98

a painter nor, heaven forbid a satirist. But in reality I myself was everybody I drew, the rich man favored by fate, stuffing himself and guggling champagne, as much as the one who stood outside in the pouring rain holding out his hand. I was as it were, divided into two." autobiography Grosz

p84

5.19.80

French Painting 1848-70 Joseph Sloane

The crux of the matter lies in what might be called the status of the object as it exists in the artist's pictorial world... the thing painted had lost importance from the traditional point of view, for the purpose was no longer to present its meaning or significance, but to use it as a basis on which to create effects of line, form, color and design, or else to suggest mental states which were to be felt rather

99

than understood. The painter's attitude was alike in each type, for it was his own individualism which embodied in the final effect rather than a creative rephrasing of the traditional conception of the object studied. p209

(Describing Courbet's "realism")

Why then were they so significant? We have seen that it was not because of the way they were done or even because they were "realistic" in the broad sense of the term. It was because they turned to a kind of subject which had not hitherto been considered acceptable and were painted as though these new subjects were just as important as any others- more so, perhaps. What was more, they seemed to be handled objectively in the sense that they were neither idealized nor emotionalized and it was obvious that the presence of "beauty" in the subject, of the painting of it, was of no consequence whatever to the artist.

p159