wo of his children did Gauguin gradually come to reject the world around him. Therefore, in time Lowry and Gauguin would feel the raw and harsh world around them.
Ford Madox Brown and Rossetti influenced Lowry to different degrees. Likewise, Lowry had deep knowledge of French Impressionism and he was open to different artistic concepts. He studied at the Manchester Academy of Fine Art and at Salford Royal Technical College. However, Lowry was not a follower of any individual and instead he focused on his own unique style. This individualistic style became the backbone of his career despite also producing more conventional paintings.
Gauguin on the other hand “glimpsed poetry” and had “a spark of high intensity.” He also stated that “without art, there is no salvation” but in many ways, his life became one of hardship based on turning to art. Also, images of Tahiti continue to prevent “a complete artistic salvation” because this aspect of his life is held again Gauguin in certain artistic circles.
In another article, I comment “Many art critics have no right to enforce their snobbery against Gauguin or to condemn him rashly because time never keeps still and concepts are always changing. In other words, no individual can put themselves in the place of another – and unless people understand the times of the day and link this with the death of his children and the severe poverty he faced – alongside the onset of time that was eating away at his soul – then who can really judge Gauguin given the many torments that he faced in his life?”
Therefore, the artwork of Gauguin should provide “artistic salvation” because very few artists have left a legacy of such richness in comparison to Gauguin. Also, the “intensity” he had can be seen throughout his artwork because this individual artist was a genius – irrespective if a flawed genius or not. Sadly, the bleakness of parts of his life meant that he eventually succumbed to “a dream world” based either “on the flesh” or “unrealism” because paradise was lost once humans walked this earth.
Lowry and Gauguin both had rare individualism and strong souls that maintained them when others would have faltered based on so many difficult obstacles. After all, irrespective of the negatives aimed at Lowry by some art critics – and periods of real poverty for Gauguin and the isolation he felt after two of his children died – both individuals never succumbed to self-doubt about their artistic merits and this says much about both amazing artists.
In an earlier article I stress, “Images by Lowry can lead to confusion for people outside of a working class environment and who don’t understand the real power and energy of industrial landscapes.”
Lowry himself commented, “One day I missed a train from Pendlebury – (a place) I had ignored for seven years – and as I left the station I saw the Acme Spinning Company’s mill … The huge black framework of rows of yellow-lit windows standing up against the sad, damp charged afternoon sky. The mill was turning out… I watched this scene – which I’d looked at many times without seeing – with rapture…”
One place where Lowry and Gauguin could meet is in the area of isolation. Lowry in his art felt a deep connection with individuals who were solitary and struggled to cope with this life. Therefore, Gauguin during times of poverty and despair would have been a perfect individual for Lowry to draw. Also, given the artistic nature of both then this binding factor linked with “despair” and the feeling of “abandonment,” would have made for interesting friends if they had they shared the same time and environment.
Of course, this is wandering into the world of “if” and “unreality.” However, without imagination then where is creativity? Therefore, for the artist Gauguin “creativity” was at the drop of the hate because he could turn the “mundane” into something “dramatic.”
Gauguin sometimes entered the world of despair and isolation yet art that had created his poverty also pulled him out of despair. In this sense, Gauguin had art throughout his veins because his world was 