Waterloo Bridge, Fog 1903

Editor: Here we have Claude Monet's "Waterloo Bridge, Fog," painted in 1903. It’s quite dreamlike, almost dissolving into a hazy atmosphere of soft purples and blues. The bridge itself feels more like a suggestion than a solid structure. What stands out to you most when you look at it? Curator: Well, it’s the absolute *absence* of solidity, isn’t it? Monet isn't painting a bridge, he’s painting light *interacting* with fog, devouring form. It’s almost a meditation on impermanence, how fleeting our perceptions really are. Do you see how the colours aren’t really *there* there, but kind of shimmering into existence? It’s like trying to grasp a memory. Editor: I do see that, and it reminds me of photography. How he's almost rendering a scene *out* of focus, suggesting details instead of defining them. Did he intend to mimic that effect? Curator: Intriguing point! It's tempting to view Monet anticipating the Pictorialists, those photographers striving for painterly effects! Yet, to me, Monet aimed beyond mere representation. He wished to capture the *feeling* of being immersed in that fog, that moment, with the bridge a ghost in the mist. Do you find it evokes that feeling in you? The chill, the damp… almost a sense of disorientation? Editor: Definitely. The lack of sharp lines really puts you *in* that hazy space. Curator: It's truly the radical modernity of it all. He takes a very familiar subject and transforms it into pure sensation. Leaving us to experience the very atmosphere of the Thames. A disappearing act, indeed. Editor: I see the painting in a totally different light now. That Monet makes us experience something elusive. It will take some time to sink in, but thank you! Curator: Indeed! These impressionistic effects leave you with impressions about impressions. Thank *you* for those intriguing associations with photography.