Though the need for science as a foundation to artistic endeavour was perhaps more apparent in the Fourteenth and Fifteen Centuries, its importance would not wane completely in the years that followed, and even in contemporary art there are still occasions when its application is vital to the realisation of the finished work. One of the more notable examples of such an occurrence, in comparatively recent times, was to take place in Paris towards the end of the Nineteenth Century. By the early eighteen eighties, Impressionism, the movement that had only a relatively short while earlier breathed life back into the galleries of the French capital, was starting to lose much of its edge. At first the practitioners of this style had been the punk rockers of art, rebels fighting against the preconceived ideas of how visual creativity should be executed. However, as the years had gone by, they found that they were no longer insurgents, they had become the establishment.A number of splinter factions now began to form. These shared many of the original principles that had first driven Impressionistic doctrine, and inspired by the likes of Edgar Degas, Claude Monet, and Eduard Manet, this younger generation looked to stretch the envelope, and add further dimensions to the concepts of their forebears. The leader of one of the most successful and interesting of these off-shoots, that would often tend to be bundled together and referred to under the umbrella of Post-Impressionism, was Georges Pierre Seurat. Seurat, a Parisian native, had studied at the Ecole des Beaux Art during the late eighteen seventies. Though he had a rather quiet and unassuming manner, he would provoke huge changes the way people thought about art. The revolutionaries of the previous decade had little left to offer, their ideas were now all but mundane. The time had come for a new approach. Seurat's and company wanted to give art direction once again. But what made his way of looking at things so didifferent, was the fact that it owed at least as much to scientific theory as it did to art.Back in the Seventeenth Century, Isaac Newton had devoted a great deal of his far from insubstantial intellect to understanding how colour was perceived. While his peers were all of the opinion that light was a wave, he showed that it also had qualities that were more aligned with particles. Through his experiments he was able to show that white light is a composite of all the different colours within the spectrum, and once split, these component parts could not be separated out a second time. His book 'Opiticks', which was published in 1704, would form the foundation of modern colour theory. In it he produced the first colour circle. Newton's ideas on colour were taken up by influential polymaths like Goethe and Voltaire and spread across the Continent. Hermann Ludwig Helmholtz is more commonly known for his work on electromagnetism, but just like Newton he dabbled in the science of colour too. While Professor of Anatomy & Physiology at the University of Bonn he published his 'Handbook of Physiological Optics'. In this he showed that any colour tone could be represented by combinations of just three primary colours (red, green, and violet), a progression from the seven colour system that Newton had put forward. Michele Eugene Chevreul was born in Angers in the Maine-et-Loire region of France on the 31st August 1786. After studying chemistry in Paris, he had been placed in charge of the development of dyes at the Royal Tapestry Works. As a result of his research there, he had made several important discoveries on the nature of colour, and the way it is sensed by the human eye. One of his most important revelations was that when two colours were placed close to one another, they would seem completely disparate. He hypothesised that when "the eye sees at the same time two contiguous colours, they will appear as dissimilar as possible both in their optical composition and in the height of their tone."1 They seemed to suck their particular colour component out of their neighbour, resulting in the edge where the two colours met being altered, gaining an element of the complementary colour (the one opposite to it on the colour wheel). For example, a green object would transform the space surrounding it in such a way that it would seem to have a red halo placed around it. From this Chevreul developed what became know as the Law of Simultaneous Contrast. By applying this law he could show that "coloured circles will modify the colour of the space surrounding them, by giving it the appearance of a colour which is contiguous to that within the circle."2 So an "orange circle tends to colour the surrounding space blue"3 and a red circle will produce a green corona (or 'afterimage' as it has since become known) around it.

Seurat's 'Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte' was completed in the spring of 1886. He had started the studies for this work two years earlier, and bringing it to conclusion had been a mammoth task. It would be shown in the eighth and final Impressionist exhibition that May, alongside the great titans of this movement, such as Degas, Camille Pissarro, and Berthe Morisot. For some this appeared to be a sign that Impressionism had run its course, and that Seurat was pointing the way forward. This particular work complemented his earlier 'Une Baignade'. Even though the island where it was conceived lies just a few kilometres downstream from Asineres, both spots being situated in the north west of Paris, the two pieces seemed worlds apart. La Grande Jatte was a more picturesque setting than the one featured in his previous work. It was a playground for the affluent members of the Parisian populace, a place to be seen by one's peers. This painting deals with the pastimes of the middle class bourgeoisie, all dressed elegantly in their 'Sunday best' and showing the correct deportment as they stroll through the parkland close to the River Seine. The men are kitted out with canes and top hats, while the women are seen in fashionable dresses with parasols, and bustles. 'Une Baignade' is clearly observing the working class, presenting the less-wealthy and not so image conscious proletariat swimming in the same waters, but with the backdrop of Paris' factories looming behind them. The surroundings aren't so attractive, not blessed with the same charm as those of 'La Grande Jatte'. It is a semi-industrial landscape which is depicted, with chimneys polluting the sky with dirty grey smoke. The individuals captured here don't seem so worried about their appearance as they are in the later work; they lie on the grass in various stages of undress, far more concerned with enjoying their time away from the daily drudge, than how they look.Yet again Seurat relilied on many preparatory pieces, but this time he took the principles that he had followed in 'Une Baignade' further. He now relied purely on prismatic colours, removing all earth tones from his palette. He standardised his brushwork. Instead of using different types of strokes, he produced circular dots, to give his work a greater level of consistency. Whereas 'Une Baignade' had incorporated some areas that were filled in with just one simple uniform colour, Seurat now covered the whole canvas with points each emanating different tints, allowing the optical mixing technique that he had originated to be utilised throughout.The methodology employed by Seurat, along with his colleagues such as Paul Signac, became known in certain quarters as Neo-Impressionism. Seurat personally disliked the term, feeling that it confused people as to what their objectives actually were. He would state that the technique that he and his comrades made use of "is in no way Impressionist", in his opinion the earlier style was "instinctive and instantaneous" while this was "reflective and permanent."5Like Seurat, Signac had grown up in the Parisian metropolis. When they met in 1884, the two men found they shared a great deal of common ground with regard to their artistic ideology. Though Seurat was clearly the brains of this particular operation, it was through Signac that the Pointillist creed gained its mouthpiece. He would pen numerous articles on the subject, and in 1899 published a book outlining its main principles, entitled 'Delacroix au Neo-Impressionism'. Signac wrote how with 'Une Baignade' Seurat's "understanding the laws of contrast, the methodical separation of elements - light and shade, local colour, and the interaction of colours - as well as their proper balance and proportion gave this canvas its perfect harmony."6 Others joined the movement; from the youthful Albert Dubois-Pillet and Henri-Edmond Cross, to the old veteran Pissarro. Pissarro, who had spent his formative years on the Caribbean island of St Thomas, was among the artists to exhibit his work in the inaugural Impressionist exhibition of 1874*. He first became attracted to Pointillism in early 1886, after being introduced to Seurat the previous autumn. He was considerably older than most of the original Impressionists, and compared to this new breed that Seurat and Signac represented he was positively ancient. By this stage he was rapidly approaching his sixties, but despite his advancing years Pissarro was not too old to consider completely refocusing his efforts. [*Note: In fact he was the only artist to exhibit work in all eight of the exhibitions that the movement held.]Pissarro had a major part to play in the development of many the young artists that emerged in the later stages of the Nineteenth Century. He would act as a cooling influence to the hot-blooded temperaments of both Paul Cezanne and Paul Gauguin. In a similar manner he would act, for a little while at least, as father figure to the Pointillists. As part of Seurat's little band he would once again be able to share in the excitement of being an outsider fighting for acceptance of original and challenging ideas. Though at the same time, he would be heavily rebuked, accused by some of his friends, who were still amongst the ranks of the old school, of being flighty and jingoistic. Encouraged by Seurat, Pissarro studied the scientific theories of Rood, Maxwell, and Helmholtz. He wrote that he believed that this "optical mixture stirs up more intense luminosities than mixture of pigments does."7 It offered a method of painting that would not taint the beauty of each colour, but instead fortify them.Seurat's paintings, to some extent reflecting his own persona, were of a subdued nature. He wasn't trying to put any important message into the themes he chose, he didn't want to re-enact great historical events like Gericault and Delacroix, question morality as Manet and Goya had done, or lament of the hardship of the workers in the field like Millet and Courbet. He simply looked to tackle the aesthetic, and bring beauty to what he saw around him. As a result his subject matter mainly concerned the ordinary activities of the average Paris dweller. He tried to celebrate everyday life, dealing with modern society in an honest and forthright way. There was with no hidden agenda, or attempt to be judgemental. Seurat made sure he was not seen to be taking either a pro or anti stance towards the topics covered within his paintings. He looked to remain an unbiased, disconnected observer. For the most part Seurat tended to stick to quite specific regions in which to set his compositions. He would direct his attention to life in the Parisian suburbs (or Banlieue), and along the Normandy coast (Grandcamp Honfleur, Pont-en-Bessin, Crotoy, Gravelines, etc).Seurat's 'Bridge at Courbevoie' (first exhibited in 1887) is a restful, delicate piece, which is my own personal favourite from the artist. Its style is very subtle, the contrast is not as heavy as in some of his other works, giving the impression that dusk is descending onto the scene. The picture is very linear in form; the verticals made by the trees, boat masts, and people all juxtaposing the horizontals of the jetty, bridge, and waterline. His 'Chanel at Gravelines' (which was completed in 1890) like his work at Courbevoie, has a tranquil, hazy quality about it.While Pointillism was good at making nicely structured water scenes, or detached portrayals of people going about their daily business, it seemed to struggle in offering any form of intimacy. This is particularly well shown in Seurat's attempts to render the female form. With 'Les Poseurs, which was first exhibited in early 1888, he did not try to recapture some classical ideal, or alternatively comment on any ethical issues of the lifestyle that these girls were following, he just depicted them in the process of preparing for their working day. However, this and the 'Young Woman Powdering Herself', for which he used his mistress Madeleine Knobloch as a model, are deficient in any warmth or empathy for the subject. Many argue that the preliminary paintings for works like these are actually better than the finished pieces themselves, as they have a more free and easy style, which gives them greater effervescence and maintains a human element. The figures in the completed works tend to look statuesque and are devoid of any erotic charm. The writer French writer Pierre Courthion referred to Seurat's painting of Knobloch as "a Pygmalion in reverse."8Knobloch was a seamstress by trade, though she occasionally modelled for him. The couple would have a child, Pierre-Georges in February 1890, but wishing to avoid any scandal Seurat kept his affair and his illegitimate child secret, neither his family nor his closest friends learning of these matters until after his death. The growing consensus of opinion was that Seurat's meticulous, overworked technique was robbing his paintings of much of their verve. The critics were a long way from being supportive of the artist. As well as having many detractors, it is also likely that Seurat personally felt the novelty of his approach was beginning to wear off, and this was compounded still further by scores of other artists jumping on the bandwagon. By definition a technique that lacked an obvious way in which to display the artist's particular style, since it had no provision for variation in the strokes used or the choice of colour, would be riddled with problems when it came to differentiation. The brushwork, if one can even call it that, was incapable of translating any of the character of its author. This made the exponents of the technique in some ways anonymous. How could one tell the dots of Pissarro from those of Signac? Seurat came to the realisation, that by popularising Pointillism, he and his colleagues were effectively killing it off. The size of this association had begun to swell, with Charles Angrand, Maximillien Luce, and Theo van Ryssel-Berche all joining the group. Seurat would see the dichotomy in this. The more painters who embraced his system and the more commonplace it became, the lesser the value of what he was doing would be. In reaction to these factors, he chose to amend his style in his later works. Once again he would look to science for a solution. Seurat made use of the ideas proposed by the scientist and mathematician Charles Henry of the Sorbonne, with whom he had become acquainted back in late 1886. Henry had produced scientific theories based on the influence of psychological factors on composition. He hypothesised how colour, tone, line, and form could effect the way in which the painting was perceived by it viewers. For example, upwards movements upon the canvas would encourage elation and joy, while downward movement created a feeling of solemnity and gloom. He further tied in colours with these directions; red and yellow being married to upward movements, and blue and green being downward. Using this idea of expressive direction, Seurat discarded the geometric forms and the simple matrix of verticals and horizontals that had been the bedrock of his previous works, and now looked for a way to add vitality to his paintings while still utilising the division of colour technique that had become his trademark. 'Le Cirque' (which was exhibited in 1890) and 'Le Chahut' (which was produced the following year, though never fully completed) were more caricatured in their conception, neither being dependent on any strong need for realism.Both works use predominantly upturned shapes to convey the impression of excitement and euphoria. In 'Le Cirque' we see a bareback rider flanked by clowns and acrobats, performing in front of an attentive crowd. 'Le Chahut' is concerned with life within the more seedy venues of Montmartre and Pigale, such as the infamous Moulin Rouge, showing th

The aged Pissarro had decided to turn his back on the movement by 1890, after becoming disillusioned with its ability to deal with the difficulties that Impressionism had encountered. It seemed to him that for every problem it solved, it raised another that was at least as potent. He declared that the technique "inhibits me and hinders the development of spontaneity of sensation."9 Writing not long after Seurat's death, Pissarro stated that he felt "it's all over for Pointillism."10 He had come to the opinion that there was no long-term future here. Though it aimed to instil greater purity, it didn't just stop there. It went further, reaching the point where it sterilised the end product, leaving it completely passionless and inert. He had warned Signac earlier that following Seurat unquestioningly was not wise. In a letter to his young colleague he stated, "Science belongs to everybody, and you must use it if you want to, but hold tight to the gift that you have; that of feeling as a free and independent artist."11 Deprived of their illustrious leader, the remaining practitioners of this style all looked to experiment in other areas. Pissarro's sight grew worse as he entered his final years, an eye disease affecting his vision profoundly, and forcing him to only work indoors. He died of blood poisoning in November of 1903, at the age of seventy-three. Signac did not finally shuffle off this mortal coil until August of 1935. Over the years his work had become increasingly more abstract in nature, though he still attempted to stay true to the Pointillist cause. Pointillism had been a nice little excursion, but it wasn't the way forward for art. It had managed to serve a purpose for a while, bringing back some vigour to the dying Impressionist approach, but nevertheless it effectively led to a dead end. However, Seurat's influence cannot be discounted completely. It was to have further implications. His later works like 'Le Cirque' would prove to be starting p point for the Expressionists (led by Kandinsky and Matisse) as well as the Cubists (with proponents such as Braque and Picasso). Along with the likes of Cezanne, he had been instrumental in facilitating the new age of artistic endeavour, providing a stepping stone from which many other movements could develop.So how should the work of the Pointillists be judged, had it been able to achieve anything of lasting value? Some artists used science to aid them in their work, others became slaves to it. In some ways it was Seurat and his followers' use of the optical research of Chevereul, Henry, and Helmholtz that had made it unique, but at the same time it could be argued that it had been this which had ultimately stifled it. The restrictions it had when it came to articulating emotion or giving paintings a modicum of individual flare were a direct result of an over dependency on scientific theory.The medieval writer Giorgio Vasari, who produced biographies of many of the great artists of the Renaissance period, had something to say on this matter. It was his view that "when theory and practice coincide then nothing could be more fruitful, since artistic skills are enhanced and perfected by learning, and the advice and writings of knowledgeable artists carry more weight and are more efficacious than the words or work of those who" as he puts it "are merely practical men."12 But in turn, when taken to the extreme, either in favour of science or alternatively in favour of art, the results could prove cataclysmic. As Kandinsky put it, "Blind following of scientific precept is no less blameworthy than its blind purposeless rejection." In his opinion, "The former leaves the spiritual atmosphere empty" but the "latter poisons it."13 In my opinion Seurat's work, and that of his followers, proved to be a very interesting detour in the history of art, but it was never likely to have a long-term future. Though it had served a purpose for a while, it couldn't really sustain itself, as it constrained creativity and expression too greatly. This doesn't devalue what the movement achieved though. There are many other examples in our culture, whether you look at music, film or literature, when these sorts of radical upheavals, which countered traditional thinking, helped to set out the path for others to follow. As already shown, it was through the Pointillists that the doors were opened, allowing many great artists that followed to reconsider how they composed their pieces and giving them a whole new perspective.References1.Principles of Harmony & Contrast of Colours, by M.Chevereul, Reinhold Publishing, 1854. 2.Principles of Harmony & Contrast of Colours, by M.Chevereul, Reinhold Publishing, 1854. 3.Principles of Harmony & Contrast of Colours, by M.Chevereul, Reinhold Publishing, 1854. 4.Seurat, R.Herbert, p.172, Yale University Press, 2001.5.Post-Impressionism, by M.Jalard, p16 Heron Books, 1968.6.The History of Impressionism, by J.Rewald, p.504, Secker & Warburg, 1985.7.Impressionism, by P.Pool, p.244, Thames & Hudson, 1988.8.Seurat, by P.Courthion, p.41, Thames & Hudson, 1989.9.Dictionary of Art & Artists, edited by P.Murray & L.Murray, p.408, Penguin Reference, 1997.10.Seurat, by P.Courthion, p.43, Thames & Hudson, 1989.11.Seurat, by J.Russell, p.231, Thames & Hudson, 1989.12.Lives of the Artists, by G.Vasari, p.208, Penguin, 1987.13.The Art of Spiritual Harmony, by W.Kandinsky, translated by M.Sadler, p.105, Constable, 1954.BibliographySeurat: Une Baignade, Asnieres, by D.Cooper, Percy Lund Humphries, 1971. Principles of Harmony & Contrast of Colours, by M.Chevereul, Reinhold Publishing, 1854. A Treasury of Impressionism, by N.Harris, Optimum, 1981.Impressionism, by P.Pool, Thames & Hudson, 1988.History of Impressionism, by J.Rewald, Secker & Warburg, 1985.Post-Impressionism, by M.Jalard, Heron Books, 1968.Seurat, by J.Russell, Thames & Hudson, 1989.Seurat, R.Herbert, Yale University Press, 2001.Seurat, by P.Courthion, Thames & Hudson, 1989.Pissarro, by L.Doeser, Parragon, 1994.Seurat, by R.Thomspson, Phaidon, 1985.Studies on Camille Pissarro, edited by C.Lloyd, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.Art in Theory, by C.Harris & P.Wood, Blackwell, 1998.Dictionary of Art & Artists, edited by P.Murray & L.Murray, Penguin Reference, 1997.Seurat, by N.Broude, Rizzoli, 1992. The Science of Art, by M.Kemp, Yale University Press, 1990.The Art of Spiritual Harmony, by W.Kandinsky, translated by M.Sadler, p.105, Constable, 1954.Principles of Harmony & Contrast of Colours, by M.Chevereul, Reinhold Publishing, 1854.