Art & Value

Monetary Versus Sentimental Value Versus Intrinsic Value
There are many ways to describe the value of an object, whether it’s a work of art or anything else. One of the simplest to understand is in terms of money. We understand concepts like 50 cents, five euros, twenty, fifty, a couple hundred, 15,000, 30,000, 75,000, 150,000, etc. We know intimately, what it takes and how long it takes to save up these amounts, and what one typically saves it for: a piece of candy, a nice dinner, clothes shopping, a new car, a really nice new car, a new house…
But, sometimes money isn’t enough to describe value, because money is all about buying and selling ––replacement value – not the love you feel for something that can’t be replaced. This sentimental value can make an ordinary object a treasure––to you. It could be a childhood toy, or blanket, a first car, a favorite hat, or, even an artwork. Sentimental value usually doesn’t raise the monetary value, but there can be exceptions. If you own something that’s rare and famous, and you refuse to sell it, despite many people begging to buy it off of you, then the price can climb dramatically.
But, intrinsic value is different. It’s a value based on quality, immediately recognized and prized by everyone. When an artwork is excellent, people want it, even if they don’t know who made it. It’s not the sentimental love we have based on nostalgia, like your first videogame that no one else cares about, or the teddy bear your mom gave you when you were five. Intrinsic value is what makes art extremely valuable. It’s what makes the artist famous, it develops a reputation as a serious, knowledgeable, intelligent creator. Sometimes intrinsic value doesn’t match with monetary value – if you find an incredible artwork by someone no one’s ever heard of, you might be able to buy it cheap. When this happens, you’re lucky, and you should go for it, because if and when that artist becomes famous, the value will skyrocket.

Factors to Value:

Quality: So, no matter what other factors come into play, a primary question has to do with the quality of an artwork. People don’t just want a work by that famous painter or sculptor, they want her best, most famous work. They want the one that’s most memorable, with the greatest message and emotional impact, that’s most representative of the artist, the magnum opus. That one will always demand the highest price.

Taste: This is why prices can rise and fall quickly. Taste represents changing trends. When an artwork is finished, the quality will never change, but people’s appreciation of it can change. Taste is problematic for many reasons. People form their tastes partially by worrying what others will think, and how they will be judged. Many art collectors today see art as a business investment. With many competing art movements to choose from, many collectors argue over the definition and meaning of great art, not as a philosophical issue, but a financial one––they don’t want to lose their money.

Materials: In terms of value, materials play the smallest role. The quality and name of the artist make the most difference. If an artwork is of high quality, it is worth much more than the cost of the materials. However, materials can affect the price as well. In terms of high prices, few artworks are more popular than oil on canvas. An oil painting will almost always demand more money than a watercolour or drawing by the same artist, or any other work on paper. It’s assumed that paintings allow for a greater range of colour and texture than works on paper, and require more time to finish, and are therefore greater artworks. It’s not necessarily true, but that’s the trend. Acrylic may look like oil, and might sell for as much, but some collectors fear it as a new material, which may degrade or spoil over time. Oil paint is seen as time-tested, having been used by all the greatest artists in history.
A finely crafted sculpture may demand a higher price, but collectors typically prefer paintings because it’s easier to collect and store many of them. Sculptures take up more space.

Size: Generally, the larger an artwork, the more expensive it is.

Artistic Fame: This is probably most important in determining price. The same artwork could fetch a wildly different price if made by a famous artist. Many people consider this unfair, without considering all the work and thought that artist did in order to become famous. Anyone has the opportunity to become a famous artist, but only a few ever do so. One can argue that certain artists have become famous for silly and unethical reasons, such as Richard Prince, who took other people’s photos from Instagram, and sold prints for over $90,000. And, it’s true that the art market often helps these artists, as investor-collectors try to find new trends to profit from. But, the main reason why an artist’s name makes the work valuable is because, like any other consumer brand, that name tells you the artist was a dedicated professional, who spent her life making the best art she knew how, demanding the highest quality from herself, and only selling the best of her creations. A great artist won’t put her name on everything she does, only what she feels worthy of selling.

Dealer Status: There are some art dealers in the world who are famous for their great eye in spotting new talent. If they like your work, they will commission you to make new art for their gallery. If they like your work and showcase it, they can demand very high prices, even if you’re a new artist, and relatively unknown. Dealers like Saatchi have made many young art students into stars, helping them make millions of dollars.

Originality: Originality is important in art, although this concept can lead artists into making poor choices. Originality must still include quality. A new idea isn’t necessarily a good one. Artists should beware of gimmicks, which are silly, thoughtless ideas, meant more for selling a work than making it great. As an example, there’s an artist who 3D prints miniature sculptures, that you need a microscope to see. They don’t look so nice, but they’re really small. The 20th century saw an explosion of different artistic movements and styles, almost like a race to see who could think of the newest, most original idea. This race is still ongoing, but it’s important to also recognize the originality and subtle differences in the work of the past, between masters in the same genre, such as Monet and Renoir, or Frans Hals and Rembrandt. There are characteristics that make their art unique and original, you just have to look a bit closer.

Historical Significance: Historical significance is closely linked to originality, as I described above. There are many expensive artworks that have only one claim to fame–– they were the first to come up with the idea. Examples include blank canvases, Duchamp’s “Urinal” sculpture, and Manzoni’s “Artist’s Shit” in a can. When historical significance combines with a really good idea, such as the mystery of Mona Lisa’s smile (one of the first portraits to show any emotion in the sitter’s face) then the work can become priceless.

Provenance: Of all the factors in raising a price, this is the silliest to me, and it’s mostly about bragging rights. Provenance is the history of who owned an artwork after it was made. If an artwork was highly valued and owned by a famous person, say a politician, or a businessman, then the work becomes even more expensive. People who own it can say, “Hey, this was owned by a Kennedy,” or, “This used to hang in Rockefeller’s office.” It may be silly, but it matters to collectors.

Methods of Sale
How an artwork is sold can also affect it’s price.

At Auction: This form of sale typically demands the highest price, but it’s risky, because you never know if people in the audience will like a particular work of art. It can also take a lot of time to prepare and advertise.

In a Gallery: This form of sale is more open for change, based on demand. It’s generally more expensive, because the gallery charges a large commission (usually 50% of the price) for storing and showcasing the art.

Direct From the Artist: This is usually the cheapest and simplest way to get an original artwork, and you can request commissions as well. Artists are usually desperate for money, and will be happy to get artwork out of their studio.

On the Black Market: This can be even cheaper, depending on the artwork and people involved, but then you have to deal with criminals. It’s a situation where everyone involved is desperate. The thieves want as much money as possible, but they know they have to be very secretive, or they will be caught by police. And, if the artwork is famous, the buyer may be desperate to save the work. So, the price depends very much on negotiating skills.

Typical Prices

Works on Paper (Drawings, Prints, Photos, Watercolour): Usually, if a work on paper is of exceptional quality, it can demand between $100-200, even if the artist is unknown, or a student. That’s a base price for an original artwork. If the artist is a professional, known locally, that price could go up to $500-1000, and if the artist is known internationally, they can ask anything for it. People and galleries are often willing to demand ridiculously high prices, and waiting twenty, fifty, even a hundred years before selling it at that price. Having said that, I imagine few works on paper are regularly sold at over $100,000. But, I could very well be wrong.

Painting on Canvas: A high quality work by a student or unknown artist could fetch between $150-500 for a smaller canvas, and maybe around $500-2,000 for a larger one. The materials involved for such a painting usually cost around $150. You can make a business out of this if you make high quality works on a regular basis, and can find people ready to spend so much for your work. This usually requires finding galleries, who are only interested, if you’ve worked long enough to establish your name–– typically requiring around ten years of constant painting. Famous paintings by internationally renowned artists regularly sell for over $1 million, and some for over $50 million.

Sculpture: The price of a sculpture can vary greatly depending on material, size, and all the factors listed above. Stone can be very expensive and hard to work with, typically demanding a higher price than wood, clay, or plaster. Any metal that requires casting, such as bronze or silver, also demands a higher price. But again, what’s most important is the artist who makes it, and the quality involved. A great artist can make a masterpiece of clay, whereas a student could ruin a bronze sculpture, and the result would be worthless. I imagine a small, quality sculpture by a student could fetch between $200-1000, depending on the material, and where it’s sold. From a famous artist, we’re again talking about millions.

Murals: Murals are very hard to sell because they’re large, and they are painted on walls, so they’re impossible to move. Artists are usually commissioned to make them, so the price may have more to do with the cost of materials, and the artist’s living expenses. It’s rare to find an artist so famous that she can demand a high price for a mural. Often, it’s the artist who finds the perfect wall, and begs the owners, or town for permission to paint there.

Neoclassicism – The French Revolution in Art (1780-1820)

Some notes taken from Dr. Beth Gersh-Nesic, Dr. Claire McCoy, Ben Pollitt, Dana Martin, and from Khan Academy.

What was it about? What were the goals?
Neoclassicism was a complete rejection of Rococo – visually, ethically, socially, etc. They wanted their work to be serious and important, not frivolous or silly. It wasn’t supposed to please you, it was supposed to impress you. In design, neoclassical artists rejected graceful ornamentation and asymmetry of form, instead going back to the same stark simplicity and symmetry of the renaissance (i.e. Michelangelo).
     Neoclassical art promoted ideas of the time in which it was made, the Age of Enlightenment. This was a time of science and reason, encouraging people to think logically and to observe the natural world in order to learn and better oneself. They emphasized clarity of line, as used by the baroque artist Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665), because they saw line as logical while colour was too emotional. They illustrated stories from ancient Greece and Rome where ethics and reputation mattered, with virtues such as bravery and sacrifice, not simply living for pleasure.

A bit of historical context:
There are a couple simple ways to think of Neoclassicism: that it was a rejection of the monarchy in favour of a democratic revolution, and that it rejected Romantic notions of love and emotions, in favour of enlightenment logic. The problem is, it’s not that simple. For one thing, neoclassical artists had a lot of romantic notions. Secondly, the most important Neoclassical artists started their training under a monarchy, and got money for their training straight from the king, whom they supported. An artist who supported revolution, as David did, had to do so secretly.
     He joined the most extreme faction of the revolutionaries, the Jacobins. These were the leaders who decided to kill the king and queen of France. And, when the revolutionaries turned on the Jacobins, David was one of the lucky few they didn’t kill immediately, instead imprisoning him in, of all places, the Louvre. As the French revolutionaries spread their fight across Europe, they found a hero in their new general Napoleon, and he recognized David’s talents, released him, and commissioned him for several paintings, signifying Napoleon’s rise as the new emperor of Europe.
     Okay, so why did these artists look to ancient Greece and Rome for inspiration? Well, it had to do with ancient politics and philosophy, notions of nobility and heroics––the Greeks were all about heroes, and David saw Napoleon as “mon héros”. The Greeks and Romans used democracy to grow and expand for hundreds of years. They didn’t suffer kings. Plus, new archaeological excavations in Pompeii made it fashionable. For the first time Europeans could see how the ancient Romans lived, with all the buildings and artwork preserved. The greatest philosopher of the period, Johann Winklemann, was also an archaeologist who studied Greek and Roman art. He’s the one who first divided ancient art into different periods. Wealthy aristocrats went on “grand tours” through Italy to view these ancient wonders. It led to a new movement in neoclassical decorative design and art.

The underlying philosophy of the period:
Like with the Romantics, these artists felt they could teach and inspire people by providing them with morally upright images, telling stories of virtue. Neoclassical artists revered reason and logic in their stories, using heroic examples––people who did the right thing. These artists idealized their subjects (made them look beautiful) because, like the ancient Greeks, they saw a perfectly proportioned, athletic body as a symbol of moral virtue.

Was it simply copying Michelangelo or Poussin? How was it different?
Many of these artists, including David, travelled to Italy to copy from Michelangelo, Caravaggio, and others. Still, it’s fair to say that neoclassical art does hold some differences that distinguish it. Neoclassical artists picked and chose their favourite works from classical antiques, the renaissance, and the Baroque, and blended styles. One can see the anatomy of Michelangelo mixed with the light and shadow of Caravaggio, the costumes of Poussin, and so on. The results usually capture a moment, frozen in time. There’s not the same sense of movement as in Rococo painting. The poses feel like poses. Despite the emphasis on natural figures, few of the works really feel natural––there’s this otherworldly monumentality to the scenes. It’s a form of theatre, of idealization and nostalgia. In sculpture, there’s a higher level of polish and delicacy than is normally present with Michelangelo (excepting the Pieta). The muscles and proportions aren’t so exaggerated. Neoclassical sculptures are lighter, softer, and more refined––like that of Bernini, but without all the action. They’re more introspective.

Was it great?
In general, absolutely. There’s a great deal of power and drama to these artworks. Neoclassical artists had a specific goal in mind, and they achieved it. You can argue over the merits of their ideas–– patriotism over love, idealizing the tyrant Napoleon––and you can criticize the work itself as cold, sterile, frozen, unnatural, unnerving, sometimes cloying, even silly. But, even at its most ridiculous (Napoleon as the god of war) it’s still technically amazing. And, it’s worth noting how evocative their works can be, despite favouring reason over emotion. There is also a great selection of neoclassical sculptures by lesser known artists at the Louvre that is underrated and worth studying.

How was it represented in other arts?
Neoclassical architecture was immensely popular all across Europe and Britain, even coming to America (Canova even carved a sculpture of George Washington). Greek architecture was used to design homes, churches, museums, and so on. In Paris, Napoleon commissioned the Triumphal Arch and the Pantheon in this style, signifying his new empire. Besides this, the movement spread into furniture design (often labelled as ‘empire style’), Wedgwood ceramics, fashion, etc. Neoclassical literature was a big hit, with satirists like Jonathan Swift and Alexander Pope, who referenced classical stories in their works.

Some leading figures:
Angelica Kauffman (1741-1807)
Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825) – The leading figure of the movement
Antonio Canova (1757-1822) – sculptor
Antoine-Jean Gros (1771-1835)
Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1780-1867)
Jean-Louis Ernest Meissonier (1815-1891)
Frederic Leighton (English, 1830-1896)
Lawrence Alma-Tadema (English, 1836-1912)
Godward, John William (English, 1861-1922)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time: 

'Oath of the Horatii', by Jacques-Louis David, in 1785.

This painting shows three brothers pledging to fight Rome’s enemies, the Curatii of Alba. Rather than go to war, Rome and Alba chose to send three champions each to fight instead. Of the three brothers, only Publius survived, killing all three Curatii. To the right, the women of the Horatii weep – their family had been friends with the Curatii, and one sister, Camilla was engaged to one of the three enemy brothers. After the battle, Camilla cursed Rome so that Publius, in anger, killed her himself. The painting represents the importance of duty and loyalty over personal feelings––it’s supposed to be a virtue.
     Although this scene had been painted before, this new style was revolutionary. The modelling of figures is clear and precise. The wispy Rococo brushstrokes are gone––you can’t even see brushstrokes. The colours are muted, the poses of the men are straight and rigid as they, and the rest of the scene stand in flat profile, like a Roman frieze. The composition is divided into three arches, symbolizing the three brothers, with the vanishing point converging on the swords in the centre. The work emphasizes order, balance, and stability, a visual metaphor to explain the importance of the characters defending their home.

'The Death of Socrates', by Jacques-Louis David, 1787

Here, Socrates has been found guilty and his punishment is to drink a cup of poison. He could have fled, but chose to drink the cup in order to teach a lesson to his students, who sit with him, on the importance of honouring the law. In this painting, Socrates doesn’t fear death, believing in an afterlife. David changed this story a bit to add drama. He removed many people from the scene to make it simpler. While Plato was a young man at the time, he’s portrayed here as the old man sitting at the foot of the bed.

'Psyche Revived by Cupid’s Kiss', by Antonio Canova, 1787

This is a scene from The Metamorphoses of Apuleius, in which Cupid brings Psyche back to life with a kiss. It’s considered one of the greatest neoclassical sculptures.

'The Death of Marat', by Jacques-Louis David, 1793.

Marat was a book publisher who supported the French revolutionaries. He was killed by an assassin in his bath––a visitor who had asked to interview him, but then took out a knife and stabbed him. Her name was Charlotte Corday, and, although she also supported the revolution, she did not follow Marat’s extreme views. During her trial, she called him a monster.

     David’s painting of the event uses Christian symbols to portray Marat as a martyr. The pose mimics many Pieta depictions of Christ. David emphasized the knife wound, similar to that in Christ’s side during the crucifixion. In this image, Marat is idealized. He didn’t look this good in real life, he had a skin disease that required medicinal baths. The setting and drapery in the room is simple. There is nothing ornate to suggest he was rich or materialistic. The way he was painted is clear and sculptural, giving a sense of stillness, and nobility, similar to Greek sculpture.

     This work isn’t simply a memorial to Marat, it’s a call for a new social order, with a new contemporary story, a new secular martyr (the revolution sought to do away with the church), and even started a new calendar. In David’s signature, we don’t see 1793, but “year two” as in the second year of the revolution.

'Napoleon Crossing the Alps', by Jacques-Louis David, 1800-1.

This painting shows Napoleon on horseback, leading his soldiers up a mountain. The work commemorates Napoleon’s victory over Austria at the battle of Marengo. The horse rears on two legs as Napoleon points, telling us, the viewers, which way to go. He and his horse fill the canvas, dominating the view. The strong diagonal lines of the horse and mountain are counterbalanced by the clouds on the right. Napoleon’s name is carved into a rock, next to Hannibal and Charlemagne––a list of famous commanders who likewise led armies over the Alps and on to victory. It’s a dramatic image of a powerful emperor, riding a fiery horse over dangerous terrain. It’s also a lie. Napoleon actually followed his troops over the Alps, a couple days later, and rode in on a mule (much more practical for rough terrain). This painting is exactly the kind of propaganda Napoleon loved. This painting was first commissioned by the Spanish King Charles IV, but Napoleon loved it so much he ordered three more, to be hung in different parts of his empire. David completed a fifth to hang in his studio.

'Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi, Presenting her Children as Her Treasures', by Angelica Kauffman, 1785.

This scene of a mother presenting her children serves as a moral lesson for the viewers. A visitor has come to show off her latest present, a gold necklace. She then asks Cornelia if she has anything comparable. Cornelia answers by presenting her children. Cornelia is a role model of virtue, and as a result her children, Tiberius and Gaius, grew up to be successful politicians and champions of the common citizen.

'The Repentant Magdalene', by Antonio Canova, 1794-6.

This sculpture shows Magdalene living alone as a hermit, dressed in rags, after the death of Jesus. Her pose, clothing, and body show her not as a calm, peaceful, idyllic figure, but as a humble, grieving, and suffering woman. The work was originally made in Venice, but a politician there sent it to Paris as a gift to Napoleon. It was very popular, partly as it showed France’s return to the Catholic church, after a decade of bloodshed as the revolutionary government separated from the church, took back all the church’s lands, and killed countless priests and nuns. The sculpture coincided with a new pact between Napoleon and the Pope. This Magdalene was also popular for her grief at the loss of Jesus, a pain and sorrow many French citizens felt, for the loss of so many loved ones, first during the revolution, and then the Napoleonic wars.

Orientalism (1800-1870) - Romanticism Goes On The Road

What was it about? What were the goals?
The art of eastern (oriental) cultures, was a major influence in European taste and style, becoming a popular genre of painting in the 19th century, as part of the Romantic movement. Oriental refers to any culture outside of Europe that was considered exotic, particularly in the Muslim and Asian worlds. Many European artists travelled to the orient to find subjects to paint, going to North Africa, the Middle East, and as far as India, China, and Japan. One of the first was Jean Baptiste Vanmour (French, 1671-1737) who lived and painted in Turkey.
Oriental painting is unique for several reasons:

1. Practically all Orientalist painters were academically trained in composition and human anatomy, and displayed a high level of technical skill and realism.

2. It's often hard to see a personal style in many Orientalist works. It's hard to tell by looking, who painted what, unless you know the artists really well.

3. There's a sense of timelessness to Orientalist works. With little reference to modern technology or influences, these artists presented a nostalgia for older times and traditions.

A bit of historical context:
The Romantics were not the first to portray Muslims and other ethnicities. There are examples from medieval times up to the Baroque. But, Romantic Orientalists invested whole careers to the notion of travelling and presenting different, exotic people and their ways of life. Their works became fashionable, and many Europeans, including Lord Byron commissioned portraits in oriental dress. The Pre-Raphaelite, William Holman Hunt, travelled the orient in order to study the clothing and architecture, to use in his paintings of the Bible, to give the scenes a more realistic interpretation.
Like all genre names, the term Orientalist began as a critic's joke, but soon stuck. Orientalist painters took pride in their subjects, even forming the Society of Orientalist Painters in 1893, with Jean-Léon Gérôme (the greatest Orientalist painter) as their first president. The golden age of Orientalism is over, although there are artists like Scott Burdick who paint some works in this genre today––no art genre ever really ends.

The underlying philosophy of the genre:
So, like with all Romantic endeavours, there’s a certain amount of idealism here, and a certain amount of failure. The ideal comes from artists who wanted to see and learn about the world beyond their borders, to get to know other societies and traditions and compare them to their own, contemporary, “normal” lives. They wanted to better know themselves by seeing how they might be different if brought up in another environment. And, they wanted to find a new aesthetic based on the importance of tradition and stability, of strict rules and codes.
The failure comes from (sometimes) misrepresenting the places they painted, while eroticizing and fantasizing about their subjects, all of which came from varying amounts of prejudice.

What makes it controversial?
Many today see signs of arrogance and discrimination in European Orientalist art and studies. One scholar, Edward Said, wrote a famous book on the subject, Orientalism (1978), explaining how Orientalism was a western invention, based on prejudice and outsider-interpretation. He claimed it portrayed a fictional world, rather than the real one. He said that writers, particularly in French literature, showed the orient as static, unchanging, and undeveloped, while the west was rich, rational, flexible, and superior. Said complained that this prejudice had political ramifications. It, “. . . enables the political, economic, cultural and social domination of the West, not just during colonial times, but also in the present.”
It’s true that many Orientalist works feature harem scenes, slave markets, and nudity. At the same time, it’s also worth noting that, while these great artists were travelling the orient in search of beautiful, traditional scenes to paint, other westerners were looking to profit in less ethical ways, through exploitation of the people, their history, and their resources.

Was it great?
Technically, compositionally, yes it was great––absolutely. These were some of the greatest academically trained artists in history. So far as intentions and subject matter, I would say the work is still great, although it’s debatable how you were supposed to look at the works at the time, versus how you might consider them now. Take a painting of a slave market, for example. There’s a pale, beautiful, naked woman presenting herself shyly to a group of (older) men. Why was this painted? Was the artist concerned with the rights of women in the Middle East? Was slave trade like this still going on at the time? Was he trying to portray the people in that region as sexist and backwards? Or was it a lurid fantasy for European men to wonder at this lifestyle where pretty young women could be bought and sold like animals? It can be hard to say if the artist was criticising or promoting the idea. The best of these works confront the viewer with these same questions, and treat the figures with an air of respect and dignity, naked or not.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?
Besides artists, many writers, linguists, and historians also traveled to these regions, becoming "Orientalist scholars." Oriental architecture has been fashionable in Europe at different times. Examples include the Royal Pavilion in Brighton, England, the Red Mosque in Schwetzingen, Germany, and the Chinese Tower in Munich.

What’s an Odalisque?
This is a French word for a Turkish chambermaid. Oda means room (or chamber) in Turkish. But, the word came to mean a concubine of a sultan. An odalisque is basically a slave woman.

Some leading figures:
Jean Baptiste Vanmour (French, 1671-1737)
Antoine-Jean Gros (French, 1771-1835)
Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres (French, 1780-1867)
Eugène Delacroix (French, 1798-1863)
John Frederick Lewis (English, 1804-1876)
Jean-Léon Gérôme (French, 1824-1904)
William Holman Hunt (English, 1827-1910)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

'Bonaparte Visiting the Plague Victims of Jaffa', by Antoine-Jean Gros, 1804

Antoine-Jean Gros was a neoclassical painter and student of David. Napoleon commissioned him to paint this to show his support for his soldiers, some of whom contracted the plague while in Syria. It was also supposed to disprove a rumour that he had given these dying men fatal doses of opium – as if a painting could ever prove that! Apparently, he suggested this as a mercy killing to the troops, but the head doctor refused.

     The work borrows several ideas from David’s Oath of the Horatii, such as the three arches above, each framing a different part of the story, and the stark lighting and muted colours. Napoleon stands in the middle, with the brightest light falling on him. He touches one of his sick soldiers, signifying his fearlessness and devotion to his men (touching a plague victim was considered suicide at the time). In the background, we can see the defeated city of Jaffa with its walls surrounded in cannon smoke and a French flag flying above.

'Murat Defeating the Turkish Army at the Battle of Abukir', by Antoine-Jean Gros, 1806

This painting tells the story of how the French defeated the Turks in Abu Qir, Egypt, in 1799. It was a great victory, where the French forces were able to drive their enemies into the sea, killing many of them as the Turks tried to swim to their British allies, whose boats could not get close due to shallow waters. Over 4,000 Turks drowned, and they suffered over 9,000 casualties to the French 820. Murat was the cavalry general, and was able to personally capture the Turkish commander by riding into his tent. This commander shot Murat in the jaw, nearly killing him. Luckily, he was operated on and was fine the next day, receiving a promotion.

'The Massacre at Chios', by Eugène Delacroix, 1824

This painting depicts a dark time in Greece’s long struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire. In 1822, some Greeks went to the island of Chios, attacking a small Turkish outpost. In response, Turkish soldiers went to the island and killed over 50,000 civilians, over a period of four months, including any children under three, any men over 12, and any women over 40. About 20,000 people were able to flee. The remaining 50,000 people were taken into slavery. Delacroix painted this as part of a wave of protest and anger that spread throughout Europe, leading to their support of Greece, and its eventual success in securing independence in 1830. If you look at the work, you’ll see there are no heroes here to save the victims from their slaughter. There was only suffering and hopelessness.

'Greece, on the Ruins of Missolonghi', by Eugène Delacroix, 1827

This is another work where Delacroix shows the plight of the Greeks as they suffered a slaughter, this time after a long siege in the town of Missolonghi. Around 8,000 Greeks died. Greece here is symbolized by the kneeling woman in front, who uses common Christian iconography, such as her blue and white dress (after the Virgin Mary).

'The Turkish Bath', by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, 1862

This is a painting Ingres made at the age of 82. It depicts a harem of white young women, lounging nude in a large bath house. Ingres made it, apparently, as a way to show he was still virile, despite his age. Having never travelled to “the orient”, Ingres’s work doesn’t try for any realistic depiction of a Turkish harem, and is instead a Eurocentric male fantasy.

'Solomon’s Wall in Jerusalem', by Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1867

This painting shows people praying at the Western Wall, also called the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. This is all that stands of King Herod’s Second Temple, built between 516 BC and 70 AD, after the Babylonians destroyed Solomon’s Temple in 586 BC. So, this isn’t really Solomon’s Wall – it’s Herod’s. But, it’s in the same place. Much of this temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, in retaliation for the Jewish revolt. A Third Temple has never been built.

The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (1845-1890)

Some notes taken from Dr.’s Rebecca Jeffrey Easby, Chloe Portugeis, Steven Zucker, and Beth Harris, all from Khan Academy and Jason Rosenfeld from the Tate Gallery.

What was it about? What were the goals?
This was a British art movement, started by three artists in 1848, that protested against the Royal Academy in London, and the high renaissance art of Raphael and others, favouring instead earlier works like that of Paolo Ucello, Piero della Francesca, and others. Pre-Raphaelite artists wanted to go back to before Raphael, and develop art in a different direction, ignoring chiaroscuro, and favouring large flat areas filled with patterns, details, and brilliant colours. They also imbued their paintings with symbolism. Every object included takes on a second, hidden meaning.
     They developed a wet white-ground technique, and took their canvases outdoors to copy as many details from nature as possible. They were following the art critic John Ruskin’s advice to “go to nature in all singleness of heart . . . rejecting nothing, selecting nothing, and scorning nothing.”
The three core members, Hunt, Rossetti, and Millais recruited four more artists into their brotherhood, a kind of secret club, and then sent artworks to the Royal Academy’s exhibits in 1849-50. At the same time, they produced an art magazine called The Germ. Critics, including Charles Dickens, hated them. Rossetti was so upset he never exhibited his art publicly again. But, luckily, John Ruskin supported them, allowing them to gain respectability.
     The group quickly fell apart as Hunt and others moved away, and then Millais joined the Royal Academy in 1853, which Rossetti saw as a betrayal. Millais became very popular and eventually became president of the Royal Academy.

A bit of historical context:
While the art of this short-lived brotherhood may look quaint and old-fashioned today, it was a forerunner for other acts of rebellion that would lead to modern art. A small group of artists rebelled against the establishment, developed a new aesthetic and new techniques, and won, taking over the Royal Academy. It was an inspiration for the Impressionists and other later movements. Also, since Rossetti and other Pre-Raphaelites later supported the Aesthetic Movement, or “Art For Art’s Sake”, this was an important stepping stone on the road to modern art – where artists abandoned the idea that art should be limited to illustrations of famous stories that promote good morals.

The underlying philosophy of the period:
Their belief in the importance of beauty above all else led to the “aesthetic movement”, which protested the moralizing of both romantic and neoclassical painting. A pretty picture should be enough. It was a radical idea during the proper and prudish Victorian era. Rossetti, Burne-Jones, and Whistler were the most prominent artists of this movement. While Ruskin had supported the Pre-Raphaelites, he rejected this notion, feeling that art should be moral and useful, promoting truth. He hated Whistler.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?
These movements were small with few parallels in other arts. The only notable exception was furniture design, with “aesthetic” furniture consisting of ebony stains, gilding, and Asian influences.

What made it great?
These artists were extremely skillful and had great vision. They made works that captured the imaginations of their viewers, filling each work with both detail and mystery. Since many of their works involved figures with no stories, it was up to the viewer to try and create one. These artists knew how to create a mystery, simply from the inscrutable expressions of their subjects’ faces.


The three founding members:
William Holman Hunt (1827-1910)
Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828-1882)
John Everett Millais (1829-1896)

Other Pre-Raphaelites:
Ford Madox Brown (1821-1893)
Charles Allston Collins (1828-1873)
John Roddam Spencer Stanhope (1829-1908)
Sir Edward Burne-Jones (1833-1898)
William Morris (1834-1896)
John William Waterhouse (1849-1917)
John Maler Collier (1850-1934)
Kate Elizabeth Bunce (1856-1927)
Eleanor Fortesque-Brickdale (1872-1945)

Some of the most famous artworks of the movement:

'Isabella', by John Everett Millais, 1849

Millais painted this when he was just nineteen. It was inspired by the San. Benedetto Altarpiece by Lorenzo Monaco. If you look at Isabella on the right, with her love, Lorenzo, their pose mirrors that of two saints in Monaco’s work. The story of Isabella and Lorenzo comes from Bocaccio’s Decameron, a book of short stories written in 1353, but it was re-popularized through a poem written by John Keats in 1818. Isabella was the sister of two wealthy, Florentine merchants. Lorenzo was a clerk working for them. He and Isabella fell in love, and you can see at this party, he stares at her intensely. Her brothers noticed too, and decided to take Lorenzo into the woods, kill him, and bury him. Lorenzo’s ghost came back to Isabella, and led her into the forest where he was buried. She dug him up, but he was too heavy to lift. So, she cut his head off and took it home, where she buried it in a pot of basil. She loved the plant very much. You can see her callous and pretentious brothers on the left side, one hurting the dogs, while the other examines his wine.

'Ophelia', by John Everett Millais, 1852

This shows the death of Ophelia, the love of Hamlet in Shakespeare’s play. She’s drowned herself in a river. The detailed scene doesn’t detract from the main figure––it’s as if nature herself has provided a floral display for her funeral. The violet flowers around her neck symbolize her faithfulness and chastity. This work was painted outdoors. In fact, Millais was threatened with a law suit for walking through a farmer’s field and destroying the hay. His model lay in a bathtub for hours, and eventually caught cold, so Millais had to pay her doctor’s expenses. The result of all this is one of the most famous Pre-Raphaelite paintings.

'Our English Coasts (Strayed Sheep)', by William Holman Hunt, 1852

This painting was quite unique when it was painted for its asymmetrical composition, showing so little of the sky. Painted outdoors in Hastings, it is filled with colour and details and captures the sunlight beautifully. Surprisingly, there’s a hidden political message here, referring to the dangers of France’s new Napoleon III and England’s largely unguarded shores. There is no shepherd in the work, and the sheep, symbolizing the British, are alone on dangerous ground. That it was painted in Hastings was no accident, as it was on this shore, in 1066, that Britain lost in battle to the invading Normans.

'Work', by Ford Maddox-Brown, 1852-65

This work offers a snapshot of different social classes in Victorian England. Working-class labourers repair the road, while poor orphans play down below in the foreground. On the left, two upper-class women walk by, one offering a religious pamphlet to the workers. In the background, two rich men ride on horses. The two men on the right were Maurice and Carlyle, whom Brown referred to as “brainworkers”. They were writers. This work meant to identify the plight of the working class, their nobility, and the need for change, for better working rights and conditions.

     One reason this work took so long to paint: Ford brought his canvas out to the middle of the street in Hampstead every day to work on it. He wanted every detail to be true to life. Although considered a Pre-Raphaelite, his works show a more contemporary interest, particularly in how England was changing.

'The Awakening Conscience', by William Holman Hunt, 1853

This painting portrays a “fallen” young woman, who is having a secret, and improper affair with this man. We know this because she is not fully dressed, nor is she wearing a wedding ring – her situation is also symbolized by the cat playing with a bird under the table. Luckily, the song the man plays on the piano (Thomas Moore’s Oft on the Stilly Night) reminds her of her childhood and causes her to jump up, finding a newly awakened conscience, so that she will leave the man and save her reputation. The idea of a woman falling into sin and prostitution was a popular subject at this time, but this picture is unique in offering her redemption, whereas most women were ostracized by their families and died young, in the cold. Hunt was a religious man, and presented morals in his work.

'Nameless & Friendless', by Emily Mary Osborn, 1857

This work shows a young painter with her little brother, in an art dealer’s shop. He’s looking at one of her works, appraising it, and considering whether to try selling it. As the two siblings are dressed in black, they’re likely orphans. Several clues indicate she will be rejected. While the dealer has a free chair, he doesn’t offer her a seat. A similar boy and girl walk out the door behind them, into the rain, likewise rejected. Most of the perspective lines in the work point to the door. The title of the work also suggests rejection. This work shows the hard times women artists had being taken seriously in a male-dominated art world.

'The Lady of Shalott', by John William Waterhouse, 1888

This work was seen as a Pre-Raphaelite revival. Waterhouse was inspired by them, viewing a retrospective of their works in 1886. The Lady of Shalott was actually the subject of two poems by Alfred Lloyd Tennyson, a favourite of the Pre-Raphaelites. In the story, the young woman is cursed, never allowed to leave her room nor look out the window. Instead, she looks out through the reflection of a mirror, and weaves what she sees into a tapestry. One day, she spies Sir Lancelot through her mirror, and falls in love. So, she decides to leave her castle and hop in a boat on a river down to Camelot to be with him. Unfortunately, she dies in her boat along the way, fulfilling the curse.

     One way in which this work differs from the Pre-Raphaelites is in Waterhouse’s looser, more impressionist brushwork, leaving many details unfinished. This “Frenchification” of English artists was a growing trend that worried English critics.

The French Barbizon School – France’s Other Impressionists (1830-1880)

Some notes taken from Dita Amory for the MET Museum, and from the Walters Museum.

What was the Barbizon School? What were its goals?
This was a group of artists (not a formal school) who met and worked in the village of Barbizon, due to all the unrest (and cholera) in Paris during the 1848 revolution. These artists were connected by a common style, and by their interests, which lay somewhere between Romanticism and the newly emerging Realism. They were inspired by the English painter Constable, who painted outdoors and made nature his main subject, not merely a backdrop to the action; Constable showed his works in the 1824 Salon de Paris. Barbizon artists wanted to portray the French landscape with the same energy and enthusiasm. Since they were living in the countryside, they also began painting peasants and scenes of village life. Their common style consisted of loose brushwork, soft forms, and an earthy colour scheme.

It’s funny to see how each artist focused on different aspects of village life around them, almost like they were fighting over territory. Troyon painted cows. Jacque painted sheep. Dupre focused on trees and skies. Rousseau painted panoramic landscapes. Millet focused on peasants and farmers. Daubigny painted rivers, even building a floating studio he called his “little box”. You can imagine them at a table arguing over who would paint what.

A bit of historical context:
This is a lesser known group of artists, in between major movements. They were friends with romantic painters, like Corot who came to visit, and the later impressionists who also came to Fontainbleau to paint. When you see their works and loose brushwork, you see that the impressionists weren’t quite so revolutionary after all. You’d have a hard time telling apart some of their works, and you might even say that some of the Barbizon painters became impressionists themselves, especially as they also painted outside.

The underlying philosophy of the school:
These artists wanted to celebrate the nature and countryside of France. They also wanted to preserve it, campaigning for the government to create nature preserves in their Fontainebleau area.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?
It wasn’t.

Was it great?
Some of the works of these artists are truly breathtaking, especially their greatest pieces that were meant for Paris salons. Then, there are also a lot of sketches and less inspiring works. This is a point in art history where collectors started saving everything, the good and the bad, so it’s a bit like seeing an artist’s dirty laundry. Romantic poets of the time were treated similarly––every little scrap of poetry was saved. Barbizon painters make a good case study in landscape composition with common mistakes and how to fix them. Some people might complain of repetition, but if you love nature, these artists deliver.

Some leading figures:
Narcisse Virgilio Díaz de la Peña (1807-1876)
Constant Troyon (1810-1865)
Jules Dupré (1811-1889)
Théodore Rousseau (1812-1867)
Charles-Emile Jacque (1813-1894)
Jean-François Millet (1814-1875)
Charles-François Daubigny (1817-1878)
Henri-Joseph Harpignies (1819-1916)
Jeanna Bauck (Swedish, 1840-1926)

Some of the greatest artworks of the school:

'The Little Bridge in the Forest', by Théodore Rousseau, 1828-30

Painted between the ages of sixteen to eighteen, this highly detailed and brightly coloured forest scene was one of his first works to appear in the Paris Salon, where he would struggle for acceptance for the next two decades. Between 1836-41 he was rejected nine times. The Neoclassical jurors rejected him as a romantic, but he was popular in the press. Note how his style will change over time.

'The Outskirts of Granville', by Théodore Rousseau, 1833

This wild landscape, painted in great detail, was another of his earlier works, and shows a great deal of John Constable’s influence. One can see a pair of children walking along a road while a farmer stops by a pond to let his horses drink. But these figures are small and far away. The main subject is the wild landscape with hills and rocks and scraggly trees.

'Crossroads at the Eagle's Nest, in the Forest of Fontainebleau', by Charles-François Daubigny, 1843-44

This work shows one of Daubigny’s first works after moving to Barbizon, before his style changed. Here, he works with the same colours and attention to detail as Rousseau. We see a dark, shadowy forest scene with a man and his dog walking along a road. We get a glimpse of a sunny clearing beyond the trees. Daubigny came from a family of painters and was a friend to Corot, Monet, and Cezanne.

Landscape near Crémieu, by Charles-François Daubigny, 1849

Another of Daubigny’s earlier works, this painting again demonstrates his attention to detail, and his love for capturing natural sunlight. This work shows a horse carrying a heavy load along a rocky road, while behind him, on a dramatic cliff, we see the wall of a town, and a bright clear sky above. Stark shadows along the road and under the trees highlight the intense beat of the sun.

A Cow in a Landscape, by Constant Troyon

This work is a study of Troyon’s favourite subject, cows. Note the difference in the highly detailed cow, and the loose, blurry background, which is there more for contrast than anything else. Note how the dark trees on the left bring out the brightness of the cow’s white back, while the light green trees around its head make a kind of halo effect, its bright white face and dark features creating a focal area of high contrast.

Dogs in the Chase, by Constant Troyon, 1853

Troyon developed greatly after travelling to the Netherlands to paint in 1846. He was influenced by the works of Potter, Cuyp, and Rembrandt, and studied them extensively. When he came back to Barbizon he made a name for himself as an animal painter. This study of two white dogs shows a painterly brushwork reflecting his years of childhood working as a porcelain painter at Sevres.

Fox in a Trap, by Constant Troyon, 1855-65

This study shows a fox howling in pain, its paw caught in a hunter’s trap.

The Big Valley of Optevoz, by Charles-François Daubigny, 1857

This work shows Daubigny’s progress after fourteen years at Barbizon. The work, showing a river with a high bank on the right, and a few small trees on the left, shows how his brushwork loosened up. There’s still attention to detail, but it feels more open and painterly. Ironically, the work feels more realistic than his earlier, more detailed works, due to his direct observation of the sky, and capturing the colours exactly as one would see them in real life. The work mirrors what you would expect from any of the early impressionists.

Forest Interior, by Théodore Rousseau, 1857

This work exemplifies Rousseau’s style after working many years in Barbizon, after he gave up on salon acceptance and went off in his own direction. It’s hard to believe this is the same man who painted The Little Bridge in the Forest, thirty years earlier. The colours and impasto brushwork are so wild and expressive, it looks post-impressionistic. Still, impressionists would have complained of his use of black.

The Sheepfold, Moonlight, by Jean-François Millet, 1860

This work shows a window into the solitary life of a shepherd as he gathers his sheep at night. Millet said, “Oh, how I wish I could make those who see my work feel the splendours and terrors of the night! One ought to be able to make people hear the songs, the silences, and murmurings of the air. They should feel the infinite. . . .”

'Starry Night,' by Jean-François Millet, circa 1850-65

I'm just showing this in case you thought Van Gogh came up with this idea all by himself. Millet painted this at least twenty years earlier.

Spring, by Jean-François Millet, 1868-73

This work was part of a series Millet worked on, illustrating the seasons. He painted a work devoted to summer, but died before he got to winter. This work includes all the important elements of spring: stormy weather and rain leading to fresh green grass and blossoming trees. A solitary farmer in the back represents man’s proper relationship with nature, respecting it while building his road, orchard, and fences.

The Old Oak, by Jules Dupré, 1870

This work exemplifies many of Dupré’s paintings, with a loose, impressionist style, focusing on singular trees, with an emphasis on the shifting warm and cool colours of the scene.

A Shepherd and His Flock, by Charles-Emile Jacque, 1880

Jacque painted many works of sheep. This is probably his best, with the stark light showing off his mastery of detail in the textures and colours of these sheep. A shepherd in the mid ground leads a mass of sheep to the right, towards the viewer. They’re in a wide open landscape. A grey day that threatens to rain, while a bit of sun peeks through, hitting the man and the sheep around him. His light colours behind the dark grey sky highlight him as well.