In terms of derogatory descriptions of art, "Ashcan Art" sounds worse than "Impressionism" - another term coined by critics. (Archive: Oct, 2010-Durand-Ruel) Ashcan Art had much
in common with Impressionism.
Like the Impressionists' Salon des Refuses, these American artist created their own exhibition. It was a non-juried show organized by the artists. This bull-by-the-horns action by artists was
regarded just as scandalously as it had been for the Impressionists. Yet the exhibition changed the direction and definition of art in America.Beyond these rebellious similarities against the decision makers of what constitutes fine art, there was a major difference between the two schools of art. It was their choice of subjects.
Ashcan painters (This period is more appropriately titled, "American Realism.") were not interested in painting bucolic scenes nor the industrial age. They were interested in portraying the grittiness of urban life. They wanted to chronicle the urban lives of the poor and the disenfranchised of the city. They painted overcrowding, boxing, prostitution, drunks and everyday realities of poverty. (Since ashcans were ubiquitous in the urban landscape, this art movement became known as "ashcan art." )
These artists were referred by some critics as "apostles of ugliness." At the top and below are some of the art created during this time. What do you think? Should artists paint only the beauty of life and nature or are paintings of squalor and poverty appropriate subjects?
