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.
No comments:
Post a Comment