(Hopeless) Romantic Art

Some notes taken from Dr. Noelle Paulson, Christine Zappella, and Khan Academy.

“Romantic artists start with the belief that human imperfection is caused by imperfect societies. Unfortunately, this often leads them to believe they can improve people by smuggling improvements into society through the Trojan Horse of art.” – Brad Holland

What was it about? What were the goals?

Romanticism was an artistic and intellectual movement that started in the second half of the 18^th century and continued all through the 19^th. It was a reaction against the Age of Enlightenment, in defence of the passions and emotions which enlightenment philosophers rejected. Caspar David Friedrich said, “the artist’s feeling is his law.” Rousseau said, "To feel is to exist. And, our feelings come, most incontestably, before our thoughts."

Romanticism wasn’t simply about love or devotion. They explored all emotions: excitement, awe, anger, fear, horror. It’s all part of the human experience. Romantic artists felt that emotions were just as important to humanity as logic, and that to ignore one’s emotions was to live a lie. So, they looked for the emotional impact of everything they painted. They sometimes painted classical and Biblical themes, but also about modern life and problems. Romantics lamented the changing landscape, as the industrial revolution transformed it with factories and urban slums. Romantic artists rejected Classical art (in general), finding inspiration and nostalgia in medieval European stories. They also explored supernatural ideas and spirituality – believing there was more to the universe than what we could see through science. One other thing they rejected was the hero worship of neo-classical art. Gone are the morally upright role models. Instead, most of the figures in romantic paintings face insurmountable problems and mysteries, with no clear answers. The artist Gericault even focused on portraits of the insane.

About the name:

It’s funny that romantic comes from Rome, and yet romantic art was anti-classical (rejecting Greek and Roman art). In the 18^th century, romantic was used to mean natural, having to do with beautiful landscapes and sunsets. So, romantic art wasn’t Roman. It’s just another bad label for an art movement.

A bit of historical context:

In Europe, the romantic period, 1780-1880, was a time of turmoil, poverty, revolution, and injustice. Romantics hoped to change the world with their art, to guide people in a better direction––this is what Brad Holland was joking about.

The Hudson River School:

This was America’s companion to European romanticism. These artists painted beautiful landscapes along the Hudson River in New York. They studied the beauty and mystery of American nature.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Romantic literature got its start with British poetry, with writers like William Blake, Wordsworth, Lord Byron, and John Keats writing some of the greatest works in English literature. Gothic novels were also popular, such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The best known romantic authors today are Jane Austen, Sir Walter Scott, Charles Dickens, Edgar Allen Poe, William Hawthorne, and Herman Melville.

Romantic music is also considered some of the best of all time, with works by Brahms, Dvorak, Chopin, and others still being played today, all around the world.

Due to nostalgia for medieval Europe, architects began a Gothic Revival. Famous examples include the Palace of Westminster (containing the houses of parliament) in London, the houses of parliament in Budapest, and the church of St. Ludmila in Prague.

What made it great?

Romantic artists were incredibly skilled. Their vision and imaginations were vivid and exciting. They were ambitious, making huge, iconic masterpieces that are some of the most well-known and loved in art history.

Some leading figures:

Henry Fuseli (Swiss-English, 1741-1825)

Francisco de Goya (Spanish, 1746-1828)

William Blake (English, 1757-1827)

Pierre-Paul Prud’hon (French, 1758-1823)

Caspar David Friedrich (German, 1774-1840)

Joseph Mallord William Turner (English, 1775-1851)

John Constable (English, 1776-1837)

Jean Louis Theodore Gericault (French, 1791-1824)

Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot (French, 1796-1875)

Ferdinand Victor Eugène Delacroix (French, 1798-1863)

Jean-Léon Gérôme (French, 1824-1904)

George Inness (American, 1825-1894)

William Adolphe Bouguereau (French, 1825-1905)

Thomas Moran (1837-1926)

Ferdinand Keller (German, 1842-1922)

Edmund Kanoldt (German, 1845-1904)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

The Nightmare, by Henry Fuseli, 1781

This painting shows a monster (sometimes called an imp, incubus, or mara) that sits on his victim’s stomach as she sleeps, causing her to have a nightmare, and suffocating her. The demonic horse may be a part of her dream or a friend to the mara. This painting has no moral lesson. Its goal is to frighten you with wonder at the dark mysteries of life.

The Abbey in the Oak Wood, by Caspar David Friedrich, 1809-10.

This painting shows a funeral procession, as a line of monks carry a coffin into a ruined abbey for burial, at twilight. It’s the dead of winter and the few trees surrounding the ruin are tall, stumpy, gnarled, and bare. The mood is quiet and sombre. There’s an uncomfortable tension created by the dark forest beneath and the cold grey sky above, with its sickly yellow highlight. The tree branches seem to point up like arthritic fingers. Everything looks incredibly old, and the painting illustrates the vastness of time, and our tiny place in the universe. Human time is represented by the ruined abbey and the funeral. Natural time is shown with the old, tortured trees. And cosmic time is shown by the crescent moon, barely visible in the centre right sky. It’s the only positive element in the work, as it reminds us of cycles and rebirth. This painting exemplifies how Romantics viewed nature and landscapes – not as simple pretty trees, but as metaphors for life and universal mysteries. It’s not just a funeral in the woods in winter. It asks larger questions about where we come from, where we’re heading, what exists beyond death, etc.

The Third of May, 1808, by Francisco de Goya, 1814

In this painting, part of a series, Goya protests the war crimes of Napoleon in Spain. France and Spain had signed an alliance, allowing Napoleon to send his army through to war with Portugal. But, it was a trick, and Napoleon quickly used his army to depose the king and install his brother, Joseph Bonaparte, as the new king of Spain. When the people of Madrid rebelled, they were massacred. This image shows Spanish patriots being shot by a French firing squad, at night. A lantern casts an intense, spiritual light on the main figure, a martyr who takes on a Christ-like pose with his hands above his head. His hands even bear stigmata marks, like Jesus did.

This painting was one of the first to portray war as terrible, not glorious or noble. There’s no honour in these killings, no fair fight. It’s a mass execution, a war crime, and the closeness of the faceless killers to their victims emphasizes the brutality of their actions. This work represents Goya’s own opinion, not that of the state or church, and all this explains why some people consider this “the first modern painting”. Additionally, instead of the Neoclassical approach, this work is more painterly and gestural: figures are loosely painted and unfinished, almost blurry, giving a sense of motion and night-time vision.

The Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog, by Caspar David Friedrich, 1818

This painting shows a man who has hiked up one of the Elbe sandstone mountains (between Germany and the Czech republic) and views the land around him. The foggy landscape represents a metaphor of the mysterious world in which we, and the man in the painting, live. We can contemplate that mystery, but who knows if the fog will ever lift?

The Raft of the Medusa, by Jean Louis Theodore Gericault, 1818-19

This painting illustrates a terrible tragedy and political scandal. The Medusa was a French ship taking settlers to Senegal. It ran aground at sea and sank, and there weren’t enough life-boats (same situation as the Titanic). The captain and all the other wealthy passengers took the life boats, and promised to tow the other passengers on a raft built by one of the carpenters, using wreckage from the ship. But, the captain soon saw that they couldn’t tow such a large raft so he cut the rope, leaving over 150 people to drift away. These people quickly resorted to murder and cannibalism and only fifteen survived over thirteen gruesome days.

Gericault put a lot of research into this painting. He interviewed the survivors, he had carpenters recreate the raft in his studio, he modelled clay figures to organize his composition (which captures the same feel as Ruben’s works), and even brought in body parts from a morgue to study dead and decaying flesh. The people on the raft show a level of detail reminiscent of the renaissance and Greek statues, but it’s still more painterly and gestural than Neoclassical works, and gone is any sense of moral lesson or virtue. This painting shows humanity in its worst, most desperate state. It shows the struggle between man and nature to survive. It also shows the failure of the recently restored monarchy, since the ship’s captain was appointed by the new King Louis XVIII. Politically, the painting served as a metaphor for France, and many Frenchmen felt they were all on the raft of the Medusa, having witnessed the failure of their revolution and empire.

Saturn Devouring One of His Sons, by Francisco de Goya, 1822-3

This painting tells the story of Saturn, god of time, eating one of his sons to try to avoid a prophecy – that one of his sons would one day kill him and take over as king of the Gods. Goya painted this to decorate his own home, and it makes a political statement – the ruler abusing and destroying his own children to remain in power. Goya saw this happen countless time in Spain, from the King to Napoleon, and so on. If you look at Saturn’s face, you’ll see the desperation and pain in his eyes – he knows what he’s doing is wrong, he knows it’s a terrible situation and he hates it too, it’s the fear that makes him do it. Goya saw many parallels to this in politics, the question being, how long can we let this continue?

The Death of Sardanapalus, by Eugène Delacroix, 1827

This painting is based on a play written by Lord Byron, in which Sardanapalus was an Assyrian king. He devoted his life to a decadent lifestyle of parties and orgies, and he had a large harem. This angered his people and they rebelled, joining forces with rival city states, and laying siege to him, at his city of Ninevah. Rather than let his enemies take his women, he had them all killed and burned with him in a large funeral pyre, filled with all his most precious treasure. As with most Romantic takes on history, there’s no evidence Sardanapalus really existed.

Liberty Leading the People, by Eugène Delacroix, 1830.

This painting celebrates the second revolution that took place in 1830, and the “three glorious days” when rebels barricaded streets in Paris, and overthrew the Bourbon king Charles X. The bare-chested woman waving the flag represents the spirit of France. This celebration was premature. Charles X was deposed, but a new “citizen king” named Louis-Philippe took power until he was also deposed in 1848, leading to yet another coup and empire under Napoleon III. All this goes to show how frustrating politics was in France. So much fighting and death and revolution to put down an old order and create a democratic republic, only to have it ruined again and again.

Cubism & Picasso

“This was a movement started by Picasso and Braque to distinguish their work from what Cezanne had already done, but failed to give a name to. In Modern Art, naming your art movement is a must. Cubism is still the most important art movement for the same reason that John D. is still the most important Rockefeller. All the other art movements are like downtown Rockefellers, and you can forget about them unless you expect to encounter an art category on ‘Jeopardy’.” – Brad Holland

What was it about? What were the goals?

In Cubist artwork, objects are analyzed, broken up and reassembled in an abstracted form—instead of depicting objects from a single viewpoint, the artist depicts the subject from a multitude of viewpoints (and points in time) to represent the subject in a greater context. It’s a form of puzzle making that’s supposed to tell you “the whole story” while at the same time suggesting, you might not really know this subject as well as you thought. Don’t judge by appearances.

Not all Cubists had the same goals. Kupka and Delaunay painted purely abstract, non-representational images, meant to express metaphysical ideas. This subgroup was labeled Orphism.

A bit of historical context:

This movement began around 1907 in Paris with Picasso and Braque, who developed the idea. The name came from a critic who made fun of what he called “cubic oddities.” Fun fact, the first cubist exhibition in 1911 showed neither of these artists’ works, instead showing off that of their followers. This was due to the core members signing a contract with the art dealer Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler. He promised them an annual salary, for the right to buy all their artworks and sell them through his gallery. So, they became known as the Kahnweiler Cubists, while the rest were called the Salle 41 Cubists.

Cubism made a big splash in the art world, inspiring and influencing a host of movements that came right after: Futurism, Suprematism, Constructivism, Dadaism, Art Deco, and De Stijl. Ideas borrowed include simultaneity––fusing the past, present and future, multiple perspectives, combining various materials including found objects, and simplifying forms to their basic geometric shapes.

In the Forest, by Paul Cezanne, 1898

A primary influence of Cubism was Paul Cézanne, who had many exhibitions in Paris in that time, up to and after his death in 1906. He once said, “. . .treat nature by means of the cylinder, the sphere, the cone, everything brought into proper perspective so that each side of an object or a plane is directed towards a central point.” Another big influence was Gauguin who, although dead, was also represented in some big art shows in Paris at that time. This spurred Picasso’s interest in tribal art and African masks.

Another influence was Da Vinci, who wrote about the golden ratio (used to make ideal compositions). Certain Cubists, like Metzinger and Gleizes, felt this ratio was so important they called themselves the Section d’Or.

Cubism wasn’t exactly political, but it was politicized. Conservatives complained in 1912 that public funds were being used to put up a Cubists art exhibit (with over 200 works and a “cubist house” installation) at the Grand Palais in Paris.

Concept Design for the Cubist House, by Raymond Duchamp-Villon, 1912

The artists were defended by socialists in the government. The debate led Gleizes and Metzinger to write Du Cubisme that year, a book defending their movement.

Cubism went out of fashion in the 1920’s as Surrealism developed, but it keeps popping up in our visual culture. It’s been used frequently in advertising, and even in film composition.

The underlying philosophy of the period:

Good question. Everyone knows about Picasso, but there were a number of other artists who dabbled in cubism, like Marcel Duchamp, Le Corbusier, and others, who wanted to define it for themselves. So, the definition depends on who you talk to, or whose manifesto you read. One core idea of the movement was that you don’t know the world as well as you think you do. You should look closer.

Some ideas about cubism relate a lot to other movements of the time, such as that art was much more than simply decoration. Metzinger wrote that decoration was “antithesis of the picture. The true picture bears its raison d'être within itself. It can be moved from a church to a drawing-room, from a museum to a study. Essentially independent, necessarily complete, it need not immediately satisfy the mind: on the contrary, it should lead it, little by little, towards the fictitious depths in which the coordinative light resides. It does not harmonize with this or that ensemble; it harmonizes with things in general, with the universe: it is an organism...”

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Cubism branched out into literature and architecture. The most famous Cubist architects were Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier, who later distinguished his style of Cubism by labelling it Purism. In Purism, objects weren’t broken up into little pieces, but merely simplified to their basic outlines.

Vertical Still Life, by Le Corbusier, 1922

The result appears Cubist, but is much easier to read. You can tell what the objects are. These designers used simple, geometric shapes, industrial materials, and lots of glass to make playful, odd, and often towering new buildings that defy description. Cubist ideas mixed with Futurism, De Stijl, and Purism around this time, which is why we typically think of these buildings as simply Modern.

The Assembly Building in Chandigarh, India, by Le Corbusier, 1950’s

Centre Le Corbusier in Zürich-Seefeld, by Le Corbusier, 1967

The most famous Cubist writers were Gertrude Stein and Pierre Reverdy. They used repeated words and phrases as building blocks to write poems and even novels. While it might sound silly or nonsensical, like Dada or Surrealism, it’s supposed to be based on a strict structure, and with a deeper intended meaning.

Was it great?

It was big – really big. Cubism took off all around the world, and inspired many, many people and new movements. Was it great? Some of it, sure, this was a great experiment, with successes and failures, innovative ideas and copycats. I think Picasso, among other things was a genius cartoonist. Much of what he made can be viewed as abstract cartoons, and in that, he was one of the best that ever lived.

What’s up with Picasso? Was he overrated? Misogynist? A narcissist? Does it matter?

It’s hard to say exactly why Picasso is so famous today, because there are many reasons. It’s not simply hype, but he did get lots of it. It’s not simply shock value, although his work was shocking. One answer is he was prolific. He made over 50,000 artworks in his life, including 1,885 paintings, and 1,228 sculptures. Pablo had to create. Even when he was young and poor, he’d paint over the same canvas two or three times, no matter how good the previous works were. He’d work mostly at night, while no one would bother him.

He was versatile, working in many different styles at once––he wasn’t simply Cubist. He also had an incredible imagination, working almost entirely from memory. He never hired models, only painting people he knew, mostly his wives and mistresses. And this brings us to misogyny...

Two factors played into the young Picasso’s views on women. First, as a teen in Barcelona, he and his friends spent time with prostitutes. Second, his best friend, Carlos, was impotent and fell in love with a model. When she rejected him, he shot himself (he almost shot her too, but she got away). This affected Picasso deeply, triggering his blue period of painting. It may have also reinforced Picasso’s apparent mistrust in women, which caused him to jump from one relation to another.

Olga in an Armchair, 1918

Picasso’s first wife was Olga Khokhlova, a Ukrainian ballet dancer. After nine years, Picasso befriended a 17 year-old girl, Marie, whom he would eventually have an affair with, and get pregnant (when she was 26).

The Red Armchair, 1931

Olga wanted to divorce, but Picasso refused to divide his property in half, as required by law, so she stayed married to him till her death in 1955. Marie described posing for Picasso as some of the greatest moments of her life. He was charming, excited, and made her feel special. Even afer he left her, she spoke fondly of him. Four years after Picasso died, Marie committed suicide.

Meanwhile... as soon as Marie got pregnant, Picasso fell for another woman, a young photographer named Dora Maar.

Bust of a Woman, 1938

When the two women confronted him at his studio, and asked him to choose, he said they should fight it out among themselves, and they did! They started wrestling for him. Picasso called it one of his choicest memories. It didn’t matter, Picasso kept seeing both women until Dora eventually had a nervous breakdown and left him. For what it’s worth, Picasso paid for both women’s living expenses.

After seven years with Dora, Picasso fell for another young artist named Françoise Gilot.

Woman’s Head, 1946

She was 21 and he was 61. They moved to the south of France, and lived together for ten years, having two children, although they couldn’t marry. Things grew tense when Picasso’s former mistresses came to visit and Olga even moved nearby. Gilot had enough, and was the first woman to leave Picasso. When they broke up, he instructed every art dealer he knew to never sell Gilot’s paintings, ruining her career. And, according to Wikipedia, he allegedly abused her and Dora physically. Years later, Gilot wrote a best-selling book about Picasso, which he tried to get banned, and angering him so much he threatened to cut their children out of his will (he actually never made a will, causing all his relatives to battle over his estate).

After leaving Gilot, he married Jacqueline Roque (she was 26 and recently divorced, and he was 72).

Crouching Woman, 1954

She played hard to get, and so Picasso gave her a rose a day for six months before they started dating. They married, and stayed together till the end of his life. Moving into a new home, they stopped seeing friends and even his former children. Jacqueline protected him from distractions so he could devote the end of his life to his art, drawing right up to the moment he died in bed. But, it was more than that, Jacqueline was jealous of his other mistresses and families, refusing to let them attend his funeral. One grandson was so upset about this he drank a bottle of bleach and died. And, in 1986, Jacqueline also committed suicide, shooting herself.

One of the harshest critiques comes from his own granddaughter, Marina, who wrote, “He needed blood to sign each of his paintings: my father’s blood, my brother’s, my mother’s, my grandmother’s and mine. He needed the blood of those who loved him––people who thought they loved a human being, whereas they really loved Picasso.”

So, what does all this tell us about Picasso, and his art? For Picasso, painting wasn’t simply about image making but about loving and exploring his fascination with the women in his life. He was literally putting them on a pedestal. It was devotional, but also a recipe for disaster, for two reasons. Picasso wasn’t seeing these women for who they really were. He was idealizing them, so when they did or said something that upset him, it was a shock––what, this girl isn’t perfect? I’ll find another. Gilot remarked, “Throughout this long relationship, ten or eleven years, I remained just as much of a mystery to him as I was on the first day.”

And then, no matter how great a “muse” you find, you can’t just paint it over and over the rest of your life. You get bored, you always want to paint something different. I’ve painted a favorite view two or three times, but then I always say, okay, never again, it’s time to move on. You can’t do that to the people in your life. For Picasso’s women it came as a terrible shock––you loved me so much yesterday, I was on a pedestal, how can you have forgotten so quickly?

And what did all these women see in him? One friend said he had these powerful eyes that saw right through you. 

Portrait of Picasso, by Salvador Dali, 1930

But, you can’t really answer this without knowing the man. Some people are very critical of Picasso now. Comedian Hannah Gadsby sees him as the art world’s Donald Trump, quoting Picasso as saying, “Each time I leave a woman, I should burn her. Destroy the woman, you destroy the past she represents.” That sounds pretty bad, but it’s worth noting he didn’t do that, he financially supported all these women (at least until Jacqueline put an end to it), and was most likely joking.

He was also a human rights activist, painting anti-war artworks that were used in fundraisers in support of democracy and freedom. Picasso was a womanizer with an eye for younger women, and at least one claims he hit her. But, almost everyone around him loved him, and wanted to be with him. All these family members committed suicide after he died because they couldn't stand to live without him. That’s not his fault, is it? Who knows, maybe to some extent it is, it certainly feels cultish, but you still wonder, to what extent is it fair to blame the man for being so charismatic and fascinating?

Some leading figures:

Frantisek Kupka (1871-1957) founded Orphism

Francis Picabia (1879-1953)

Henri Le Fauconnier (1881-1946)

Albert Gleizes (1881-1953)

Fernand Leger (1881-1955)

Pablo Picasso (1881-1973)

Georges Braque (1882-1963)

Jean Metzinger (1883-1956)

Bohumil Kubišta (1884-1918)

Robert Delaunay (1885-1941)

Tamara de Lempicka (1898-1980)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

'Les Demoiselles d’Avignon', by Picasso, 1907

'Girl with a Mandolin', by Picasso, 1910

'The Portuguese', by Georges Braque, 1911

'Bottle of Vieux Marc, Glass, Guitar, and Newspaper', by Pablo Picasso, 1913

'Josette', by Juan Gris, 1916

'The Accordion Player', by Gino Severini, 1919

'Three Jazz Musicians', by Pablo Picasso, 1921

Rococo Art - France Takes the Lead

Some notes taken from Dr. Jean S. M. Willette, Dr. April Renée Lynch, The Met’s exhibition of Chardin, and from Khan Academy.

What was Rococo about? What were the goals?

Rococo art was a fashionable art trend that catered to the rich, elite aristocracy. These people dedicated their lives to leisure, throwing parties, having affairs, gossiping, and spending absurd amounts of money on luxuries like clothing, mansions, music, and art. So, Rococo art reflected their lifestyle. Unlike Baroque art of the past, this art was silly and humorous, rather than serious or religious. It was also highly flattering, so portraits were in high demand. While Rococo artists continued to use Greek myths for subject matter, it was seen more as an excuse to show erotic nude women, rather than teach ethical lessons. You could argue that all mythical paintings are voyeuristic, but the Rococo was more open about it.

Rococo still faces a lot of criticism today. Some feel it’s tasteless, others that it’s not historically significant. And, of course, it was built on the backs of the poor who suffered under aristocracy. Nevertheless, Rococo art, while old-fashioned, shows incredible craftsmanship, draughtsmanship, and beauty.

Where did Rococo get the name?

While no one knows for sure, it’s assumed to be a play on words, combining the French words rocaille, meaning rock and coquilles, meaning shell. Rocks and shells play a prominent role in Rococo decoration.

A bit of historical context:

Rococo began as a protest against Baroque architecture. Rococo artists and designers felt it was too grand, rigid, and symmetrical. They wanted their works to be more graceful, delicate, ornate, floral, and flowing. They also felt that interior design should be carefully planned so that every part of a room from floor to ceiling matched, as one big work of art. Rococo was also strongly influenced by Chinese art and design.

While the most famous Rococo works and artists are French, it traces its roots back to Italian architects of the late Baroque, for example Borromini. Many such architects were hired by French and German princes to build new structures, where this new Rococo style developed. While the English rejected Rococo in architecture, they used it in decorative arts such as silverware, ceramics, and furniture. Rococo art died along with aristocracy during the French Revolution. New political forces needed a new type of art – the Neo-Classical. All the greatest writers of the Age of Enlightenment – Voltaire, Rousseau, and Diderot, all lambasted the Rococo.

The underlying philosophy of the period:

The Rococo is best seen as a protest against the Baroque aesthetic, in an attempt to develop a new, better form of beauty that would define an age of pleasure. Philosopher, Madame du Châtelet said, “We must begin by saying to ourselves that we have nothing else to do in the world but to seek pleasant sensations and feelings.” Rococo art explored themes about love, and romance, often excusing infidelity.

Rococo aesthetics were best explained by the English artist, William Hogarth, in his controversial book, The Analysis of Beauty, in 1753. Hogarth argued that beautiful art consisted of six qualities: fitness, variety, regularity, intricacy, simplicity, and quantity. You might notice that these characteristics are at odds with each other. How can an artwork be both intricate and simple? Hogarth was arguing for a careful balance between these opposing qualities. He also advocated the gestural curving ‘S’ line, common to the Rococo, over the rigid straight lines of older styles.

The Anti-Rococo

Two important painters focused on scenes of the simple day-to-day life of commoners. Jean-Baptiste Greuze and Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin. Their work reflected the philosophy of Rousseau and Diderot, who considered them the only great artists of the age. They felt that people are inherently good, but that society corrupts us. Rousseau said, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Grueze and Chardin felt that simple farmers were more in touch with nature and therefore better. Although they’re referred to as “genre painters” for their scenes of domestic life, you can think of them as early Romantics, and they were both highly influential to later generations.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Rococo started in architecture, and moved into painting and sculpture as decorative touches to add to ornamented interiors and exterior gardens. Most of the great literature of the time ran counter to Rococo – the philosophers Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, etc. Music of the time falls into two categories, Galant music of the early Rococo, featuring Boccherini and various sons of J.S. Bach, and the Classical period with  Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven – one of the greatest moments in music history.

Was it great? Was it flawed?

In terms of craft, skill, composition, story-telling, and mood, it’s hard to criticize the leading artists of this period (although some of Watteau’s paintings are a bit clumsy. He was much better at drawing than painting). Its single greatest flaw was the philosophy behind it, the cruel ignorance and indifference of those rich enough to enjoy life, without a care or consideration for the poor and sick who couldn’t. Rococo art is a reflection of the very problems that led to the downfall of the social order. Although Marie Antoinette never actually said, “Let them eat cake”, when hearing of the starving masses with no bread––it was widely circulated that she did, and that was enough to anger people into cutting off her head.

Some leading figures, in chronological order:

Jean-Antoine Watteau (1684-1721) – considered the first great Rococo painter.

François Boucher (1703-1770)

Jean-Honore Fragonard (1732-1806)

Élisabeth Louise Vigée-Le Brun (1755-1842) – French portrait painter, famous for painting Marie-Antoinette

English Rococo Painters:

William Hogarth (1697-1764) – English portrait painter & humourist

Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792) – English portrait painter

Thomas Gainsborough (1727-1788) – English portrait painter

Anti-Rococo

Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin (1699-1779)

Jean-Baptiste Greuze (1725-1805)

Venetian Rococo

The Tiepolo Family – Giambattista, Domenico & Lorenzo, a father & sons team that painted large scale frescoes of religious and mythical scenes. Apart from their pastel colours, they share little in common with Rococo artists. I feel they’re mislabelled and should be seen as late Baroque masters.

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

The Palace of Versailles

This was a summer palace for the kings of France. It’s hard to say when it was finished, since kings and queens kept adding onto it, up to 1789 when Louis XVI and his queen Marie-Antoinette were dragged out and executed. Construction began in 1624, the Baroque period, by Louis XIII. Kings Louis XV and XVI added onto the structure, demolishing some parts they considered old-fashioned, rebuilding it in the Rococo style. Today, it’s one of France’s greatest museums, drawing around 10 million tourists a year.

The Pleasures of Love, by Jean-Antoine Watteau, 1717

This is a simple, idyllic scene of people enjoying a picnic and each other’s company.

The Rape of Europa, by François Boucher, 1747

Alternately called the Abduction or Kidnapping of Europa, this Greek myth is popular in art history, having been painted countless times. In this story, the beautiful young Europa is seduced by Zeus, who takes the form of a bull. She climbs on his back, and he swims to Crete where he shows his true form, and the couple have three children together. Europa becomes the queen of Crete. It’s unclear whether Europa was really raped, or merely seduced, but her blasé expression seems to indicate she’s okay with the situation. Needless to say, this painting is controversial.

The Swing, by Jean-Honore Fragonard in 1767

In this painting, there’s a man and woman who are having an affair. The woman gets some unsuspecting gentleman to give her a push on a swing. What he doesn’t know is her lover is hiding in the bushes below. As she spreads her legs for him, he gets a view up her dress. The garden surrounding them is filled with light and delicate details, and pastel colours. It suggests an immoral and carefree lifestyle.

The Diligent Mother, by Jean-Baptiste Chardin, 1740

This painting was a gift presented to King Louis XV, who eventually gave the artist a pension of 500 Livres a year. It shows a dutiful mother caring for her children while she sews, an example of moral virtue – the kind of work championed by Diderot, and a sharp contrast to Fragonard’s Swing.

 

The Father’s Curse: The Ungrateful Son & The Son Punished, by Jean-Baptiste Greuze, 1777

This painting shows a father cursing his son, as he goes off to join the army. In the second painting, the son returns home to find his father has died. The son is at fault here for deserting his family, who also need him to work and provide for them. When he returns his punishment is the shame and guilt of seeing his father dead, that he might have been saved if he had only been able to afford a doctor.