of art:. it is as if the writers had sent you their ripped-out arms and legs, with "This is a poem" scrawled on them in lipstick. After a while one is embarrassed not so much for them as for poetry, which is for these poor poets one more of the openings against which everyone in the end beats his brains out; and one finds it unbearable that poetry should be so hard to write - a game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey in which there is for most of the players no tail, no donkey, not even a booby prize. If there were only some mechanism (like Seurat's proposed system of painting, or the projected Universal Algebra that Gödel believes Leibnitz to have perfected and mislaid) for reasonably and systematically converting into poetry what we see and feel and are! When one reads the verse of people who cannot write poems - people who sometimes have more intelligence, sensibility, and moral discrimination than most of the poets - it is hard not to regard the Muse as a sort of fairy godmother who says to the poet, after her colleagues have showered on him the most disconcerting and ambiguous gifts, "Well, never mind. You're still the only one that can write poetry.

Je cherche mon frère, et je ne le trouve pas. J'aurais des choses très importantes à lui dire - qu'il ne faut pas mourir, qu'il y a d'autres solutions - qu'il faut attendre. Mais il y a tellement de choses que je ne maîtrise pas, et mon frère est tellement pressé, et mon frère meurt quand même.

Berlin. November 18, 1917. Sunday. I think Grosz has something demonic in him. This new Berlin art in general, Grosz, Becher, Benn, Wieland Herzfelde, is most curious. Big city art, with a tense density of impressions that appears simultaneous, brutally realistic, and at the same time fairy-tale-like, just like the big city itself, illuminating things harshly and distortedly as with searchlights and then disappearing in the glow. A highly nervous, cerebral, illusionist art, and in this respect reminiscent of the music hall and also of film, or at least of a possible, still unrealized film. An art of flashing lights with a perfume of sin and perversity like every nocturnal street in the big city. The precursors are E.T.A. Hoffmann, Breughel, Mallarmé, Seurat, Lautrec, the futurists: but in the density and organization of the overwhelming abundance of sensation, the brutal reality, the Berliners seem new to me. Perhaps one could also include Stravinsky here (Petrushka). Piled-up ornamentation each of which expresses a trivial reality but which, in their sum and through their relations to each other, has a thoroughly un-trivial impact. All round the world war rages and in the center is this nervous city in which so much presses and shoves, so many people and streets and lights and colors and interests: politics and music hall, business and yet also art, field gray, privy counselors, chansonettes, and right and left, and up and down, somewhere, very far away, the trenches, regiments storming over to attack, the dying, submarines, zeppelins, airplane squadrons, columns marching on muddy streets, Hindenburg and Ludendorff, victories; Riga, Constantinople, the Isonzo, Flanders, the Russian Revolution, America, the Anzacs and the poilus, the pacifists and the wild newspaper people. And all ending up in the half-darkened Friedrichstrasse, filled with people at night, unconquerable, never to be reached by Cossacks, Gurkhas, Chasseurs d'Afrique, Bersaglieris, and cowboys, still not yet dishonored, despite the prostitutes who pass by. If a revolution were to break out here, a powerful upheaval in this chaos, barricades on the Friedrichstrasse, or the collapse of the distant parapets, what a spark, how the mighty, inextricably complicated organism would crack, how like the Last Judgment! And yet we have experienced, have caused precisely this to happen in Liège, Brussels, Warsaw, Bucharest, even almost in Paris. That's the world war, all right.

What's your favourite painting?' 'Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte,' Win says without hesitation. 'By Georges Seurat.' 'Isn't that the one made up of dots?' 'Pointillism. Yeah. It represents the two sides of art that I love-on one habd, it's just beautifully rendered because the artist made sure every inch of the canvas was pulsing with life. But there's a whole other side of it - pointillism is a metaphor for society and politics. Painting dot by dot stands in for the industrial revolution and how it was filtering into leisure time in society. I could write a whoe paper on it.' She smiles. 'I did.' 'Sounds like a perfect marriage of skill and significance, 'I say. 'A perect marriage, ' Win repeats. 'Yes.

Je marche à travers le sable, il s'étend à perte de vue. Et je sais - mais comment ? - que cette dune est mon frère. Je n'arriverai jamais au bout de mon frère, il est là, à perte de vue. Quand je le prends dans ma main, il me file entre les doigts, et le vent le disperse, mes pieds s'enfoncent dans mon frère, je peine à avancer. Je n'ai pas de prise, je voudrais voir le bout de mon frère, mais je ne vois rien.

What could be more subtle, for instance, than the instinct which had prompted her to hang on the walls of her drawing-room three paintings, all by Douanier Rousseau? Her guests, on coming into this room, were put at ease by the presence of pictures, and ‘modern’ pictures at that, which they could recognize at first sight. Faced by the work of Seurat, of Matisse, even of Renoir, who knows but that they might hesitate, the name of the artist not rising immediately to their lips? But at the sight of those fantastic foliages, those mouthing monkeys, there could arise no doubt; even the most uncultured could murmur: ‘What gorgeous Rousseaus you have here. I always think it is so wonderful that they were painted by a common customs official – abroad, of course.’ And buoyed up by a feeling of intellectual adequacy, they would thereafter really enjoy themselves.

La disminución de la gravedad llegó hasta tal punto que las rayas de la piel de tigre que tenía colgada en la pared, se desprendieron de la piel y rodearon nuestros cuerpos y nos encarcelaron. Luego se desprendieron todos los motivos frutales de nuestra vajilla e hicimos así el amor entre racimos de uvas diminutas y montañas de manzanas liliputienses. Luego se desprendieron las flores que Estefanía había bordado en la funda de la almohada, y como cada vez que mi prima dormía el bordado dejaba una huella en su cara, se desprendió también la huella de las flores. Luego se desprendieron los lunares blancos de mi corbata azul y entonces hicimos el amor rodeados de lunas pequeñas con sabor a seda. Después se desprendieron todos los puntos de colores de un cuadro de Seurat y nos bañaron de confeti. Luego se desprendieron los encabezados y las noticias de los periódicos y las palabras de los libros, y se confundieron, y entonces nos amamos entre la muerte del Ché Guevara en Vietnam y Madame Bovary cruzando el Atlántico en el Espíritu San Luis. Después se desprendió el significado de las palabras y las frases, y entonces hicimos el amor entre balbuceos y sílabas sin sentido. Después se desprendieron todas las huellas digitales que habíamos dejado en la puerta, en los vasos y en las cortinas, y acariciaron nuestros cuerpos. Después se desprendió la piel de nuestras lenguas y nos lamió la espalda. Luego la oscuridad se escapó por la ventana de nuestro cuarto y nos amamos a pleno sol. Después todos los colores del mundo se desprendieron de las cosas y con ellos el color de nuestra piel, de nuestros ojos y nuestras venas y nuestros huesos, y entonces hicimos el amor invisibles, entre todos los colores del paraíso. Luego la vigilia se desprendió de nuestros cuerpos y entonces hicimos el amor dormidos. Después el sueño se desprendió de nuestros ojos y nos amamos despiertos.

It is pretty clear, then, that attention can control the brain’s sensory processing. But it can do something else, too, something that we only hinted at in our discussion of neuroplasticity. It is a commonplace observation that our perceptions and actions do not take place in a vacuum. Rather, they occur on a stage set that has been concocted from the furniture of our minds. If your mind has been primed with the theory of pointillism (the use of tiny dots of primary colors to generate secondary colors), then you will see a Seurat painting in a very different way than if you are ignorant of his technique. Yet the photons of light reflecting off the Seurat and impinging on your retina, there to be conveyed as electrical impulses into your visual cortex, are identical to the photons striking the retina of a less knowledgeable viewer, as well as of one whose mind is distracted. The three viewers “see” very different paintings. Information reaches the brain from the outside world, yes—but in “an ever-changing context of internal representations,” as Mike Merzenich put it. Mental states matter. Every stimulus from the world outside impinges on a consciousness that is predisposed to accept it, or to ignore it. We can therefore go further: not only do mental states matter to the physical activity of the brain, but they can contribute to the final perception even more powerfully than the stimulus itself. Neuroscientists are (sometimes reluctantly) admitting mental states into their models for a simple reason: the induction of cortical plasticity discussed in the previous chapters is no more the simple and direct product of particular cortical stimuli than the perception of the Seurat painting is unequivocally determined by the objective pattern of photons emitted from its oil colors: quite the contrary.

Drawings, as it has so often been said, are the most intimate expressions of an artist. They can reveal the very act of creation, a first idea, the first spontaneous stroke. They can tell much about an artist himself—for instance, that van Gogh in the south of France remembered an etching by Rembrandt, or that Picasso reinterpreted a composition by Millet.

Seurat took to heart the color theorists' notion of a scientific approach to painting. He believed that a painter could use color to create harmony and emotion in art in the same way that a musician uses counterpoint and variation to create harmony in music. He theorized that the scientific application of color was like any other natural law, and he was driven to prove this conjecture. He thought that the knowledge of perception and optical laws could be used to create a new language of art based on its own set of heuristics and he set out to show this language using lines, color intensity and color schema. Seurat called this language Chromoluminarism.[27] In a letter to the writer Maurice Beaubourg in 1890 he wrote: "Art is Harmony. Harmony is the analogy of the contrary and of similar elements of tone, of colour and of line. In tone, lighter against darker. In colour, the complementary, red-green, orange-blue, yellow-violet. In line, those that form a right-angle. The frame is in a harmony that opposes those of the tones, colours and lines of the picture, these aspects are considered according to their dominance and under the influence of light, in gay, calm or sad combinations".[29][30] Seurat's theories can be summarized as follows: The emotion of gaiety can be achieved by the domination of luminous hues, by the predominance of warm colors, and by the use of lines directed upward. Calm is achieved through an equivalence/balance of the use of the light and the dark, by the balance of warm and cold colors, and by lines that are horizontal. Sadness is achieved by using dark and cold colors and by lines pointing downward

Impressionists, Cubists, and Surrealists who had stunned the world between 1870 and 1960 by entirely redefining art. VAN GOGH… SEURAT… PICASSO… MUNCH… MATISSE… MAGRITTE… KLIMT… KANDINSKY… JOHNS… HOCKNEY… GAUGUIN… DUCHAMP… DEGAS… CHAGALL… CÉZANNE… CASSATT… BRAQUE… ARP… ALBERS…

Impressionists, Cubists, and Surrealists who had stunned the world between 1870 and 1960 by entirely redefining art. VAN GOGH… SEURAT… PICASSO… MUNCH… MATISSE… MAGRITTE… KLIMT… KANDINSKY… JOHNS… HOCKNEY… GAUGUIN… DUCHAMP… DEGAS… CHAGALL… CÉZANNE… CASSATT… BRAQUE… ARP… ALBERS… This section terminated at one last architectural rib, and Langdon moved past it, finding himself in the final section of the library. The volumes here appeared to be dedicated to the group of artists that Edmond, in Langdon’s presence, liked to call “the school of boring dead white guys”—essentially, anything predating the modernist movement of the mid-nineteenth century. Unlike Edmond, it was here that Langdon felt most at home, surrounded by the Old Masters. VERMEER… VELÁZQUEZ… TITIAN… TINTORETTO… RUBENS… REMBRANDT… RAPHAEL… POUSSIN… MICHELANGELO… LIPPI… GOYA… GIOTTO… GHIRLANDAIO… EL GRECO… DÜRER… DA VINCI… COROT… CARAVAGGIO… BOTTICELLI… BOSCH… The last few feet of the final shelf were dominated by a large glass cabinet, sealed with a heavy lock. Langdon peered through the glass and saw an ancient-looking leather box inside—a protective casing for a massive antique book. The text on the outside of the box was barely legible, but Langdon could see enough to decrypt the title of the volume inside. My God, he thought, now realizing why this book had been locked away from the hands of visitors. It’s probably worth a fortune. Langdon knew there were precious few early editions of this legendary artist’s work in existence. I’m not surprised Edmond invested in this, he thought, recalling that Edmond had once referred to this British artist as “the only premodern with any imagination.” Langdon disagreed, but he could certainly understand Edmond’s special affection for this artist. They are both cut from the same cloth. Langdon crouched down and peered through the glass at the box’s gilded engraving: The Complete Works of William Blake. William Blake, Langdon mused. The Edmond Kirsch of the eighteen hundreds. Blake had been an idiosyncratic genius—a prolific luminary whose painting style was so progressive that some believed he had magically glimpsed the future in his dreams. His symbol-infused religious illustrations depicted angels, demons, Satan, God, mythical creatures, biblical themes, and a pantheon of deities from his own spiritual hallucinations

(p.62) Van Gogh came to realize in Nuenen that color could be a means of expression in its own right. Later, in France, based on his observation and experience of the color theories of Impressionist like Monet and Pissarro and Post-Impressionists like Seurat and Gauguin, he developed a quite radical, very bright palette that had little to do with naturalism. For some time, too, he tried to work from his imagination. Despite all this, he continued to believe that the direct study of nature was a sine qua non for a contemporary artist. Artists could never study nature enough. They constantly had to "grind away at it. And whatever imagination could achieve, to Van Gogh nature remained the ultimate source of inspiration: "The greatest, most powerful imaginations have also made things directly from reality that leave one dumbfounded" [537].

My copilot thinks of the human female constantly, but thus far it does not seem to have distracted him from his duties. I will watch him carefully for signs of trouble. —SEURAT, log entry submitted to Omnius

Ik keek hem aan. En ik zei bijna dat ze nooit zou hebben gedacht aan iets wat ik voor haar had kunnen doen. Omdat er nooit iemand iets voor haar had gedaan. En dat ik niets voor haar zou doen. Omdat het immers afgelopen was. Maar ik zei niks. - het broertje

This was a very self-indulgent scene of mine. This is the Chicago Art Institute which when I was in high school was a place of refuge for me. I went there quite a bit, I loved it, I knew all the paintings. And this was a chance for me to go back into this building and show all the paintings that were my favorites. … Cameron is looking at that little girl, which again is a mother and a child. The tenderness of a mother and child, which he didn't have. The closer he looks at the child, the less he sees, of course, with this style of painting. Or any style of painting. The more he looks at it, there’s nothing there. And then this painting (Seurat’s ‘A Sunday Afternoon…’), which I always thought was like making the movie. Pointillist style, which if you’re very very close to, you don’t have any idea what you’ve made, until you step back from it. The closer he looks at the child, the less he sees … The more he looks at it, there’s nothing there. He fears that the more you look at him the less you see. There isn’t anything there. That’s him.

Cameron is looking at that little girl, which again is a mother and a child. The tenderness of a mother and child, which he didn't have. The closer he looks at the child, the less he sees, of course, with this style of painting. Or any style of painting. The more he looks at it, there’s nothing there. And then this painting (Seurat’s ‘A Sunday Afternoon…’), which I always thought was like making the movie. Pointillist style, which if you’re very very close to, you don’t have any idea what you’ve made, until you step back from it. He fears that the more you look at him the less you see. There isn’t anything there. That’s him.

pausing before Sunflowers as though personally responsible for introducing the artist to the group. ‘Impasto – see how thick he lays on the paint. Uses the canvas as a pallet! And another van Gogh–see the many strokes.’  Jack was astonished by the effect of the scene before him: a bright yellow sunset, in the foreground a man in a field. Not worked with the brushstrokes that he was familiar with, but rather, the image was created by thousands of tiny dashes in as many colourful shades. Immediately beside it was a painting by Georges Seurat.

If you’d asked me before the crash, I’d have told you that feelings were like blocks of primary colors: You felt blue for a while, then yellow, then red. But now I saw the emotional landscape quite differently—more like the pointillism of a Seurat painting: each color made up of many other colors.

To the American way of thinking, French education is like one of those pointillist paintings by Seurat—an oddly precise yet bloodless picture composed of a million dots. Americans prefer Monet—those vague and watery images where everything runs together but still gives you the gist of things. Americans want the Big Picture, even if it’s a bit blurry.

Londonas Rugsėjo 13 Londonas daug gra­žesnis ir jaukesnis, negu kad aš iki šiol buvau manęs: miestas su savo specifiniu kvapu bei charakeriu. Intymus, organizuotas iš vidaus, su minimumu išorinių nuostatų. Parkuose, kur susi­rinke londoniečiai šildosi saulėje, viešpatauja kažkokia kito pa­saulio rimtis, kaip Seurat paveiksle Baignade a Asniėres. Visi jaučiasi absoliučiai laisvai, bet tik sau ir su savim: galėtum eiti nuogas, ir niekas į tave nekreiptų nė mažiausio dėmesio. Oficialusis Londonas šiek tiek primena prieškarinį Ber­lyną, tik viskas čia šiek tiek mažesnės apimties, daugiau at ease. Visiems žinomi „landmarks“ - Parlamentas, Westminster Ab­bey, Buckingham Palace etc. - visiškai tokie, kokius juos ma­tai knygose ar atvirutėse: nei daugiau, nei mažiau. Iš Buckingham Palace man patiko tik mažas nuogas angeliukas su žuvim, pasodintas virš didžiulės rakto skylutės geležiniuose vartuose. Nepaprastai didelį įspūdį padarė National Gallery. Tai vie­nas iš patraukliausiai sutvarkytų mano matytų didžiųjų meno muziejų apskritai: erdvus, neperkrautas, privatus. Nuostabūs Manet, Renoirai (La Premiere sortie), Monet, Turner; Velaz­ quez (Roqueby Venus), Claude Lorrain, neskaitant Leonardo Uolų Madonos, Rafaelio Julijaus //, Tizianų, Gainsborough (ypač jo Watering place ir The Market cart).

it’s important not to focus on just one thing—the Kanizsa’s Pac-Man-like circles, Seurat’s dots, the Google car itself—but to simultaneously observe the motion between objects. Zooming out to observe not just the fringe, but the other sources of change, reveals a pattern you would otherwise miss.

It was an exhilarating time to be involved in the art world, in any capacity. At last, individualism was encouraged, not condemned. By the 1880s, Impressionism was yesterday’s news. Artists had already gone beyond it, and were experimenting with new forms, content and techniques. Diversity was the modus vivendi. Accordingly, 1880s Paris became the birthplace of some radically different movements, including Divisionism, Symbolism, Synthesism and Nabis. Furthermore, the proliferation of alternative exhibiting bodies offered real grounds for hope for avant-garde painters and those hailing from the fringes of society. The Salon was no longer the sole and hazardous rite of passage lying between a painter and success. There were now other organisations where reputations could be forged, such as the Société des Aquarellistes Français. But by far the most notable and innovative artistic venture in 1884 was the Salon des Artistes Indépendants. When his technically daring composition Bathers at Asnières (1884) was rejected by the jury of the 1884 Salon, former pupil of the prestigious École des Beaux-Arts Georges Seurat was spurred to retaliate. Joining forces with a number of other disgruntled painters, among them Symbolist Odilon Redon and self-taught artist Albert Dubois-Pillet, Seurat helped found the Groupe des Artistes Indépendants. With Redon acting as chairman, the group proposed to do something unprecedented: they would mount a show whose organisers were not answerable to any official institution, and where there would be no prizes and, significantly, no jury. The venture introduced a radically new concept onto the Parisian art scene: freedom. The first exhibition, the Salon des Artistes Indépendants, was held from May to July in a temporary building in the Jardin des Tuileries near the Louvre.

Nobody can commit photography alone. It is possible to have at least the illusion of reading and writing in isolation, but photography does not foster such attitudes. If there is any sense in deploring the growth of corporate and collective art forms such as the film and the press, it is surely in relation to the previous individualist technologies that these new forms corrode. Yet if there had been no prints or woodcuts and engravings, there would never have come the photograph. For centuries, the woodcut and the engraving had delineated the world by an arrangement of lines and points that had syntax of a very elaborate kind. Many historians of this visual syntax, like E. H. Gombrich and William M. Ivins, have been at great pains to explain how the art of the hand-written manuscript had permeated the art of the woodcut and the engraving until, with the halftone process, the dots and lines suddenly fell below the threshold of normal vision. Syntax, the net of rationality, disappeared from the later prints, just as it tended to disappear from the telegraph message and from the impressionist painting. Finally, in the pointillisme of Seurat, the world suddenly appeared through the painting. The direction of a syntactical point of view from outside onto the painting ended as literary form dwindled into headlines with the telegraph. With the photograph, in the same way, men had discovered how to make visual reports without syntax.