How Effective was Romanticism in Political Events?
What was Romanticism? Romanticism is the movement across all the arts, from 1790 and continued until 1850. It was in some ways a reaction to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, Neo Classicism and the Industrial Revolution. The promises of seeing the world in a more rational way, with greater understanding, had not prevented wars, bloodshed and suffering and people were frustrated. The movement incorporated artists, musicians and writers. By definition there is no definitive romantic style – romanticism was an attitude more than a of characteristics. Central theme was a belief in the value of individual experience. A move away from the rationalism and order that underlines neoclassicism. Romanticism stressed strong emotion as a source of aesthetic experience. One effect of romanticism was to emphasise such emotion as trepidation, horror and awe motions experienced in front of nature. The movement was most prominent in France, England, Germany and Spain and it had different styles between those countries, and even between artists within the same country. JMW Turner, John Constable and William Blake, for example, were all English romantic artists who employed very different styles. The movement, therefore, was more characterised by its ideals, the subjects portrayed and the emotions involved, rather than any specific visual style.
19th Century Political Events Under Napoleon's leadership, the French political, education and legal systems were fundamentally remodelled. Despite the reappearance - for a time - of the French monarchy, the Revolution reconfigured not only France but also the political contours of Europe as a whole. While the entire authority structure in France was overturned, the heady ideals of 'liberty, equality and fraternity' - proclaimed by the French revolutionaries and drawn from the European Enlightenment of the 18th century - seemed to offer a template for change across the whole of the continent, and beyond. The 19th century was the century marked by the collapse of the Spanish, First and Second French, Chinese, Holy Roman and Mughal empires. This paved the way for the growing influence of the British Empire, the Russian Empire, the United States, the German Empire, the Second French Colonial Empire and the Empire of Japan, with the British boasting unchallenged dominance after 1815. After the defeat of the French Empire and its allies in the Napoleonic Wars, the British and Russian empires expanded greatly, becoming the world's leading powers. The Russian Empire expanded in central and far eastern Asia. The British Empire grew rapidly in the first half of the century, especially with the expansion of vast territories in Canada, Australia, South Africa and heavily populated India, and in the last two decades of the century in Africa. By the end of the century, the British Empire controlled a fifth of the world's land and one quarter of the world's population. During the post Napoleonic era it enforced what became known as the Pax Britannica, which helped trade.
Theodore Gericault
Wounded Cuirassier During the Napoleonic era (1799–1814), war became an everpresent spectacle in Europe. For Gericault, such subject matter proved irresistible, particularly the combination of powerful horses and glittering uniforms. In this final study for an 1814 Salon entry, Gericault makes a significant departure from the academic standard for battle paintings by concentrating on the ambiguous actions of a single, anonymous soldier (who mysteriously lacks a visible wound, despite the work’s title) and his stumbling mount rather than the precise manoeuvres of a corps or the bravery of famous generals. In the wake of Napoleon’s fall from power a few months before the opening of the Salon, the massive finished work (more than ten feet high) stood as an unpleasant reminder of France’s recent defeats and the folly of the Napoleonic enterprise. Though the painting is called "The Wounded Cuirassier", there are no visible wounds on the soldier. Additionally, though Gericault generally created several drafts before settling on a final design, there do not seem to be any paintings of his that could be considered precursors to this painting.
Theodore Gericault
Gericault did not invent with ease. Although able to paint with a speed and assurance that amazed his friends, he built his compositions laboriously. He did not conceive the main forms of his design in one intuitive vision, but arrived at them through experimentation, proceeding from revision to revision in a close succession of compositional studies. This gradual evolution is so characteristic of his works that one is surprised not to find it in the preliminaries for the Wounded Cuirassier.
The Signboard of a Hoofsmith, like the Cuirassier, presents a massive figure standing in front of the straining horse and holding the reins in his fist close to the horse’s tossing head. With his free hand the hoofsmith grasps his hammer, as the Cuirassier grasps his sword. There are differences between the two pictures, but they are outweighed by the resemblances: the pyramidal shape of the group, the overlapping of the clearly contoured figures of horse and man, the treatment of the horse as a foil for the solidly modelled body of hits master.
Raft of the Medusa This is an over-life-size painting that depicts a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Meduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on July 5, 1816. At least 147 people were set adrift on a hurriedly constructed raft; all but 15 died in the 13 days before their rescue, and those who survived endured starvation and dehydration and practiced cannibalism. The event became an international scandal, in part because its cause was widely attributed to the incompetence of the French captain perceived to be acting under the authority of the recently restored French monarchy. In choosing the tragedy as subject matter for his first major work, an uncommissioned depiction of an event from recent history, Gericault consciously selected a well-known incident that would generate great public interest and help launch his career. The event fascinated the young artist, and before he began work on the final painting, he undertook extensive research and produced many preparatory sketches. He interviewed two of the survivors, and constructed a detailed scale model of the raft. His efforts took him to morgues and hospitals where he could view, first-hand, the colour and texture of the flesh of the dying and dead. As the artist had anticipated, the painting proved highly controversial at its first appearance in the 1819 Paris Salon, attracting passionate praise and condemnation in equal measure. However, it established his international reputation, and today is widely seen as seminal in the early history of the Romantic Movement in French painting. In this painting, there is no purpose for the suffering, or any benefit achieved from it. It is simply a case of the mistakes of men and government leading to the death and torment of a group of ordinary people. This is an example of the Romantic reaction against the age of reason – since reason had not brought an end to human suffering, so the artist portrayed a world without reason where that suffering was purposeless.
One key contrast that marks this Romantic painting apart from earlier Neo Classical work is the lack of reason associated with the event. In Neo Classical paintings, such as the Oath of the Horatii, personal sacrifice was made to further the greater good – the Horatii brothers swear their allegiance to Rome because it will help save the Roman republic.
The Argus Like the survivors, you need to search hard to find the ship that eventually saved them. The Argus was the sister ship of the Medusa, and the Gericault shows it as a speck on the horizon of his huge canvas. The minute size of the ship serves to heighten the dramatic moment captured by the painting. It is still conceivable that the ship will turn away (as bad occurred once before in reality) and all hope rescue would be dashed.
The Pyramid of Hope Gericault organises the composition to form two pyramids. The first is outlined by the guy ropes supporting the soil. The second is often described as a “pyramid of hope”: the lowest figures are dead, and the pyramid rises through the sick and dying to the topmost figure, who finds fresh energy at the prospect of rescue. It is a progression from the depths of despair to an apex of hope. Another feature pf the composition is the lack of foreground. Like Friedrich’s Wanderer, which had legible foreground to draw the viewer into the picture, this uses a different approach to achieve the same end. Here, Gericault makes the raft extend right to the edge of picture, which actually cuts of the corner. In this way, the viewer almost has the sense of being on the raft with the shipwrecked.
The Face of Death In pursuit of authenticity Gericault visited the local hospital, I’Hopital Beaujon, to make detailed studies of the sick and dying. He even took a severed head and an assortment of limbs from the morgue back to his studio in the Faubourg du Roule.
Dramatic Outline A silhouetted figure against a dramatic sky features in many of Gericault’s works. This figure draws the eye up from the bottom of the picture to a dramatic focus near the top.
Billowing Sail The sail echoes the shape of the large wave behind it, and so gives it greater power and force. The billowing sail and violence of the sea emphasise nature’s destructive force. In order to study the sea’s motion, the artist made a trip to the coast of Normandy.
Rays of Hope The storm clouds are broken by light, a symbol of hope. The lowering cumulus cloud on the left reiterates the shape of the tumultuous wave beneath it.
Beyond Despair The storm clouds are broken by light, a symbol of hope. The lowering cumulus cloud on the left reiterates the shape of the tumultuous wave beneath it.
Damaged Areas Unfortunately, Gericault’s masterpiece is badly damaged, and many areas such as this have lost a great deal of original detail. Gericault applied a tar-like pigment called bitumen to produce rich, dark colours. However, it soon bubbles and turns black and, tragically, there is no way of repairing the damage.
2nd of May 1808
The Second of May 1808 depicts the beginning of the uprising when the Mamelukes of the French Imperial Guard are ordered to charge and subdue the rioting citizens. The crowd sees the Mamelukes as Moors, provoking an angry response. Instead of dispersing, the crowd turned on the charging Mamelukes, resulting in a ferocious melee. Goya was probably not present during the actual Charge of the Mamelukes. His supposed presence was first suggested in a book published 40 years after his death, reporting on conversations the author claimed to have had with Goya's gardener. His paintings were commissioned in 1814, after the expulsion of Napoleon's army from Spain, by the council governing Spain until the return of Ferdinand VII. He chose to portray the citizens of Madrid as unknown heroes using the crudest of weapons, such as knives, to attack a professional, occupying army. That did not please the king when he returned, so the paintings were not hung publicly until many years (and governments) later. Goya chose not to paint any single action or to have any single focal point to emphasize the chaos of the drama. He witnessed first-hand the French occupation of Spain in 1808, when Napoleon used the pretext of reinforcing his army in Portugal to seize the Spanish throne, leaving his brother Joseph in power. Attempts to remove members of the Spanish royal family from Madrid provoked a widespread rebellion. This popular uprising occurred between the second and third of May 1808, when suppressed by forces under Marechal Joachim Murat.
Francisco De Goya
Francisco De Goya
Goya chose to depict the people of Madrid armed just with knives and rough weapons as unknown heroes attacking the might of the Mamelukes and a French cavalry officer. The whole painting depicts a scene of chaos which in some ways stirs up a feeling of realism and authenticity. The two figures you need to focus on are the man who is plunging the knife into the thigh of the white horse and the man who is at the rear of the horse and who is just about to plunge his knife into a Mameluke warrior who he has dragged from the horse. Why? In tomorrow’s painting The Third of May 2008 we will again see these two men and what happened to them as a result of their deeds.
3rd
of May 1808
In the gruesome Disasters of War series begun in the 1808, but published decades later, Goya created images that were unambiguously anti-war. Rather than taking sides in these prints, Goya focused on how war brings out the basest human instincts. In two monumental paintings from 1814, Goya presented a more politically charged perspective. Goya made an image of actual historical events, but enhanced them for maximum dramatic effect. The condemned men stand before a firing squad on the hill Principe Pio, one of several locations where such executions took place. The recognisable architecture of the city in the background lends immediacy to the scene. But it is the figures to the left of the composition that demand the viewer’s attention. The main figure, dressed in white, practically glows. Holding out his arms in an unmistakable reference to the crucified Christ, he appears as a heroic martyr. While the faceless French soldiers on the opposite side are rendered almost inhuman, the ill-fated Spanish rebels elicit both sympathy for their suffering and respect for their sacrifice.
Francisco De Goya
Francisco De Goya
The mood of the painting is very bleak and somber. The colours which the artist has chosen are earth tones, and there is a strong overall contrast of dark and light. This dramatic lighting technique or chiaroscuro can be seen in the central figure or focal point-the young Spanish man with his arm's outstretched. The implied lines of the gun lead the viewers eye to the focal point. His outstretched arms form a "V" line. This line is reiterated in the collar and pants of the man. There is also an angular or "V" line formed by the lantern that illuminates the scene. There is a line in the sand that differentiates the "good, or noble" Spanish countrymen from the harsher, harder forms of the French soldiers in the shadows. The shapes of the French soldiers are highly contoured. They turn way from the viewer. We do not know what they look like. The viewer can not relate to them. In contrast we see the faces of the Spanish countrymen, we see their fear, pain, defiance, and belief. Texturally the Spanish countrymen are softer. The artist has created looser brushstrokes and a duller surface. This in contrast to the shiner surface of the soldier. Specially, the viewer is outside looking in. The light and dark contrast of the line in the sand separates the two groups spatially. There is also a feeling of entrapment created by the line of the mountain that holds the Spanish countrymen into the space.
Massacre at Chios This is another Romanticist portrayal of human suffering. The Massacres at Chios was a 19th century war of independence fought by the Greeks against the Turks, interested Eugene Delacroix. As it was a contemporary event, it was important for him to document it on canvas and so he painted it on his own accord and not because it was commissioned.
Greece had been ruled by the Turkish Ottomans since 1453, before revolting in 1821. Though many Greek towns and islands had joined the fight for freedom instantly, Chios showed reluctance to join the revolt. Chios gained much prosperity through centuries of trade with the Empire, benefited by the Sultan and the Turkish government. Thoughts towards the revolt shifted after a troop of revolutionaries from another island came to Chios and encourages its inhabitants to participate. As news spread to the Sultan about a possible conspiracy against his Empire he turned against the island. The Sultan sent a Turkish fleet to destroy the island and its locals and so began the massacre which included two weeks of murder, torture and rape. Villages were burned and churches were set alight. Almost 90,000 people were killed, 50,000 enslaved and 25,000 exiled. The 2,000 remaining inhabitants survived by hiding in caves or leaving the island by sea. The Turkish completely destroyed Chios, leaving it completely burnt to the ground. News of the massacre spread to Europe igniting many protests and inspiring artists to focus on this subject matter in their work. Volunteer groups sent money and weapons and some Westerners even joined the Greeks in their fight against the Ottomans. In the Massacres at Chios; Greek Families Awaiting Death or Slavery, Delacroix romanticizes the aftermath of the revolt. He exemplifies the haughty pride of the conquerors in contrast to the horror and despair of the innocent Greeks. He exhibited this painting at the 1824 Salon.
Eugene Delacroix
Eugene Delacroix
Eugene Delacroix’s inspiration for the ‘Massacre at Chios’
Eugene Delacroix paints with the realism of the great masters. The influence of his greatest idol, Michelangelo, can be seen in the forlorn figures of the Massacres at Chios. The bodies are painted in a classical style, their proportions close to real life but slightly idealised. As word of the massacre of the people of Chios spread to Europe, many Europeans were infuriated at the injustice. Delacroix was among the many influential figures to pay respect to the people of Chios and he wanted to document this event, as historical paintings were important to him. The attack was so brutal, it left the island in burnt ruins and the majority of its citizen dead. Delacroix, both attracted to the dramatic and recording real life events, painted a romanticised version of the after-effects of the slaughter.
Eugene Delacroix Behind her, two women plead with a man mounted on a horse. He ignores them, turning away and rearing the horse, ready to ride off. This suggests that no amount of pleading will benefit these women, and their fate is sealed regardless of their actions. Perhaps this is what the older woman has already realised, hence her resigned pose.
This scene takes up about half the painting, with the landscape falling away behind it and a good third given tot the light-coloured sky filled with the clouds. This contrasts with the darkness of the landscape itself, where the atrocities are happening, and perhaps suggests some hope may lay in the future, although the present is full of suffering.
Like the Medusa, this is another contemporary event, focused on the suffering of the people through causes beyond their control. Whilst the Greeks did start the war, the people in this painting are mainly women and children, at the mercy of Turkish soldiers. Again, this purposeless suffering contracts with the earlier movement. Where Neo Classical work tended to have very clear lines and organised presentation, here the layout seems more haphazard – there are no clear lines and no specific centre to the painting. Instead our eye can wander across the people in the foreground and examine them individually.
At the bottom-right we see a woman laying on her back, partially unclothed, with a baby on her stomach. From her awkward pose, with her head at an angle, it seems she may be dead, leaving her baby motherless. Across the group young women hold onto men, either seeking comfort or doing their best to persuade Turkish men to give them sympathy. These women are in various states of dress and seem to be presented as examples of how the experience has robbed them of their dignity.
Only one woman is presented alone – an older woman, fully dressed, sits just right of the centre. She looks off into the distance and seems resigned to her fate. She sits placidly in a fairly relaxed pose, her knees bent and her arm resting on her legs. Her face is quiet and unemotional, although her expression is serious and clearly not helpful.
Eugene Delacroix
Eugene Delacroix
The figures of the dead create a strong horizontal bar across the centre of the canvas. The eye is free to move across each catastrophe whether it be from the dying couple or the baby clinging to his dead mother. Another group in the background struggles to protect their lives just subtle enough not to distract attention from the main focus of the piece.
The Hay Wain
Although the foreground is short, it is influenced by another Romantic artist. Delacroix saw The Hay Wain, by the English Romantic painter John Constable, when it was displayed in Paris in 1824. He was impressed by the use of colour and brushwork to emulate shifting light, and repainted the foreground of Massacres at Chios to emulate it. The landscape subjects of these two paintings could not be more different, which is typical of Romanticism. The subjects painted, and the styles used, varied greatly but the artists shared certain views and ways of approaching their work and, in this way, they were able to influence and learn from each other.
Liberty Leading the People
Through July 28: Liberty Leading the People, Delacroix tells the story of Trois Glorieuses - Three Glorious Days - the Parisian uprising on July 27, 28, and 29 of 1830. The liberal republicans were outraged by the violation of the Constitution, and overthrew Charles X, who was to be the last Bourbon king of France. His predecessor was Louis Philippe, the Duke of Orleans. In this artwork Liberty is personified in the form of a vibrant, rebellious, bare breasted woman who leads the people to victory. She carries the flag proudly. Thrilled to have a modern subject to paint, Delacroix took to the canvas with great pride and patriotism. Though he had not taken an active part in the fighting of the revolution he had done his share for his country. Instead of guns and cannons he used an easel and a paintbrush - he felt it was his duty as a painter to record this event as the revolutionists felt it was their duty to fight. The artist was touched by the three days of revolt by the upper-class, the middle-class, and the lower-class in France all fighting to overthrow Charles X to show their outrage of the violation of the constitution and thus he paid honour to this event by providing a historical recount of French history.
Eugene Delacroix
Delacroix wanted to paint ‘Liberty Leading the People’ to take his own special action in the revolution and his colour technique combined his intense brushstrokes to create an unforgettable canvas.
Delacroix main compositional device is the pyramid shape; the figure of Liberty is the peak and the dead fighters below her form the base. This pyramid technique balances out the hectic and crowded canvas.
To connect the heroine Liberty with the fighting people, Delacroix uses the same colour of her dress on the neck tie of a revolutionist and his colours are repeated used throughout the canvas to create unity, representing that of the revolutionists.
Eugene Delacroix
Eugene Delacroix
It is said that the Statue of Liberty was inspired by Delacroix's very own personified character of Liberty in his ‘Liberty Leading the People’. A gift from France to New York City, the Statue of Liberty was designed by Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi and was constructed just 50 years after Delacroix's masterpiece. The statue, with a raised right arm holds a torch proudly, very similar to the pose in which Liberty holds the French flag.
Conclusion The most direct influence of Romanticism was Neoclassicism, but there is a twist to this. Romanticism was a type of reaction to Neoclassicism, in that Romantic artists found the rational, mathematical, reasoned elements of "classical" art (for example, the art of Ancient Greece and Rome, by way of the Renaissance) too confining. Not that they didn't borrow heavily from it when it came to things like perspective, proportions, and symmetry. No, the Romantics kept those parts. It was just that they ventured beyond the prevailing Neoclassic sense of calm rationalism to inject a heaping helping of drama. Romanticism wasn't like Dada, whose artists were making specific statements about WWI and/or the pretentious absurdities of the Art World. Romantic artists were meant to make statements about anything (or nothing), dependent on how an individual artist felt about any given topic on any given day. Francisco de Goya's work explored madness and oppression, while Caspar David Friedrich found endless inspiration in moonlight and fog. The will of the Romantic artist had the final say on subject matter.