Post-Impressionism: The Beginnings of Modern Art

It might be helpful to also preface my Comments by stating that I have watched over 200 courses on Wondrium/Great Courses over the years. I will first summarize my take on this Course, which includes both its positive and negative aspects, where the latter focuses on Lecture 15. Afterwards, I provide 10 Examples to support my criticism, especially of Lecture 15. Lecture 15 on Gauguin is full of INACCURACIES AND OPINIONS, a number of which seem outlandish. Likewise, Lecture 15 LACKS SCHOLARLY BALANCE—which is appropriate/necessary when some scholars view a set of facts as indicating ‘X’, while other scholars view a set of facts as indicating ‘Y’. Allman complains that Gauguin “plays fast and loose with the truth” in Lecture 15—which might have some merit—but Allman does the SAME and often. In fact, Lecture 15 is one of the two WORST ‘30-minutes’ I have ever watched on Wondrium. It is essentially tied for ‘Worst’ with a lecture from a recent update on ‘The Black Death’, which makes me concerned that the high standards that GreatCourses has achieved may be starting crumble a bit. While Lecture 15 asks, “How does one talk about great artists who did terrible things?”, Prof Allman NEVER PROVIDES AN ANSWER. (For instance, he could/should have discussed placing placards next to paintings explaining context, placing paintings by two artists next to each other to compare their interpretations of a certain subject, viewing artists in the age they lived in and not by the standards of today, etc.) Rather, in many ways Lecture 15 is essentially a CHARACTER ASSASSINATION of Gauguin. And, Klimt and Rousseau receive somewhat similar treatment in other lectures, though much less in comparison to what Gauguin gets. On a related, Prof Allman makes various accusations of ‘CULTURAL APPROPRIATION’ that seem NOT TO MEET the very definition of such Allman himself had provided in his ‘How To Paint’ Course on Wondrium (but did not provide in this Course). There are also appears to be a couple of UNSUPPORTED accusations of RACISM against some artists (Gauguin and Rousseau). While I would tend to agree with another Reviewer that Lecture 15 (and some other portions of this Course) seems to reflect some BIAS (e.g., ‘Wokeness’), my comments herein do not rely on that at all. Rather, my main concern is the LACK OF ACCURACY that pervades Lecture 15 and some other portions of this course (for whatever reason they exist). Thus, as the other Reviewer already suggested, I agree Lecture 15 should be trashed and redone. It may be helpful to acknowledge that Prof Allman is not alone in his condemnation of Gauguin as a human being since it would appear a number of others in academia and the art world are considering ‘cancelling’ Gauguin—e.g., “Is It Time Gauguin Got Cancelled” as per a NYTimes titled article from 2019. However, IF anyone is to be ‘cancelled’, can we at least agree that facts should matter? In this regard, IMHO Allman's Lecture 15 FALLS VERY SHORT in this regard. Perhaps this might have something to do with the fact that he is not actually professor of Art History, but rather of Drawing and Painting. That said, there is otherwise much valuable info in this course, and I do recommend watching the majority of it (though I took a couple stars off for what I consider very serious flaws). Moreover, I am sincerely glad it seems to have inspired those new to the subject and I hope they continue exploring the world of art, just as my first course in art history (roughly 40 years ago) inspired me to read many books on the subject and to visit many museums around the world. Finally, for an alternative look at Gauguin, I would highly recommend viewing Waldemar Januszczak’s 2-hour documentary on Gauguin, which is available on the Internet for free. And, in ‘From Monet To Van Gogh: A History of Impressionism’, Prof Brettell includes a couple lectures largely focused on Gauguin’s ART. --Ten Examples/Further Details-- Examples 1, 2 and 3: In his ‘How To Paint’ class’s Guidebook, Allman discussed ‘cultural appropriation’ and says (as per the Guidebook): “SAMPLING your favorite imagery from a wide variety of sources is a GREAT STRATEGY…find what inspires you and COMBINE it with something else inspiring.” IF the above is Allman’s definition, I would greatly appreciate Prof Allman explaining how Gauguin’s COMBINING various imagery in some of his paintings OF Tahiti and OF Breton does not 100% meet Allman’s own definition of ACCEPTABLE USE??? That said, Allman qualifies the above definition by adding (in his ‘How To Paint’ class): “it is unwise and unethical to claim those images… as YOUR OWN.” Fine. But, what exactly makes Gauguin guilty of “inauthentically appropriating” local culture ‘AS HIS OWN’? This is never made clear by Allman IMHO. Second, in Lecture 15 Allman accuses Gauguin of having a “SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT AND OWNERSHIP WITH EVERY NEW CULTURE HE ENCOUNTERS”. This is because Gauguin travels to various places and paints what he sees in his own unique style, and perhaps because Gauguin’s wears clogs in Brittany??? Third, Allman later says that Gauguin felt “ENTITLED” to see Tahitian women in little to NO CLOTHING. How exactly does Allman know this? Perhaps Gauguin expected it based on preconceptions of what Tahiti would be like, but to use the word “entitled” seems grossly UNFAIR. Example 4: As per Prof Allman, Gauguin went to Panama because he thought it would be an “EDGY AND COOL” thing to do (and “get away with socially unacceptable behavior”)—which IMHO is a patently absurd thing for a professor to say. Some of Allman’s remarks just seem SNARKY. In sharp contrast, according to Waldemar Januszczak, who made a roughly 2-hour documentary on Gauguin, says at least part of Gauguin’s motivation was “to raise money to get back with his wife” by working on the digging of the Panama Canal. Example 5: According to Allman, Gauguin was essentially a SE.X TOURIST of UNDERAGE GIRLS, who ran around the island giving Syphilis to them. Once again, Allman provides no context, just condemnation. For example, the age of consent in FRANCE was 13 at the time, the US was 10-12 years old, and people only lived to roughly 45 back in the late 1880s. And, as per Waldemar Januszczak, “by the time Gauguin reached Tahiti he had had the disease for decades and was NO LONGER CONTAGIOUS.” Example 6: According to Allman (as per Guidebook), Gauguin thought of himself as “THE SAVIOR OF MANKIND”, in reference to a painting where Gauguin supposedly (according to Allman) depicted himself on a cross, called ‘The Yellow Christ’. Allman later added, “the local Breton women are painted as props, looking up at the POOR PAUL CHRIST.” And, a bit later refers to Gauguin as “EGO MANIACAL”. I doubt there is any evidence that Gauguin had a ‘god complex’. Rather, I would strongly assume that there are other and deeper meanings underlying this painting that Allman is not aware of or chooses to ignore. Example 7: Allman claims that ‘Spirit Of The Dead Watching’ is a “RAP.E SCENE”. Allman has again let his imagination, and bias against Gauguin, go wild IMHO. Example 8: Allman fails to mention that Gauguin’s mother was ½ Peruvian and his family traces its roots there to the 17th Century. As per one website: “Gauguin’s great-grandfather was Don Mariano Tristán Moscoso, of the old Spanish noble Tristán Moscoso family established in Arequipa, Peru dating to the 17th century.” While Gauguin seems not to have genetic ties to the Inca, Allman suggests that it is some type of CRIME (of cultural appropriation) just because Gauguin felt some connection to the native peoples of Peru—discounting his family’s long connection there and the fact that Gauguin spent a number of years in Peru as a child—and used that in some of his art. Example 9: Allman suggests that Gauguin “only cared about his WHITE children”. So, apparently, Gauguin is also a RACIST according to Allman—though, once again, Allman has no real evidence of this. Example 10: Prof Allman never allows for the possibility that Gauguin was genuinely/sincerely/desperately seeking a better life—which many long for, especially after realizing that money does not buy happiness—or that Gauguin perhaps wanted to eventually reunite with his family (which Waldemar Januszczak says was the case). On a related note, Allman also suggests that Gauguin moved from Tahiti to one of the Marquesas islands in part because he had heard there was “EXPLOITATION of the locals” there. Where is Allman’s evidence for this terrible insult to Gauguin?

Not only does he go into the history of the art but the techniques. I would have given it 5 stars but the lecture on Gaugin brought it down to three. Accusing Gaugin of cultural appropriation and racism is unfounded and unfair. Artists are allways inspired by external impulses, regardless of cultural heritage - even accusing Gaugin of expropriating Peruvian culture, ignoring the fact that Gaugin himself was half Peruvian. The lecturer ridicules Gaugin and is even outright mean, saying things like "Apparently Gaugin only cared for his white children", because he grieved the death of his daughter. There is no evidence of accusing Gaugin of racism, actually the opposite. Gaugin was permanently injured in a fight defending his Sri Lankan friend from ridicule in Breton. Overall good series, but the lecture on Gaugin should be revised.

It's hard to rate this course: it has a lot of good information, but it can be maddening. First, my personal peeve: the great majority of the artists are French or worked in France, but the lecturer doesn't have a clue how to pronounce the French language, and his constant mangling of names, places and titles, is like scraping chalk on a blackboard. As for the content, it is often interesting and offers insights into artists and styles I know little about; however, whole lectures are devoted to history, economics and other topics that are at best tangential. And I learned a lot more than I wanted about the lifestyle of Gauguin. It shows many paintings, but unlike other Great Courses it doesn't tell where they can be seen. At the end it glimpses art from a few other countries, but like other courses I've taken, it barely acknowledges the rest of the world. In sum, I would give this course a guarded recommendation. Meanwhile I await with hope Great Courses on other times, places and artists that have yet to be explored

There aren't many cons here, I just dislike the generally American way of not taking the time to look up how foreign names are pronounced. As a French speaker I cringe whenever the lecturer pronounces another name, place, or institution wrong, and it happens WAY too frequently. Secondly I think it would have been better if the theoretical lessons were in the beginning, but that's more of a personal taste. Otherwise this is an insightful course that tells a cohesive story and that is thoroughly enjoyable.

My husband and I loved this course. The teacher was knowledgeable and entertaining. We're both familiar with many of the artists and still learned many new things. The art presented was a joy and we were particularly pleased to discover some of the lesser known artists of the era. My only complaint is that I love Maximilien Luce and there was only one painting by him though he did paintings at night that are extraordinary.

I didn't know I needed to learn about post impressionism to understand modern art, but here it is. This is probably the fastest I've gone through a course. He's that good of a presenter and professor! I really appreciate his sensitivities to give his truth telling context.

I have watched more than a hundred courses on Wondrium/Great Courses and I also studied art history in university. Professor Allman's course on Post-Impressionism was one of the best yet. My husband and I looked forward every evening to the interesting viewpoints and observations that Ricky Allman brought to this. Sometimes you don't want the textbook images, the same old lines and a lecture completely devoid of emotion. I could easily appreciate that Ricky is coming at this from an artist's perspective and not just an art historian's perspective. I have never laughed so much in art history lectures either! I really loved and appreciated how Ricky picked many obscure images that I have never seen before. Seriously after studying for years, reading hundreds of art history books, watching heaps of documentaries and lectures and going to most of the world's greatest art museums, I saw many images I have never seen and was introduced to artists that I had never heard of. And the seemingly controversial lecture on Gauguin...so impressed. I was so floored and immensely pleased to see Professor Allman make every effort to address the major negative aspects to Gauguin as well as his contribution to art. As a woman in the art and art history world it has always been a boys' club to say the least and I have always struggled with how to respect someone like Gauguin. How do I respect him as an innovator but detest him as a human being. Ricky's approach left with me with hope for the future of art history. Thanks Ricky!!!

This was a great introduction into how post-impressionistic art transitioned into modern art. The lecture has a wonderful sense of humor which comes through. Above all I loved his technical explanations of Pointilism. I have taken many art courses before, but no one explained it to the depth that this lecturer did. He also took time to delve into the traits and work of each artist. It was very stirring to read of the efforts that some artists put into their work, Cezanne spending hours to get his brush stroke right for instance. Overall, I loved the course and if I could would rate is 6 out of 5. Others have taken exception on what they view as negative comments on Paul Gaugin by the lecturer. Is the lecturer not allowed some slack on his view? I did not find the lecturer's point of view offensive at all and I am as woke as they come. Paul Gaugin was problematic is all I can say.

I thoroughly enjoyed this course! Ricky Allman did a great job of showing the transition of post-impressionism from earlier styles to more modern art and he did it using contemporary language that anyone could understand. There was also a good balance between thorough coverage of specific artists and lighter coverage of artists who made a minor contribution to the post-impressionist movement. Additionally, he addressed some of the thornier sides of art and its acceptance- cultural appropriation, political issues of the time, and lifestyle choices of the artists. Every episode was engaging and I learned a lot!

I have several of TGC’s offerings on art, most of which are very good. The one on ‘Impressionism’ (#7187) and the one which, only briefly, delves into ‘Post-Impressionism’ (#7100) set the scene for me trying this one. I am not going to get into a comment on the way TGC decided to film the lecturer because WHAT he had to say was much more important. RA is an exhibited painter in his own right, and has served as an art critic. He describes the process of changing art styles over the cusp of the 19th/20th centuries with flair and much attention to detail. This is all supported by many images of the artists and their paintings. He often offers his own interpretations, but also encourages the viewer to come to his/her own conclusion. The lectures are individually tightly knit, with a good sense of historical progression from one to the next. All in all this is, in my view obviously, one of the finest Art Courses that TGC has produced.