Ever since yesterday’s post I’ve been puzzling over my response to the work of Pierre Bonnard, whose current exhibition at London’s Tate Modern I reviewed. I have tried to put my specific observations about his painting into a more general context, and I’ve come up with the following framework.
If we ask ourselves what work does colour actually doing in a painting, it seems to me that historically painters have come up with seven answers, none of which will be controversial.
Colour can be used in order to define space, as in the recent landscapes of David Hockney. It can be employed in order to indicate form, and I suppose the artist whose work comes most immediately to mind in that respect is probably Cezanne. Then, its primary role might be to capture light, and probably a good part of the “impressionist” enterprise falls into that category, and especially Monet’s Haystacks, and his Rouen Cathedral studies. Next we have emotion. The name that leaps to my mind here is Kandinsky, and his theory about art and spirituality. I suspect that this idea might sum up a large slice of the abstract expressionist movement. Although closely related to this approach, I treat as separate the approach to colour in terms of its symbolic value. Although of minor significance these days at one time it was profoundly important within the context of Christian iconography. Any other suggestions would be gratefully received, but that is what I have been able to come up with.
Having said that, however, I’m still left with yesterday’s question. What on earth is Pierre Bonnard doing? He is described as a “colourist”, but I’m blowed if I can identify the work he expects colour to do for him.