19th Century Realism's Vapid Off-spring
WILLIAM PALMER
people in this group are enraptured with 19th Century Realism.
Apparently, such enthusiasts either know nothing about 19th Century
Symbolism, or they simply don't like it Yes, I think Bouguereau
was a superb artist, and I too think it was deplorable the way he--
like many of the Symbolists--was neglected for most of the Twentieth
century. Another neglected19th Century realist I like even better,
though, is Gerome. Though both are great painters, I feel that,
generally speaking, Gerome is more interesting because of this
subject matter, including the historical scenes and of course his
Oriental (Middle East, that is) depictions.
Even so, I can see no logical reason to enthuse over the
19th Century Realists and ignore the Symbolists, who,
on average, were far more interesting painters.
Anyway, here is my thought for the evening. It seems
to me that 19th century Realism produced two boring,
empty-headed "children": Russian Communist "Heroic
Realism art," and Nazi art. If Hitler's "Thousand Year
Reich" would have lasted, art in Germany would have
gone no place. It would have been "down by law."
Both the Communist and Nazi schools of art, though
somewhat different, are tedious, hackneyed, and both
show strong influences of 19th Century realism.
Symbolism produced a far better "off-spring":
Surrealism. What do you think of my little theory?
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
Mani Deli
<willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Sometimes I just shake my head when I notice the way certain
>people in this group are enraptured with 19th Century Realism.
>Apparently, such enthusiasts either know nothing about 19th Century
>Symbolism, or they simply don't like it
I like some Symbolist work although I admit I dislike some of the
artists you mentioned. Most people with knowledge of the 19th century
don't hold these artists in the highest esteem because they lack the
qualities of those judged best.
>Even so, I can see no logical reason to enthuse over the
>19th Century Realists and ignore the Symbolists, who,
>on average, were far more interesting painters.
I judge quality first and subject matter last. Others do it
differently. Interesting subject matter is a matter of taste. However
artistic quality is another matter. Most Symbolists Iv'e seen don't
rank near first in quality.
>
>Anyway, here is my thought for the evening. It seems
>to me that 19th century Realism produced two boring,
>empty-headed "children": Russian Communist "Heroic
>Realism art," and Nazi art.
Although I agree in part Ironically, these cultures produced a lot of
work which was Symbolist. My main complaint with 19th C. is with the
subject matter. But I'm always left with the question, is the former
emphisis on religion any better as far as subject matter is concerned?
I find the finest works in either case to be among the finest
achievements in the catagory of the fine arts.
> If Hitler's "Thousand Year
>Reich" would have lasted, art in Germany would have
>gone no place. It would have been "down by law."
>Both the Communist and Nazi schools of art, though
>somewhat different, are tedious, hackneyed, and both
>show strong influences of 19th Century realism.
Some of the finest artwork was produced under absolutists political
systems. As much as I dislike these systems I don't find the best
artwork of these systems as terrible as most critics who dismiss them
wholesale.
>Symbolism produced a far better "off-spring":
>Surrealism. What do you think of my little theory?
I agree in part. However I believe Surrealism is painting realistic
subject matter in an unrealistic context. This is a very old thing.
The specific originality of 20th C. surreal subject matter does in
part owe something to symbolism.
Art is not a matter of who did it first but who did it best.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Andrew Werby
"WILLIAM PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:iTan9.669$vd.289...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Sometimes I just shake my head when I notice the way certain
> people in this group are enraptured with 19th Century Realism.
> Apparently, such enthusiasts either know nothing about 19th Century
> Symbolism, or they simply don't like it Yes, I think Bouguereau
> was a superb artist, and I too think it was deplorable the way he--
> like many of the Symbolists--was neglected for most of the Twentieth
> century. Another neglected19th Century realist I like even better,
> though, is Gerome. Though both are great painters, I feel that,
> generally speaking, Gerome is more interesting because of this
> subject matter, including the historical scenes and of course his
> Oriental (Middle East, that is) depictions.
>
> Even so, I can see no logical reason to enthuse over the
> 19th Century Realists and ignore the Symbolists, who,
> on average, were far more interesting painters.
[I'm not sure these artists we've been considering would have considered
themselves "Realists". At the time, this was a viable movement in the arts,
lead by Zola in literature and Courbet in painting (he also wrote a Realist
manifesto), which sought to sweep away the sentimentality in portrayal that
they saw as shrouding the grim reality of people's lives. Millet and Daumier
were some other Realists whose names are still familiar today. While to us,
all the work of the various schools of art competing for attention at the
time seems "realistic", that is because of our frame of reference. They
didn't think of themselves as combatting non-objective or abstract styles of
painting, since these didn't exist at the time. But they were in some
conflict with the Symbolists, as well as the fellows you enumerate above,
whom I'd call Romantics, and of course the Classicists, who were the
dominant artistic force of the day. ]
>
> Anyway, here is my thought for the evening. It seems
> to me that 19th century Realism produced two boring,
> empty-headed "children": Russian Communist "Heroic
> Realism art," and Nazi art. If Hitler's "Thousand Year
> Reich" would have lasted, art in Germany would have
> gone no place. It would have been "down by law."
> Both the Communist and Nazi schools of art, though
> somewhat different, are tedious, hackneyed, and both
> show strong influences of 19th Century realism.
> Symbolism produced a far better "off-spring":
> Surrealism. What do you think of my little theory?
>
>
> alt.genius.bill-palmer
> (Temporary office: rec.arts.prose)
> wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
[While it's true that both these state-sponsored art movements had their
roots in the 19th century, I think the link to the Realist tradition is
tenuous at best. They aimed, not to strip off the veils of sentiment from
art, but to wrap up the iron fist of totalitarianism in a velvet glove. As
such, they had more kinship with the Romantic movement, which was more
interested in concocting a picturesque scene than in portraying life with
ruthless clarity. I agree, though, that the institutionalization of artistic
canons was more or less fatal to the artistic integrity of the works
produced under these regimes. The revulsion felt by the rest of the world to
these totalitarian systems and all their works was a major factor in the
post-war triumph of the New York school, which, whatever else you might say
about it, bore no resemblence to either sort of state-sponsored artistic
propaganda.
As for the link between the Symbolists and the Surrealists, I'll have to
think about that (and maybe dig a bit). While there is a superficial
affinity, to be sure, I'm not convinced there's a traceable lineage. The
Surrealists were less interested in other artists than in their own dreams
and visions, and their movement owed more to the development of psychology
than to previous schools of painting. To be sure, they tended to adopt
artists of the past (like Hieronymous Bosch, for example) as presaging the
advent of themselves, but their main idea was to tap the subconscious as
directly as possible. I think this ruled out the more deliberate process of
adopting previous artistic ideas and modifying them for present purposes-
but I could be wrong.]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
WILLIAM PALMER
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:m4ln9.40511$Pz.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "WILLIAM PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:iTan9.669$vd.289...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > Sometimes I just shake my head when I notice the way certain
> > people in this group are enraptured with 19th Century Realism.
> > Apparently, such enthusiasts either know nothing about 19th Century
> > Symbolism, or they simply don't like it Yes, I think Bouguereau
> > was a superb artist, and I too think it was deplorable the way he--
> > like many of the Symbolists--was neglected for most of the Twentieth
> > century. Another neglected19th Century realist I like even better,
> > though, is Gerome. Though both are great painters, I feel that,
> > generally speaking, Gerome is more interesting because of this
> > subject matter, including the historical scenes and of course his
> > Oriental (Middle East, that is) depictions.
> >
> > Even so, I can see no logical reason to enthuse over the
> > 19th Century Realists and ignore the Symbolists, who,
> > on average, were far more interesting painters.
>
> [I'm not sure these artists we've been considering would have considered
> themselves "Realists". At the time, this was a viable movement in the
arts,
> lead by Zola in literature
Your comments are interesting and well-worth pondering, but it
seems to be the lines between "realism,: and "naturalism," are being
blurred somewhat. My understanding is that the Symbolists were
more opposed to Naturalism, than Realism. The basic conflict,
it seems to me, is that Zola and the Naturalists were more
concerned with depicting life as they actually observed it in
the physical world around them, including showing all the
ugliness, courseness, grime of the Paris streets, etc., whereas
the Symbolists were much more interested in developing their
imaginative powers, such as exploring mythology and
presenting it in news ways; tapping into their dreams; or
working out striking depictions touching on matters
essentially metaphysical. Something I picked up from my
reading on the Symbolists was that some of them did not in
fact like Bouguereau, because they associated him with Zola.
Until I read that, I would not have thought there was much
connection between the two (and perhaps the connection
that the Symbolists saw was more philosophical than literal).
One novel that anyone interested in this conflict between
Symbolism and Naturalism should read is J.-K. Huysmans'
A REBOURS. Though the title can be translated as
"against nature," Huysmans makes it very clear he means,
"against Naturalism." In fact, he was actually a
proponent of Zola's ideas, and even wrote some Naturalist
novels more or less in the tradition of Zola, but then became
disillusioned and began to believe that Natualism had run its
course and had nothing more of importance to contribute to
art and literature.
In a somewhat different vein, I am still not comfortable
with the emphasis some people in this group place upon
technical mastery of painting over subject. In the first
place, when you look at things that way, the matter can
never be solved anyway, at least to most people's
satisfaction. For one thing, not even the greatest
masters of painting were supreme in the same areas.
The greatest painters of the human body are not generally
the same artists who are considered the greatest masters
of landscape. Then, of course, we have the greatest
masters of historical scenes, the greatest masters of still
life, and even the greatest masters of puppy paintings.
In my view (and I certainly don't expect everyone,
or anyone) to share it, the greatest painters are those
who show the finest imaginative powers regarding
their subject. Of course, the qualification has to be
that I am only talking about people with impressive
technical skills in the first place. Fernand Khnopff
is one of the truly great Nineteenth century artists
because he had impressive technical skills as a
painter, combined with awesome imaginative
powers that led him to producing art that
challenged both the intellect and disturbed
or at least awakened what is sometimes called
the psyche in many viewers. The fact that this
ingenious painter was rarely even mentioned in "history
of world art" texts written in the Twentieth Century is
truly deplorable. a.g.b-p.