I think Chagall's work livens up the opera house tremendously. For many, opera is a stuffy art form loaded with overblown stereotypes; the presence of Chagall's playful figures dancing overhead lightens the mood without mocking it.
Looking at Chagall is like being in a dream. Listening to the beautiful music would be like being in a dream.... It’s all a masterpiece for the senses.
I love both the heavy handed gilded opulence of the opera house and Chagall's exuberant kaleidoscope of color and movement. and would argue that the collision of these combined disparate aspects enhance the uniqueness of the experience.
I love it! The red and gold are so formal and heavy that the dreamy separate colors and white are like the opening of a music box. The Chagall ceiling is a perfect dream of the music playing in one’s mind as you sit in the opulence of the formal theatre. Bravo!
Years ago, my sister was doing an MFA at NYU. Oliver Smith of the ABT was one of her teachers. Every so often, he would mention his friend Mark the painter. Everyone assumed he had a friend Mark who painted houses. When they graduated, Smith gave a party at his home. The house was full of Chagall’s. His friend Mark the painter was Marc Chagall.
Chagall lifted the golden and red velvet kitch palace opera de Paris up to original melodious delightful colourful artistic bliss. Merci Marc! We still adore.
Correction: The Chagall ceiling is not a fresco, nor is it a repainting. It's oil on canvas, painted in many sections, then mounted on removable panels, with the original painting still underneath. Some of the seams are even visible in the video. It was not painted on location, but in several studios. Also, the painting you show Chagall working on, The Triumph of Music, is a completely different commission for Lincoln Center in NYC. As far as how it looks, Chagall painted a Chagall.
I think he gave the opera house the look of heaven. Chagalls ceiling is great. It's a great vision of beauty. What could be more complimentary to a gorgeous opera house. It is an experience of beauty.
I think that the painting carries with it a childlike wonder and whimsy, and having that yearning for the simplicity of daydreams in a place that screams refinement and adulthood is what makes folks uncomfortable. They don't want to be reminded that what they really yearn for us not opulence and richness, but the innocence and simplicity of childhood.
I've seen many of these paintings before but I never realised how beautiful they are!! Does that make sense? You've really helped communicate them to me - thank you so much. As a musician, the Debussy analogy of course helps!
It takes more imagination and personal creativity to appreciate in ones mind, the meeting of these disparate styles. I see the addition and delight. Thanks for the Debussy and reading and translation of the opening quote. Congratulations to you and Valentina.
I was there with friends the other day, so my experience is still fresh in my mind. Hmm... if they had stuck with the original style, it certainly would have fit in, but like a good wallpaper. Nothing noteworthy, or maybe even noticeable. But looking up now, you're pulled into something different. A delight you wouldn't be expecting, a break from what is otherwise a great example of big French prestige architecture and design. And when you bring your gaze back to the stage, your friends, the other tourists or patrons, it's almost, but not quite forgotten. Like a glimpse into an opera lovers Narnia. Thanks for this essay. I might not have reveled in my memory of the opera house and the treat that is Chagall's ceiling otherwise!
I personally love the contrast between the opulent golden ornamentation and Chagall’s more simple style. It makes both more interesting. It also makes the whole building a bit less “pompeux”.
When I had the great fortune to visit the Opera House in Paris, I was not aware that Chagall had painted the ceiling. Imagine my surprise when I looked up! OMG! It's Chagall! My.spirits were lifted and I felt that his art and the music were meant to embrace one another.
The fresco by Chagall is utterly stunning, as is the Paris Opera House. But I'm not sure the two go together well. In a way, it reminds me of someone with a beautiful Edwardian town house, and has the interior designed after FL Wright. They're both lovely, but not exactly harmonious. (And congratulations on your relationship. :) Love is the only thing that supersedes art.)
Awww thanks! And I tend to agree with you. The contrast between both styles could work in some cases, but I feel like this isn't one of those instances.
I had the making of this great work in a book as an adolescent with photographs documenting Chagall's process of making the preparatory studies then him painting a very large gouache for the definitive ceiling mural of which I found a reproduction ! The mural is beautiful also the opera house !
Chagall's painting in this setting reminds me of the stained glass window of the Holy Spirit in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. That also is a lot simpler and lighter than its surroundings -- and I thought is was the most beautiful part of the building. Refreshing amidst oppressively ornate surroundings, and the only part I can still remember clearly 45 years later.
Much to my surprise, I am not taken aback by it - I wonder what it looks like when the lights are dimmed. I wonder how Chagall felt about it. I wish both for the fresco and the ceiling to be there in a hundred years, and I am curious what it will look like to people then.
@@Shawn.Grenier apparently Chagall would be more marketable in the "future" if he was a black dude who painted black squares. Too bad he's just one of the most imaginative and creative thinkers to ever live and not a smiling clapping Sambo for us. Then he might belong in the future.
as chagall said, the painting sings, and that's part of the """problem""", you're in the theater to watch someone else sing but to your surprise someone is already singing and it's the roof. i'd rather have it stay there honestly.
I think the new ceiling is incredibly beautiful and appropriate. So much better than the dusty old ceiling that it replaced. Who even looked at the old ceiling beyond an absent minded glance? Chagall's new ceiling is a magnet for people's eyes. And Chagall's ceiling will give viewers many times the joy of the old ceiling.
Uh "dusty old ceilling" seriously? The original ceilling was a true piece of art symbolising the inspiration from the Muses to the artists and musicians. It was a clever and inspiring masterpiece using the Greek mythology as a source of art. It was the icing on the cake, now when I see the Chagall's ceiling, it's not really an appropriate piece for the Garnier Palace, it breaks the coherence of the 2nd Empire architectural style of the building. Now, I think Chagall's ceiling would have its place in a museum, it's interesting to look at but it's not the kind of painting supposed to be exposed in a XIXth Century opera house. The Palais Garnier was built very minutely, in the smallest details, and I think that it should be preserved as the artists, sculptors and architects that worked on it wanted it to be. It's a question of respect to all these people who built this fantastic edifice and to France's patrimony.
I had to make a habit of checking your channel every so often because your videos don't consistently show up in my subscription feed and it's easy to miss the notification. Weird since my "engagement" as youtube defines it is always very high with your videos. I watch the whole thing and I often comment. You were so delicate in setting up your opinion, it was really quite charming. Yes, of course this fresco doesn't fit with this fancy pants gold plated, red velved covered, grand staircase having monument. :) You did a good job of laying out what makes it interesting, even to someone so instinctively hostile to the whole idea as me.
Awww thank you so much! It's so sweet of you! I will sadly never understand the UA-cam algorithm! Thank you for your dedication despite that! It helps a lot and it's very appreciated :)
I love your videos so much man, I love the way you presented the new fresco with Claire de Lune. I do think that the new fresco seems out of place. It’s beautiful, but I wonder why they felt the need to replace the original one, it was gorgeous! Also happy bday to your girlfriend, that was really sweet
I kind of like the childish look. It makes me think of imagination and dream X) I think it's so interesting how photography was invented and then artists no longer seemed obliged to create realistic works (sorry if my terms and phrases aren't too good, I'm still new to art history!)
On paper it's a great fit. Chagall was a master at capturing drama, poetry, fantasy and music, which opera often does too. But in actuality, it does fight a little with the ostentatiousness of the architecture and mouldings. As for uniting his art with historical buildings, I feel his stained glass windows were more of a success in this regard, Chichester & Tudely are lovely examples of letting his ambiguity and dreamyness find space to do their own thing.
I just love this ceiling! I am a professional muralist (38 years of painting murals.). Chagall's mural is not really connected to the whole, and in its place is transcendent and ethereal. And so French!
It is beautiful :-) The colors of the Opera do kind of clash, though. Perhaps if all the gold was covered with silver, much more aesthetic pleasure would occur. It is the gold being in a different (nonexistent) palette that clashes with the primary colors of the mural. Silver would unite the entirety of the contents of the inside of the Opera of Paris. Just a suggestion.
I think if the colours were a bit darker and there was less negative space it would've been less controversial. The harmony of composition is there, but I just don't know if the overall hue is suitable. Regardless, it looks magnificent on its own, especially with the frame.
That's exactly what I think! It's beautiful on its own, but definitely out of tune with its environment. I agree that the colors, though stunning, are not appropriate for the context.
I don't love artwork itself, but i do love the contrast, i would love to come in and be stunned by it. Would it distract me from any play? Probably yes, but i would love that, it gives me vibe of a doorway or portal. It makes the theater phantasmagoric feeling, it's like being suspended between two very different worlds, but both of them share the same aspiration - to convey emotions, to show you different perspective, to take you on a journey. World isn't harmonious, it's unapologetically diverse, and this mix of classical architecture and modern art is conveying just that.
I wonder if the discordance is intentional? Thinking about it harmonically it feels to me like a dissonant note in a chord that brightens it adds a new life. Then it can resolve into a tonal chord like the classical architecture. It adds movement musically that is most intriguing. It is something that cannot be seen in one sitting effectively. It’s designed for you to look away then reengaged on a separate part. It’s why these works are effective. You dynamically view them.
Shawn, you've covered Hokusai before, but the rest of your videos might suggest that art, historic and modern, was the work of primarily westerners!1!! >:(( I'm just pulling your leg, haha. Of course you're probably just producing videos about those topics you are most familiar with so that you can actually make them informative and well-written. But it'd be really nice if you expand the scope of just some of your videos and take a look at perhaps Raden Saleh, Keiyu Nishimura or Ai Weiwei (thinking about Ai Weiwei, I realize you haven't done a video on Banksy which would be cool too). "The Arrest of Pangeran Diponegoro", the 20 Okinawan images of "War and Peace", etc are some of my favorite pieces which I'd be really happy if you could cover some time. PS happy bday to Valentina :)
Thank you John!! You're absolutely right and I'll do my best to explore outside of the Western canon. It might not be what I'm most familiar with, but I'm sure there's plenty of rich and powerful artworks out there that deserve a video! I'll keep an eye out! Thank you!!
he did an awesome job!,otherwise it would have been an academic bored!,he gives freshness,modernism,originality,im a musician,I love all the clasicals,and Chagall's paintings are music itself!,i hope one day I could go and see it !,by the way Im happy i came across your chanel Im learning a lot ,congrats!,Im also subscribed!thanks!
Loved the video! About the fresco, I certainly like it and it's place in this video, but I imagine it leaves a more disruptive impression in the actual opera.
Thank you!! The fresco is beautiful, but you're right, it's quite disruptive. This has me thinking, would it be less disruptive if the ceiling was white (or just any other muted colour)? Would it be better for the ceiling to just be white in order to get rid of the disruption or is Chagall's disruption preferable to that?
I think the most disruptive aspect of this work is the negative space. I would rather have the ceiling be plain white, but that would not fit the room either.
In my opinion, this painting in red tones would be more harmonious with opera, and maybe a work in Cubist style in red or beige/golden tones would less interrupt the whole design. Maybe his intention was to disrupt status quo and this decission is great from artistic perspective, that it's time to disrupt the old style and make something new, not pleasing and likeable but great and different. I don't like it that much, but idea and concept is great, if idea of disrupting the old ways in art was the intention of work.
Stylistically Chagall's art is too removed from the classical architecture it crowns. Whoever decided to commission Chagall must have realized rhe dissimilarity and decided Chagall would create a beautiful piece and let it stand on it's own. How it was received by those who commissioned it would be interesting. To me, I'm okay with the visual separation and I hope Chagall was pleased with his execution .
You're right, Chagall's painting doesn't blend in with the classical opera house. Maybe that mismatch has a meaning of its own. If they meshed, his fresco wouldn't stand out. But on more conceptual level, it makes you aware that beauty, art come in different shapes. The contrast makes you think about it. Both styles are exquisite. But also very different.
The 60s were a revolutionary time and the bold decision to enlist a modern painter for a traditional in situ role was fitting for the time. What's done is done and time will tell whether it harmonizes with the gilded decor. Personally, I find opera so boring, in general, that I would welcome something non-traditional so as to break up a stuffy, soporific atmosphere. One this is certain: a neo-classical, academically painted fresco would've been a safe choice and would've doomed the building to an eternity of undifferentiated dullness. Just another opera house.
I am sorry to say that but I think he ruined a beautiful room and everything I despise in arts can be summed up in his pieces, especially this one. Thank you for the upload. The message at the end warms my heart, all the best wishes to your girlfriend
My opinion: Nowadays one goes to the opera to pretend he's in the past. It's nostalgic. Such a modern painting breaks the nostalgic feeling. But this is more about the art consumer than about the art.
It is obvious it doesn't work or it would have never been discussed. Wearing red pants with an orange shirt does not work, no matter who is wearing them.
The Opera House is a grotesque "wedding cake" of over-done rococo nonsense. Chagal's work, in contrast, is a masterpiece of capturing a visual expression of music and emotion. The two can never "work" together because the first expression, the house, is such an over-the-top self-indulgent mess of gilded garbage that it renders anything near it mute and foreign. It's a shame poor Marc Chagal didn't recognize this and turn down the commission out of sympathy for the audience.
You speak like a pretentious fool. Imagine actually arguing that the chicken scratches of some unskilled “artist” are more impressive than beautiful frescoes and stonework built by our skilled and tasteful ancestors. But as for your point that he should’ve refused the commission, I agree. Keep your modernist garbage away from real beauty.
One of the dumbest commentaries I've ever read but at least you're right on one thing : Chagall's painting doesn't belong to Garnier's masterpiece. I wouldn't say that Chagall's painting looks bad as a single piece, but it should definitely be put elsewhere.
I like this work but like you've said it does conflict with the building. I think Mr. Chagall was portraying and honoring the performers and composers and not the building or it's patrons. I found it to be a very uncomfortable experience sitting beneath it. Giving me a disjointed uneasiness. Not to mention the very uncomfortable seats.
But do you think your appreciation of this painting would change if it was in a different context? Let's say it was on the ceiling of a modern work of architecture, would it be beautiful?
@@Shawn.Grenier You got me there. I commented too fast, before the end of the video, I had not seen your final point yet. Sorry. 😅 Answering your question... To be very honest, I tend to be more impressed by "classical form" art. Not that I don't appreciate Modern art, and it's "flexibility" towards form, but still, in my head, there is a foggy, hard to grasp line between the unorthodox shapes that cause an impact on me, and simply lacking any effect for being so unimpressive skill-wise. It's so hard to explain this in words (and on top of that my English is not very good), but let me try an example. For instance: Paints like The Starry Night, by Vincent van Gogh; The Scream, by Edvard Munch, strike me differently. The twisted form and expressive colors convey a substantial role in the meaning and the feeling the subject of the painting is trying to portray. I'm Afraid this specific work by Marc Chagall, is on the other side of that blurry line in my head. I mean no disrespect to your work. I love your videos, for I learn so much from them. I am by no means an "art expert". Take this as a struggling impression from a curious enthusiastic layman.
It doesn't fit. Furthermore, they denegrated the work of the previous artist, Lenepveu, by hiding it. Andre Malraux had no right to do that. Thankfully, they didn't destroy the previous art. They should've built another opera house and had Chagall paint it.
I beg to differ. The painting refuses to acknowledge the grandness of its setting. On the need to break the laws of aesthetic, this piece of work falls completely flat lacking in harmony and composition. Another failed attempt of trying to be “revolutionary”.
I think Chagall's work livens up the opera house tremendously. For many, opera is a stuffy art form loaded with overblown stereotypes; the presence of Chagall's playful figures dancing overhead lightens the mood without mocking it.
Looking at Chagall is like being in a dream. Listening to the beautiful music would be like being in a dream.... It’s all a masterpiece for the senses.
thats the feeling i couldnt put to mind. thanks.
I love both the heavy handed gilded opulence of the opera house and Chagall's exuberant kaleidoscope of color and movement. and would argue that the collision of these combined disparate aspects enhance the uniqueness of the experience.
I love it! The red and gold are so formal and heavy that the dreamy separate colors and white are like the opening of a music box. The Chagall ceiling is a perfect dream of the music playing in one’s mind as you sit in the opulence of the formal theatre. Bravo!
Years ago, my sister was doing an MFA at NYU. Oliver Smith of the ABT was one of her teachers. Every so often, he would mention his friend Mark the painter. Everyone assumed he had a friend Mark who painted houses. When they graduated, Smith gave a party at his home. The house was full of Chagall’s. His friend Mark the painter was Marc Chagall.
Chagall lifted the golden and red velvet kitch palace opera de Paris up to original melodious delightful colourful artistic bliss. Merci Marc! We still adore.
Correction: The Chagall ceiling is not a fresco, nor is it a repainting. It's oil on canvas, painted in many sections, then mounted on removable panels, with the original painting still underneath. Some of the seams are even visible in the video. It was not painted on location, but in several studios.
Also, the painting you show Chagall working on, The Triumph of Music, is a completely different commission for Lincoln Center in NYC.
As far as how it looks, Chagall painted a Chagall.
I think he gave the opera house the look of heaven. Chagalls ceiling is great. It's a great vision of beauty. What could be more complimentary to a gorgeous opera house. It is an experience of beauty.
The Chagall ceiling is simply magnificent!
I think that the painting carries with it a childlike wonder and whimsy, and having that yearning for the simplicity of daydreams in a place that screams refinement and adulthood is what makes folks uncomfortable. They don't want to be reminded that what they really yearn for us not opulence and richness, but the innocence and simplicity of childhood.
I love how this channel makes me see art that I’m indifferent to in a whole new light and fall in love with it.
"L'indifsrance" plays
You're absolutely incredible, Shawn from The Canvas. Thank you for this magnificent video!!!
I've seen many of these paintings before but I never realised how beautiful they are!! Does that make sense? You've really helped communicate them to me - thank you so much. As a musician, the Debussy analogy of course helps!
They truly are beautiful! Thank you for watching!! :)
It takes more imagination and personal creativity to appreciate in ones mind, the meeting of these disparate styles. I see the addition and delight. Thanks for the Debussy and reading and translation of the opening quote. Congratulations to you and Valentina.
I was there with friends the other day, so my experience is still fresh in my mind.
Hmm... if they had stuck with the original style, it certainly would have fit in, but like a good wallpaper. Nothing noteworthy, or maybe even noticeable.
But looking up now, you're pulled into something different. A delight you wouldn't be expecting, a break from what is otherwise a great example of big French prestige architecture and design. And when you bring your gaze back to the stage, your friends, the other tourists or patrons, it's almost, but not quite forgotten. Like a glimpse into an opera lovers Narnia.
Thanks for this essay. I might not have reveled in my memory of the opera house and the treat that is Chagall's ceiling otherwise!
I personally love the contrast between the opulent golden ornamentation and Chagall’s more simple style. It makes both more interesting. It also makes the whole building a bit less “pompeux”.
Chagall is one of my favorites. I get his vibe. :-)
When I had the great fortune to visit the Opera House in Paris, I was not aware that Chagall had painted the ceiling. Imagine my surprise when I looked up! OMG! It's Chagall! My.spirits were lifted and I felt that his art and the music were meant to embrace one another.
The fresco by Chagall is utterly stunning, as is the Paris Opera House. But I'm not sure the two go together well. In a way, it reminds me of someone with a beautiful Edwardian town house, and has the interior designed after FL Wright. They're both lovely, but not exactly harmonious. (And congratulations on your relationship. :) Love is the only thing that supersedes art.)
Awww thanks! And I tend to agree with you. The contrast between both styles could work in some cases, but I feel like this isn't one of those instances.
I had the making of this great work in a book as an adolescent with photographs documenting Chagall's process of making the preparatory studies then him painting a very large gouache for the definitive ceiling mural of which I found a reproduction ! The mural is beautiful also the opera house !
Chagall's painting in this setting reminds me of the stained glass window of the Holy Spirit in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. That also is a lot simpler and lighter than its surroundings -- and I thought is was the most beautiful part of the building. Refreshing amidst oppressively ornate surroundings, and the only part I can still remember clearly 45 years later.
Much to my surprise, I am not taken aback by it - I wonder what it looks like when the lights are dimmed. I wonder how Chagall felt about it. I wish both for the fresco and the ceiling to be there in a hundred years, and I am curious what it will look like to people then.
Thank you for your input! It may be true that, in centuries, people might not even notice the contrast as strongly as we do now!
@@Shawn.Grenier apparently Chagall would be more marketable in the "future" if he was a black dude who painted black squares.
Too bad he's just one of the most imaginative and creative thinkers to ever live and not a smiling clapping Sambo for us. Then he might belong in the future.
Masterpiece
as chagall said, the painting sings, and that's part of the """problem""", you're in the theater to watch someone else sing but to your surprise someone is already singing and it's the roof.
i'd rather have it stay there honestly.
I think the new ceiling is incredibly beautiful and appropriate. So much better than the dusty old ceiling that it replaced. Who even looked at the old ceiling beyond an absent minded glance? Chagall's new ceiling is a magnet for people's eyes. And Chagall's ceiling will give viewers many times the joy of the old ceiling.
Uh "dusty old ceilling" seriously? The original ceilling was a true piece of art symbolising the inspiration from the Muses to the artists and musicians.
It was a clever and inspiring masterpiece using the Greek mythology as a source of art.
It was the icing on the cake, now when I see the Chagall's ceiling, it's not really an appropriate piece for the Garnier Palace, it breaks the coherence of the 2nd Empire architectural style of the building.
Now, I think Chagall's ceiling would have its place in a museum, it's interesting to look at but it's not the kind of painting supposed to be exposed in a XIXth Century opera house.
The Palais Garnier was built very minutely, in the smallest details, and I think that it should be preserved as the artists, sculptors and architects that worked on it wanted it to be.
It's a question of respect to all these people who built this fantastic edifice and to France's patrimony.
I had to make a habit of checking your channel every so often because your videos don't consistently show up in my subscription feed and it's easy to miss the notification. Weird since my "engagement" as youtube defines it is always very high with your videos. I watch the whole thing and I often comment.
You were so delicate in setting up your opinion, it was really quite charming. Yes, of course this fresco doesn't fit with this fancy pants gold plated, red velved covered, grand staircase having monument. :)
You did a good job of laying out what makes it interesting, even to someone so instinctively hostile to the whole idea as me.
Awww thank you so much! It's so sweet of you!
I will sadly never understand the UA-cam algorithm! Thank you for your dedication despite that! It helps a lot and it's very appreciated :)
I love your videos so much man, I love the way you presented the new fresco with Claire de Lune. I do think that the new fresco seems out of place. It’s beautiful, but I wonder why they felt the need to replace the original one, it was gorgeous! Also happy bday to your girlfriend, that was really sweet
I kind of like the childish look. It makes me think of imagination and dream X) I think it's so interesting how photography was invented and then artists no longer seemed obliged to create realistic works (sorry if my terms and phrases aren't too good, I'm still new to art history!)
On paper it's a great fit. Chagall was a master at capturing drama, poetry, fantasy and music, which opera often does too. But in actuality, it does fight a little with the ostentatiousness of the architecture and mouldings.
As for uniting his art with historical buildings, I feel his stained glass windows were more of a success in this regard, Chichester & Tudely are lovely examples of letting his ambiguity and dreamyness find space to do their own thing.
I just love this ceiling! I am a professional muralist (38 years of painting murals.). Chagall's mural is not really connected to the whole, and in its place is transcendent and ethereal. And so French!
It is beautiful :-) The colors of the Opera do kind of clash, though. Perhaps if all the gold was covered with silver, much more aesthetic pleasure would occur. It is the gold being in a different (nonexistent) palette that clashes with the primary colors of the mural. Silver would unite the entirety of the contents of the inside of the Opera of Paris. Just a suggestion.
I think if the colours were a bit darker and there was less negative space it would've been less controversial. The harmony of composition is there, but I just don't know if the overall hue is suitable. Regardless, it looks magnificent on its own, especially with the frame.
That's exactly what I think! It's beautiful on its own, but definitely out of tune with its environment. I agree that the colors, though stunning, are not appropriate for the context.
I love the blues and the yellows and the greens and reds of Chagall's work and i almost don't even care about the content. If that mskes sense.
the bday message got me sobbing :,)
The purpose of Chagall is disruptive and obvious. It should stay it does speak loudly to be so silent. I love it
Love your channel, keep it up
Thank you so much Thomas!!
I don't love artwork itself, but i do love the contrast, i would love to come in and be stunned by it. Would it distract me from any play? Probably yes, but i would love that, it gives me vibe of a doorway or portal. It makes the theater phantasmagoric feeling, it's like being suspended between two very different worlds, but both of them share the same aspiration - to convey emotions, to show you different perspective, to take you on a journey.
World isn't harmonious, it's unapologetically diverse, and this mix of classical architecture and modern art is conveying just that.
I like it, I think it looks nice
I wonder if the discordance is intentional? Thinking about it harmonically it feels to me like a dissonant note in a chord that brightens it adds a new life. Then it can resolve into a tonal chord like the classical architecture. It adds movement musically that is most intriguing. It is something that cannot be seen in one sitting effectively. It’s designed for you to look away then reengaged on a separate part. It’s why these works are effective. You dynamically view them.
Wonderful❤❤❤❤
Thank you!
Shawn, you've covered Hokusai before, but the rest of your videos might suggest that art, historic and modern, was the work of primarily westerners!1!! >:((
I'm just pulling your leg, haha. Of course you're probably just producing videos about those topics you are most familiar with so that you can actually make them informative and well-written. But it'd be really nice if you expand the scope of just some of your videos and take a look at perhaps Raden Saleh, Keiyu Nishimura or Ai Weiwei (thinking about Ai Weiwei, I realize you haven't done a video on Banksy which would be cool too). "The Arrest of Pangeran Diponegoro", the 20 Okinawan images of "War and Peace", etc are some of my favorite pieces which I'd be really happy if you could cover some time.
PS happy bday to Valentina :)
Thank you John!!
You're absolutely right and I'll do my best to explore outside of the Western canon. It might not be what I'm most familiar with, but I'm sure there's plenty of rich and powerful artworks out there that deserve a video! I'll keep an eye out!
Thank you!!
he did an awesome job!,otherwise it would have been an academic bored!,he gives freshness,modernism,originality,im a musician,I love all the clasicals,and Chagall's paintings are music itself!,i hope one day I could go and see it !,by the way Im happy i came across your chanel Im learning a lot ,congrats!,Im also subscribed!thanks!
Loved the video!
About the fresco, I certainly like it and it's place in this video, but I imagine it leaves a more disruptive impression in the actual opera.
Thank you!! The fresco is beautiful, but you're right, it's quite disruptive.
This has me thinking, would it be less disruptive if the ceiling was white (or just any other muted colour)? Would it be better for the ceiling to just be white in order to get rid of the disruption or is Chagall's disruption preferable to that?
@@Shawn.Grenier a blank ceiling in its place would probably look the most disruptive! I think people would miss Chagall’s fresco then
I think the most disruptive aspect of this work is the negative space. I would rather have the ceiling be plain white, but that would not fit the room either.
😊夏卡尔画美在返巧归拙返朴归真back to origin
Complete successful
In my opinion, this painting in red tones would be more harmonious with opera, and maybe a work in Cubist style in red or beige/golden tones would less interrupt the whole design. Maybe his intention was to disrupt status quo and this decission is great from artistic perspective, that it's time to disrupt the old style and make something new, not pleasing and likeable but great and different. I don't like it that much, but idea and concept is great, if idea of disrupting the old ways in art was the intention of work.
When I lived in Jerusalem I used to go to Hadassah hospital just to look at the Chagall stained glass windows.
Stylistically Chagall's art is too removed from the classical architecture it crowns. Whoever decided to commission Chagall must have realized rhe dissimilarity and decided Chagall would create a beautiful piece and let it stand on it's own. How it was received by those who commissioned it would be interesting. To me, I'm okay with the visual separation and I hope Chagall was pleased with his execution .
You're right, Chagall's painting doesn't blend in with the classical opera house. Maybe that mismatch has a meaning of its own. If they meshed, his fresco wouldn't stand out. But on more conceptual level, it makes you aware that beauty, art come in different shapes. The contrast makes you think about it. Both styles are exquisite. But also very different.
The 60s were a revolutionary time and the bold decision to enlist a modern painter for a traditional in situ role was fitting for the time. What's done is done and time will tell whether it harmonizes with the gilded decor. Personally, I find opera so boring, in general, that I would welcome something non-traditional so as to break up a stuffy, soporific atmosphere. One this is certain: a neo-classical, academically painted fresco would've been a safe choice and would've doomed the building to an eternity of undifferentiated dullness. Just another opera house.
I am sorry to say that but I think he ruined a beautiful room and everything I despise in arts can be summed up in his pieces, especially this one. Thank you for the upload. The message at the end warms my heart, all the best wishes to your girlfriend
My opinion: Nowadays one goes to the opera to pretend he's in the past. It's nostalgic. Such a modern painting breaks the nostalgic feeling. But this is more about the art consumer than about the art.
4:16
Just like Edgar Allan Poe's poem..........."A Dream Within a Dream"...................I am struck by the Stendhal syndrome.
The Palais Garnier and Chagall are two separate things. Both great but they should be separate.
Michelangelo would be jealous . . .
Michelangelo would be envious . . .
Michelangelo would laugh his ass off . . .
Pick one.
It's the effect, not what style. Color, light, movement, expression. And a deliberate effort to celebrate opera as an art form, not an artifact.
damn boi that french was on fuckin point!I
Aesthetically incongruous...
Looks like a kid got ahold of some crayons
Who is Valentina
Valentina is my girlfriend. It's her birthday and I wanted to dedicate this video to her :)
It is obvious it doesn't work or it would have never been discussed. Wearing red pants with an orange shirt does not work, no matter who is wearing them.
The Opera House is a grotesque "wedding cake" of over-done rococo nonsense. Chagal's work, in contrast, is a masterpiece of capturing a visual expression of music and emotion. The two can never "work" together because the first expression, the house, is such an over-the-top self-indulgent mess of gilded garbage that it renders anything near it mute and foreign. It's a shame poor Marc Chagal didn't recognize this and turn down the commission out of sympathy for the audience.
You speak like a pretentious fool. Imagine actually arguing that the chicken scratches of some unskilled “artist” are more impressive than beautiful frescoes and stonework built by our skilled and tasteful ancestors. But as for your point that he should’ve refused the commission, I agree. Keep your modernist garbage away from real beauty.
One of the dumbest commentaries I've ever read but at least you're right on one thing : Chagall's painting doesn't belong to Garnier's masterpiece.
I wouldn't say that Chagall's painting looks bad as a single piece, but it should definitely be put elsewhere.
I like this work but like you've said it does conflict with the building. I think Mr. Chagall was portraying and honoring the performers and composers and not the building or it's patrons. I found it to be a very uncomfortable experience sitting beneath it. Giving me a disjointed uneasiness. Not to mention the very uncomfortable seats.
come the bussy
its a statement not match, to not conform to not follow the rules.
La cagaste Chagall, ya era suficiente isulto verte en museos.
Chagall a great painter, however I think it doesn't fit the opera. Fun video!
It just needs a second coat.
All due respect, I didn't like the painting at all. Mainly because it's too much tuneless from the Classical architecture style it's inserted in.
But do you think your appreciation of this painting would change if it was in a different context? Let's say it was on the ceiling of a modern work of architecture, would it be beautiful?
@@Shawn.Grenier You got me there. I commented too fast, before the end of the video, I had not seen your final point yet. Sorry. 😅
Answering your question... To be very honest, I tend to be more impressed by "classical form" art. Not that I don't appreciate Modern art, and it's "flexibility" towards form, but still, in my head, there is a foggy, hard to grasp line between the unorthodox shapes that cause an impact on me, and simply lacking any effect for being so unimpressive skill-wise. It's so hard to explain this in words (and on top of that my English is not very good), but let me try an example. For instance: Paints like The Starry Night, by Vincent van Gogh; The Scream, by Edvard Munch, strike me differently. The twisted form and expressive colors convey a substantial role in the meaning and the feeling the subject of the painting is trying to portray. I'm Afraid this specific work by Marc Chagall, is on the other side of that blurry line in my head.
I mean no disrespect to your work. I love your videos, for I learn so much from them. I am by no means an "art expert". Take this as a struggling impression from a curious enthusiastic layman.
The painting’s context destroys it.
He made his statement disregarding the architectural style. Great painting. Wrong Place.
It doesn't fit. Furthermore, they denegrated the work of the previous artist, Lenepveu, by hiding it. Andre Malraux had no right to do that. Thankfully, they didn't destroy the previous art. They should've built another opera house and had Chagall paint it.
I beg to differ. The painting refuses to acknowledge the grandness of its setting. On the need to break the laws of aesthetic, this piece of work falls completely flat lacking in harmony and composition. Another failed attempt of trying to be “revolutionary”.
Ужас... how could Garnier's opera be so desecrated
Clair de lune isn’t a song.