The short, obvious answer is, yes…and the impact of light on the final result can vary dramatically.

Many painters promote themselves as ‘painters of light’. The simple reality is that without light, there would be no subject matter to paint. Even non-objective painting relies on the play of color (light waves across the visible spectrum) in contrasting and complimentary combinations to reach your eye and attract your attention. The minimalists, too, voided their canvases of most chromatics as a way of saying, “Hey, look what’s going on here…no color!” Color theory was thus being leveraged, in that case, by virtue of is conspicuous absence.

(left) Claude Monet, Rouen Catherdral in the Evening (1894). Coll. Musee de l’Orangerie, Paris artes fine arts magazine

So, light has served as an important compositional element in painting, especially since the Renaissance, when the use of light effects became essential for the portrayal of perspective and dramatic human action as an indispensible part of the artist’s skill set. Seventeenth-century painters, like Claude Lorrain broke with traditional bonds of studio painting and complex allegorical themes to sketch and paint in the Italian countryside. His work is identifiable for its skillful use of perspective and rich fields of slanting early-morning light which frame the pastoral scene, focusing the eye on highlights within the landscape, invariably including playful representations of everyday peasant life.

But not until the mid-19th century, when we entered the period of early modern painting, did the use of light effect in painting take on bold new meaning. For the Impressionists, painting en plein air meant that light was to become a central element in their work, rather than a studio technique to achieve dramatic highlights. Their fractured brushstrokes, flattened perspective, chiaroscuro-style paint application and indistinct rendering of central subject matter meant that light had to be deconstructed in the artist’s eye (and mind) and then reassembled on canvas in its component parts. So, the compositional or spectral elements of the light they were enveloped in as they worked became a critical factor in defining the finished product.

Thus, the question needs to be asked: Was the light of provincial France an essential and critical element in the production of a style and body of work we now call Impressionism; or could it have happened anywhere?

Drawing on the lessons learned in another part of the world where Impressionism flourished in the years that followed the French artist movement that bears its name, we turn to New England and the American Impressionists: J Alden Weir, Childe Hassam, John Henry Twachtman, Charles Davis and others. From two of these communities of artists who gathered to paint and critique one another’s work–in Old Lyme and Cos Cob, Connecticut–we have a genre that closely approximates the experience of the French Impressionist masters as they painted in the changing light of the day and the seasons.

The unique feature of Connecticut shoreline light is the moisture-saturated nature of its proximity to the sea. The humidity and air-borne particles of water prevalent near bodies of water make for denser air, thereby softening detail in the viewer’s eye. It also makes for richer colors in everything they saw there, especially warm whites, reds and yellows. This same effect can be found in the South of France, where the prevailing North African winds (seasonal mistrals) blow Mediterranean sea air far inland. As painters, they would have seen similar color saturation on their Grand Tours of Italy’s Tuscan Region and the Cote d’Azure in France—also close to the sea and similarly affected by prevailing breezes. By contrast, the light in the mountainous regions of the Alps or the American West would be crisp and dry, heightening the effects of cool blues, purples and greens and preserving detail, even over great distances.

Claude Monet studied these light effects and produced a well-know series of paintings of Rouen Cathedral (above), where the impact of time-of-day was a key factor in his use of color and shadow. Identical subject matter seems to shift and change shape from morning, to mid-day, to evening in these works. A similar examination of light’s impact on a subject can be seen in his 1892-4 series of paintings of hay rooks. Monet repeatedly set up his easel in an open field, overlooking the pastoral scene. There, he worked on multiple canvases, over the course of many months, to painstakingly record the changing effects of light on the façade of his now-famous subject.

For a Connecticut artist like Childe Hassam, light play was an essential element in achieving a sense of intimacy between their subjects and the viewer. Interior spaces where filled with the warm light of summer, offering as much gravitas as the other physical objects in the composition. The female figure, painted outdoors in the dappled light of a garden landscape achieved an intimacy and vibrancy that is immediately associated with the warmth of human flesh. Nature and humanity are merged.

Light and form, form and light: the two essential and inter-related components of art that define the third essential—emotional impact.

By Richard Friswell, Managing Editor