The impressionist sculpture: Medardo Rosso

The Impressionism painter we know well because it was that first deny, for technical motives, of academic painter, hence nothing that can interest, because it is known perfectly; but the sculpture is different, because translation of this sharp technique, through the quick brushstrokes is other matter and above all difficult to representation. Medardo Rosso(1858-1928), Italian sculptor, has translated in sculpture this style, that he could know from 1889, when he moved about to Paris, and in 1902 he become the French citizen; he could see the Impressionist painter, and the real subjects the impressionist painters used; he translated this realism, that in painter was landscapes, because the light was in plain air, Medardo hasn’t used the light, but alone the definition of forms, that are very sharp and imprecise, he has used the quick technique of Impressionism for the human portrait; he has took alone the brushstrokes, but for human and not certainly to landscapes; to confirm it is sufficient the confront between a Impressionist(Figs.1-4) painter and the sculpture of Medardo(Figs.5-7); the same approximate definition of form, same imprecise touch, that in painter is through the brushstroke, but in sculpture it is possible through the matter that sculptor uses, in this case Medardo used above all the wax, chalk, bronze and terracotta, all almost the soft materials necessary to give that effects of confusion that Impressionist given to their paintings. The subject of Medardo are common people, I don’t think that it is a ideological choose but alone a monetary question, because a model, woman or man were too expensive, instead the common people(Figs.8-14), were certainly more forthcoming; other great innovation, regard to Impressionism was that Medardo hasn’t used the landscapes, it is more than revolutionary is cunning, because on landscapes the translation of this approximation was very difficult, and the effects could be more partial, and also on the human bodies the light could not have same effects, because the iridescent effects is very limited, because the change of the light on body are very irrelevant, and in sculpture the change of light are very impossible translate, because the moment is very soon and the matter doesn’t allow these identification of these changes. We can appreciate the use of the style of impressionism, that then was a very good idea because nobody has made that before. The momentary embrace of a mother is moment to an subject(Fig.10), hence Medardo has translated the real use of Impressionism, but he has translated also this concept to human behavior, thereupon the subject is real both to Impressionism painting and also sculpted, I repeat, without the ideology, otherwise the Impressionist painters today could be eco-fanatic, but both the Impressionist and Medardo evidently have had scant money to pay models, but we must consider that the landscape want not the payment and common people neither, whereby other the style, that in art is essential, there is also a economic question, that never is considered, but is basic to work of art. The last notation about the correspondence between Medardo and Impressionism is a step of his declaration, when he has said that the face and the space around are symbiotic because one interpenetrates in other being the symbiotic matter; this concept is alone an impression of Medardo certainly, but if we consider attentive this concept it is the same concept that the Impressionism used for the light, that was symbiotic with environment, the light was the basic factor of union between the human and natural matters, Medardo could not mentioned the light because in a studio it is impossible, he sculpted in home and no in plain air, but the similar concept is evident, and I think that one is from other.  Other consideration directly from Medardo is in his written, that shows the proximity to Impressionism, this is the nearness to light that for Impressionism was a fundamental element, it said: “The light is true essence of our existence, an artistic work that hasn’t affinity to light hasn’t motive to exist. Without light it lacks of unity and space, it is become irrelevant, without valor, wrongly thought, made alone from matter. Nothing on this word can detaches from round, and our vision or impression, is the outcome of reciprocal or valor given from light…”; the element of light is central in this think, equal to painting of Impressionist.    

 Alessandro Lusana              

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

 

 

 

 

 

.