What makes an artist a part of a “movement”? And why is Chagall not generally considered a fauvist?
Weren’t the Fauves specifically the group of artists emerging out of Post-Impressionism and leading into Cubism?
Does Chagall paint in a Fauvist way? In a lot of ways, he seems to? Was he specifically part of the Fauvist group? I don’t recall, but don’t recall that he was - heck I don’t even know how contemporary he was to them. The Fauves painted around the early 1900’s. [quick Wiki check] - okay, so he showed up in Paris around 1910 right after the transition from Fauvism to Cubism, and he learn to paint in those styles by reinterpreting some of his earlier works that way…and then built out his own style from there…
The term was applied to a particular group of artists at a particular exhibition – the 1905 Salon d’Autumne. Chagal did not exhibit there.
My take on it is that artists can either become classified as part of a “movement” by exhibiting with other such artists to whom a tag is applied by critics or the public/press.
One such movement you cite is Les Fauves (The Wild Beasts) and was applied to the paintings exhibited in 1905 by Matisse, Manguin, Marquet, Camoin, Derain and Vlaminck in the central room (salle VII) of the Salon d’Automne.
So the term was first applied and embraced by those artists. However by 1907 the movement as such was breaking up and those self same artists were going their separate ways in artistic development. So in art history they were a very transitory movement as such. This is not that surprising as the period between 1905 and the First War can be looked at as the final flourish of post-impressionism or equally the first sprouting of true modernism.
Other names closely associated with les Fauves include Maurice, Henri Manguin, Jean Puy, Charles Camoin, and Albert Marquet. Artists like Georges Braque, Raoul Dufy, Emile-Othon Friesz, Louis Valtat and Dongen Kees van had significant, though looser or more transient associations with the group. Some of the associations were only applied by critics retroactively rather than at the time their work was being executed.
Now Chagall did not arrive in Paris until 1910 - so this is probably the main reason he is not regarded (except by some critics retroactively) as one of the Fauves - the movement as such was pretty much history by the time he could have been directly influenced by it.
By then Cubism (the first new wave of modernism) was the chief influence - some of the Fauvists had already moved on to that; Braque being one of the names that springs to mind.
Chagall’s main friends in Paris included Modigliani, Delaunay and de La Fresnaye - none of whom were Fauvists.
Chagall was certainly influenced by Fauvism and Cubism. His use of the imagery and symbolism of the Old Testament almost inclines to very early surrealism (although that is inaccurate too as that movement did not get going until the 1920’s). Chagall’s use of rich and vibrant colors is similar to the Fauves but that is about all - his painting have a narrative and symbolic element that differentiates him.
I’ve been wondering: why don’t we hear about new “movements”? Are there artists producing manifestos and banding together as “Clicheists” or “Neo-Pantonists” and I just don’t know about it?
Or has society changed enough to make movements passe?
THere are still movements: Young British Artists - Wikipedia