Who were some politically and creatively challenging artists pre-1900s?
April 13, 2011 2:38 AM Subscribe
Who were some politically and creatively challenging artists pre-1900, before the Modernist movement?
Forgive me, for I am not particularly well versed in Art History stemming back before the 1900s.
I want to know if there were any particularly challenging visual artists in the 19th century and going back before that?
It feels like Western art was quite 'safe' in that it was more interested in depicting religious imagery, wars, courts, etc, etc, without really challenging societal ideals or artistic frameworks in any overt way.
I'm sure there must be some examples to the contrary.
Although I'd like some examples to do with painting, I'd also welcome examples from all the arts; poetry, music, literature, theater, and the like.
One example I can think of stems back all the way to Ancient Greece with the satirical theater of Aristophanes.
But please help me out here!
Forgive me, for I am not particularly well versed in Art History stemming back before the 1900s.
I want to know if there were any particularly challenging visual artists in the 19th century and going back before that?
It feels like Western art was quite 'safe' in that it was more interested in depicting religious imagery, wars, courts, etc, etc, without really challenging societal ideals or artistic frameworks in any overt way.
I'm sure there must be some examples to the contrary.
Although I'd like some examples to do with painting, I'd also welcome examples from all the arts; poetry, music, literature, theater, and the like.
One example I can think of stems back all the way to Ancient Greece with the satirical theater of Aristophanes.
But please help me out here!
Best answer: Most critically respected artists of the past challenged what went before them in one way or another. To pick just one movement take a look at the Northern Renaissance and the revolutionary artists working -
Heironymous Bosch
Pieter Bruegel the Elder
Grunewald
Hans Holbein
Geertgen Tot Sint Jans
They look like tame old paintings now, but there is nothing safe about Bosch, about Grunewald's Isenheim Altarpiece, Breugel's paintings of the seasons, the poor and the afflicted. Several volumes could be filled on Holbein. The still life and the landscape as standalone genres both came from the north during this period, as well as woodblock printing, engraving, and mass printing of books. These were huge developments. The first landscapes were painted by Albrecht Aldtdorfer. The still life was pioneered by Pieter Aertsen and his nephew Joachim Beuckelaer. Northern Painting was itself revolutionised by influences from Italy and the artists like Gossaert and Van Scorel who travelled there and learned a new way of painting.
Then there is Durer. Not many can match him for his revolutionary ideas. He developed the woodcut and engraving as we know them today. He too was one of the first landscape artists. He developed an early form of copyright with his monogram. Read about his shocking self portrait at 28.
These are "brown paintings" though. It's harder to understand the revolutionary qualities of art like this because its just a long procession of old looking paintings, to the untrained eye. Advances were slower and more subtle, but no less shocking or revolutionary in their time. It's far easier to understand the likes of Impressionism, Futurism, Der Blaue Reiter etc because they were so visually startling and modern in their approach. It takes application to spot and appreciate the evolution of art in the early modern period, but it is enormously rewarding. You should consult a general history of art textbook.
posted by fire&wings at 3:02 AM on April 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
Heironymous Bosch
Pieter Bruegel the Elder
Grunewald
Hans Holbein
Geertgen Tot Sint Jans
They look like tame old paintings now, but there is nothing safe about Bosch, about Grunewald's Isenheim Altarpiece, Breugel's paintings of the seasons, the poor and the afflicted. Several volumes could be filled on Holbein. The still life and the landscape as standalone genres both came from the north during this period, as well as woodblock printing, engraving, and mass printing of books. These were huge developments. The first landscapes were painted by Albrecht Aldtdorfer. The still life was pioneered by Pieter Aertsen and his nephew Joachim Beuckelaer. Northern Painting was itself revolutionised by influences from Italy and the artists like Gossaert and Van Scorel who travelled there and learned a new way of painting.
Then there is Durer. Not many can match him for his revolutionary ideas. He developed the woodcut and engraving as we know them today. He too was one of the first landscape artists. He developed an early form of copyright with his monogram. Read about his shocking self portrait at 28.
These are "brown paintings" though. It's harder to understand the revolutionary qualities of art like this because its just a long procession of old looking paintings, to the untrained eye. Advances were slower and more subtle, but no less shocking or revolutionary in their time. It's far easier to understand the likes of Impressionism, Futurism, Der Blaue Reiter etc because they were so visually startling and modern in their approach. It takes application to spot and appreciate the evolution of art in the early modern period, but it is enormously rewarding. You should consult a general history of art textbook.
posted by fire&wings at 3:02 AM on April 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
Jacques-Louis David his paintings may look staid now but he was very influential in changing tastes at the time and involved in the French revolution.
posted by SpaceWarp13 at 3:25 AM on April 13, 2011
posted by SpaceWarp13 at 3:25 AM on April 13, 2011
I'm kind of busy at work so I can't go into detail, but I had to bike in to mention William Blake.
posted by Ted Maul at 3:52 AM on April 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Ted Maul at 3:52 AM on April 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
It feels like Western art was quite 'safe' in that it was more interested in depicting religious imagery, wars, courts, etc, etc, without really challenging societal ideals or artistic frameworks in any overt way.
I think it's fair to say that artists* didn't have the same creative licence and freedoms that they began to discover and explore from around about the industrial revolution (things were happeing long before 1900; see Preraphaelites, for example).
It was difficult for an artist to directly comment on the politics and society of the time because they were mostly reliant upon the patronage of the rich and powerful to survive (and without them they had no audience). The vast majority of art was created for the ruling dynasties, merchants and the church and was imbued with the social and political motivations of the commissioners. What you see as 'safe' in subject matter and framework is therefore inextricably linked with the historical context of the time. Even the more 'radical' artists of their day have to be seen in this light; their work would not have survived without the support of the prevailing power structure.
That's not to say that all art before modernism was somehow neutral of political or social subtext, or that artists did not push boundaries and challenge norms, but modernism was, as you point out, a step change in the way that artists viewed and commented on society.
*Visual artists; I only know a little about painting, but I know even less about the other arts.
posted by londonmark at 4:23 AM on April 13, 2011
I think it's fair to say that artists* didn't have the same creative licence and freedoms that they began to discover and explore from around about the industrial revolution (things were happeing long before 1900; see Preraphaelites, for example).
It was difficult for an artist to directly comment on the politics and society of the time because they were mostly reliant upon the patronage of the rich and powerful to survive (and without them they had no audience). The vast majority of art was created for the ruling dynasties, merchants and the church and was imbued with the social and political motivations of the commissioners. What you see as 'safe' in subject matter and framework is therefore inextricably linked with the historical context of the time. Even the more 'radical' artists of their day have to be seen in this light; their work would not have survived without the support of the prevailing power structure.
That's not to say that all art before modernism was somehow neutral of political or social subtext, or that artists did not push boundaries and challenge norms, but modernism was, as you point out, a step change in the way that artists viewed and commented on society.
*Visual artists; I only know a little about painting, but I know even less about the other arts.
posted by londonmark at 4:23 AM on April 13, 2011
fire&wings said it, I think being one of the greats includes challenging prior ideas. Cervantes, Beethoven, Velazquez, they opened new ways in their respective fields and they definitely belong in the canon. How about Jonathan Swift? Dante? Raphael?
posted by valdesm at 4:24 AM on April 13, 2011
posted by valdesm at 4:24 AM on April 13, 2011
It feels like Western art was quite 'safe' in that it was more interested in depicting religious imagery, wars, courts, etc, etc, without really challenging societal ideals or artistic frameworks in any overt way.
You need to look at the details in those old paintings. Often, buried in the religious imagery, were subtle lampoons of the wealthy patrons and political/religious power-brokers of the day.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:55 AM on April 13, 2011
You need to look at the details in those old paintings. Often, buried in the religious imagery, were subtle lampoons of the wealthy patrons and political/religious power-brokers of the day.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:55 AM on April 13, 2011
Manet, Courbet, and other artists working during the various political upheavals in France in the mid1800s.
posted by Jason and Laszlo at 5:22 AM on April 13, 2011
posted by Jason and Laszlo at 5:22 AM on April 13, 2011
Who were some politically and creatively challenging artists pre-1900s?
Broadly, pretty much all of them were when compared to the average Joe. Being an artist, making art the center of your life, is a way of "challenging societal ideals" when compared to the many people who think artists are somehow doing something worth less than the utilitarian, forgettable things others spend their lives doing. Making things just because they look or sound good can be quite subversive. Who was painting animals on cave walls when he should have been out killing those animals?
Compared only to other artists, many of the greatest ones were ahead of their time artistically and often politically. Wordsworth and Beethoven, for example, may now be considered old-fashioned farts, but they were supporters of the French revolution and Napoleon (at least at first) and their art was innovative and daring for their times. They weren't exactly slaves to the establishment.
posted by pracowity at 5:30 AM on April 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Broadly, pretty much all of them were when compared to the average Joe. Being an artist, making art the center of your life, is a way of "challenging societal ideals" when compared to the many people who think artists are somehow doing something worth less than the utilitarian, forgettable things others spend their lives doing. Making things just because they look or sound good can be quite subversive. Who was painting animals on cave walls when he should have been out killing those animals?
Compared only to other artists, many of the greatest ones were ahead of their time artistically and often politically. Wordsworth and Beethoven, for example, may now be considered old-fashioned farts, but they were supporters of the French revolution and Napoleon (at least at first) and their art was innovative and daring for their times. They weren't exactly slaves to the establishment.
posted by pracowity at 5:30 AM on April 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
George Frederick Watts. Some paintings were overtly political (the minotaur represented the demand for child prostitution in London and Found Drowned was about urban poverty) even though many of his conventional paintings contained commentary. And I can't find an image, but his later works were very nearly surreal -- at least that's what I remember from a visit to his home / museum many years ago.
Unfortunately, I've never been able to find a lot of additional info on the web about GF Watts, but he was an amazing character and my favorite artist.
posted by motsque at 5:59 AM on April 13, 2011
Unfortunately, I've never been able to find a lot of additional info on the web about GF Watts, but he was an amazing character and my favorite artist.
posted by motsque at 5:59 AM on April 13, 2011
Even the Impressionists were considered artistic radicals in their day.
I specifically wanted to point to Goya, some of whose political art still resonates with modern artists. I saw two Goya exhibits last year, the second of which was paired with the Shinabare piece, and they really blew me away as a history geek as well as an art viewer.
posted by immlass at 6:16 AM on April 13, 2011
I specifically wanted to point to Goya, some of whose political art still resonates with modern artists. I saw two Goya exhibits last year, the second of which was paired with the Shinabare piece, and they really blew me away as a history geek as well as an art viewer.
posted by immlass at 6:16 AM on April 13, 2011
Best answer: Franz Xaver Messerschmidt and his character heads.
posted by hermitosis at 8:48 AM on April 13, 2011
posted by hermitosis at 8:48 AM on April 13, 2011
As others have noted there are many. For pure shock value, how about this image (1545) of a demon giving birth to the Pope? The context is the Protestant Reformation. Cranach worked with Luther and was only one of the many artists who made propaganda to attack the Catholic Church. While he did a great deal of printmaking he was also a painter. Here's a link to an image of one of his alterpeices, which can also be seen as propaganda supporting the Protestants.
posted by Cuke at 8:52 AM on April 13, 2011
posted by Cuke at 8:52 AM on April 13, 2011
Salvator Rosa (1615–1673) is an interesting case: he was something of a pioneer among painters in claiming artistic independence & was a prototypical role-model of the lone, tormented artist-as-rebel. He also wrote political satires.
posted by misteraitch at 9:19 AM on April 13, 2011
posted by misteraitch at 9:19 AM on April 13, 2011
Check out Daumier for some cutting political/social commentary.
Others have mentioned Goya; for some of his most blatantly subversive work, check out Los Caprichos, a series of etchings depicting aspects of society he loathed.
In general, the 1800s are my favorite chunk of art history because of how quickly everything changed. Photography burst onto the scene and not only began to free artists up from the social role of recording how things were, but also taught them new tricks of the medium. The industrial revolution made for a rich subject to explore. Man, there was so much going on! I highly recommend Rosenblum & Janson's book on the period.
posted by kitarra at 10:44 AM on April 13, 2011
Others have mentioned Goya; for some of his most blatantly subversive work, check out Los Caprichos, a series of etchings depicting aspects of society he loathed.
In general, the 1800s are my favorite chunk of art history because of how quickly everything changed. Photography burst onto the scene and not only began to free artists up from the social role of recording how things were, but also taught them new tricks of the medium. The industrial revolution made for a rich subject to explore. Man, there was so much going on! I highly recommend Rosenblum & Janson's book on the period.
posted by kitarra at 10:44 AM on April 13, 2011
The industrial revolution made for a rich subject to explore.
With all sorts of ironies: the railway network and the industrial production of synthetic pigments like cerulean blue meant that artists could escape the cities and industrial life, travel to the coast or medieval towns or small villages and paint those intense landscapes. Or the railway station.
posted by holgate at 2:30 PM on April 13, 2011
With all sorts of ironies: the railway network and the industrial production of synthetic pigments like cerulean blue meant that artists could escape the cities and industrial life, travel to the coast or medieval towns or small villages and paint those intense landscapes. Or the railway station.
posted by holgate at 2:30 PM on April 13, 2011
Wanted to reiterate that while a lot of 19th c. painting looks very traditional and boring, most of it is actually quite transgressive and politically rich. Beginning with David and the French Revolution, artists were making serious stylistic breaks with the past, as well as breaks in content. Throughout the 19th century, the artist became freer of his patrons and closer to what we understand artists to be today, making it a really fascinating period.
Other names to throw out there - Delacroix, Manet, Toulouse-Lautrec, etc. But overall, since, basically the beginning of time, there has been art that was seriously transgressive, even though to an untrained eye it may not look it.
I would strongly suggest the book the "Annotated Mona Lisa" for a picture rich crash course in art history, and a genuinely interesting and quick read. It's a really excellent book and will answer a lot of your questions, I think.
posted by annie o at 9:53 AM on April 16, 2011
Other names to throw out there - Delacroix, Manet, Toulouse-Lautrec, etc. But overall, since, basically the beginning of time, there has been art that was seriously transgressive, even though to an untrained eye it may not look it.
I would strongly suggest the book the "Annotated Mona Lisa" for a picture rich crash course in art history, and a genuinely interesting and quick read. It's a really excellent book and will answer a lot of your questions, I think.
posted by annie o at 9:53 AM on April 16, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
Anyway: for the mix -- Hogarth. Or El Greco. Or Goya. Or Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Or Manet's Olympia juxtaposed against the Rokeby Venus. It just takes a close look with a bit of guidance.
posted by holgate at 3:02 AM on April 13, 2011 [3 favorites]