The Great Art Debate

[TANGODANCER]

Does anyone know what the Pre-Raphaelite 'idea' actually was though? Other than a vague sense of rebellion against Joshua Reynolds and the art establishment at the time?
At any rate, the PRB was founded in 1848 (when other European countries were having proper revolutions) and was disbanded because of infighting (the curse of bohemian/left wing arty types since the dawn of time) by 1853. This painting by Rossetti in 1880 can scarcely be said to be part of that movement, such as it was, if you ask me.

The whole idea was re-creation of medieval times, hence, Pre Raphaelism, escapism back to days of fantasy and legend. This explains that quite well:

http://www.susanneangst.com/Pre_ralph/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[William the White]

https://www.artfinder.com/story/dante-g ... ream-1880/

William will love this, I am sure.

It's horrible...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

https://www.artfinder.com/story/dante-g ... ream-1880/

William will love this, I am sure.

It's horrible...

[Montreal Wanderer]

There was little wrong with the Pre-Rapealite idea. They just brought a little romanticism into what, in reality was basically an unromantic period in the Victorian era. Charles Dickens, known to them all, and indeed a part patron, was painting a whole different picture in words of the grim, bleak opposite side of life at the same time. Must admit, not one of Rosetti's finest facial attempts.

Does anyone know what the Pre-Raphaelite 'idea' actually was though? Other than a vague sense of rebellion against Joshua Reynolds and the art establishment at the time?

At any rate, the PRB was founded in 1848 (when other European countries were having proper revolutions) and was disbanded because of infighting (the curse of bohemian/left wing arty types since the dawn of time) by 1853. This painting by Rossetti in 1880 can scarcely be said to be part of that movement, such as it was, if you ask me.

The brotherhood may have disbanded in 1853 as a formal organization, but the Pre-Raphaelite circle or movement continued for far longer. The 'idea' rejected far more than Reynolds but all painting since the Middle Ages. You said you preferred Jane in 'Proserpine' but I think she looks equally constipated tbh. Scary woman.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Does anyone know what the Pre-Raphaelite 'idea' actually was though? Other than a vague sense of rebellion against Joshua Reynolds and the art establishment at the time?
At any rate, the PRB was founded in 1848 (when other European countries were having proper revolutions) and was disbanded because of infighting (the curse of bohemian/left wing arty types since the dawn of time) by 1853. This painting by Rossetti in 1880 can scarcely be said to be part of that movement, such as it was, if you ask me.

The whole idea was re-creation of medieval times, hence, Pre Raphaelism, escapism back to days of fantasy and legend. This explains that quite well:

http://www.susanneangst.com/Pre_ralph/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sadly the PRB never published a manifesto as such, but a couple have been suggested on the internet, based on their writings:

1) to have genuine ideas; 2) to study nature attentively, so as to know how to express them; 3) to sympathise with what is direct and serious and heartfelt in previous art, to the exclusion of what is conventional and self-parading and learned by rote and 4) most indispensable of all, to produce thoroughly good pictures and statues.

From this excellent article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... te-britain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

1. Testing and defying all conventions of art; for example, if the Royal Academy schools taught art students to compose paintings with (a) pyramidal groupings of figures, (b) one major source of light at one side matched by a lesser one on the opposite, and (c) an emphasis on rich shadow and tone at the expense of color, the PRB with brilliant perversity painted bright-colored, evenly lit pictures that appeared almost flat.

2. The PRB also emphasized precise, almost photographic representation of even humble objects, particularly those in the immediate foreground (which were traditionally left blurred or in shade) --thus violating conventional views of both proper style and subject.

3. Following Ruskin, they attempted to transform the resultant hard-edge realism (created by 1 and 2) by combining it with typological symbolism. At their most successful, the PRB produced a magic or symbolic realism, often using devices found in the poetry of Tennyson and Browning.

4. Believing that the arts were closely allied, the PRB encouraged artists and writers to practice each other's art, though only D.G. Rossetti did so with particular success.

5. Looking for new subjects, they drew upon Shakespeare, Keats, and Tennyson.

http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/prb/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I understand the pushback against conventions and art world that had become quite stiff by the 1800s, but I do think their choice of name and their appreciation of art history generally was odd and seriously intellectually deficient (or, at their relatively young age and not having travelled, just ignorant).

Raphael himself is instantly recognisable for a very vibrant palette, so it seems ludicrous to me he should be called out as where dull brownness began.

As for a commitment to realism - did they miss, for example, Caravaggio's 'Supper at Emmaus', probably my favourite painting in the country and given to the National Gallery in 1839, a mere nine years before the founding of the Brotherhood. http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/ ... vaggio.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Indeed, did they go to the National Gallery at all?!

These are the three Raphael's the Gallery had at the time:

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paint ... alexandria" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paint ... f-a-knight" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paint ... -julius-ii" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All three look brighter in the flesh too, incidentally.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There was little wrong with the Pre-Rapealite idea. They just brought a little romanticism into what, in reality was basically an unromantic period in the Victorian era. Charles Dickens, known to them all, and indeed a part patron, was painting a whole different picture in words of the grim, bleak opposite side of life at the same time. Must admit, not one of Rosetti's finest facial attempts.

Does anyone know what the Pre-Raphaelite 'idea' actually was though? Other than a vague sense of rebellion against Joshua Reynolds and the art establishment at the time?

At any rate, the PRB was founded in 1848 (when other European countries were having proper revolutions) and was disbanded because of infighting (the curse of bohemian/left wing arty types since the dawn of time) by 1853. This painting by Rossetti in 1880 can scarcely be said to be part of that movement, such as it was, if you ask me.

The brotherhood may have disbanded in 1853 as a formal organization, but the Pre-Raphaelite circle or movement continued for far longer. The 'idea' rejected far more than Reynolds but all painting since the Middle Ages. You said you preferred Jane in 'Proserpine' but I think she looks equally constipated tbh. Scary woman.

Well I am saying they purported to reject more than Reynolds but were, in fact, boys too ignorant to do anything of the sort.

Yes, I only prefer Prosperine in that the body 'makes sense'. I don't like it and Rossetti is not a painter I admire, unlike Millais.

[TANGODANCER]

The brotherhood may have disbanded in 1853 as a formal organization, but the Pre-Raphaelite circle or movement continued for far longer. The 'idea' rejected far more than Reynolds but all painting since the Middle Ages. You said you preferred Jane in 'Proserpine' but I think she looks equally constipated tbh. Scary woman.

Indeed. W.J.Waterhouse was doing much the same thing thirty years later.

[Bruce Rioja]

https://www.artfinder.com/story/dante-g ... ream-1880/

William will love this, I am sure.

i've always thought that Jane Morris looks like a bloke in drag...

(you can have that and pass it off as one of your own erudite comments, mummy...)

It's Glen Keeley, I'm sure of it

[TANGODANCER]

I'm not sure the P.R.B. actually had much to do with Raphael himself, but the period before him for its wide range of subject from fantasy and legend. As opposed to anything new, subject wise, it was just the opposite, ie going back into history. Pre-Raphaelite surely means exactly what it says.

[Montreal Wanderer]

There was little wrong with the Pre-Rapealite idea. They just brought a little romanticism into what, in reality was basically an unromantic period in the Victorian era. Charles Dickens, known to them all, and indeed a part patron, was painting a whole different picture in words of the grim, bleak opposite side of life at the same time. Must admit, not one of Rosetti's finest facial attempts.

Does anyone know what the Pre-Raphaelite 'idea' actually was though? Other than a vague sense of rebellion against Joshua Reynolds and the art establishment at the time?

At any rate, the PRB was founded in 1848 (when other European countries were having proper revolutions) and was disbanded because of infighting (the curse of bohemian/left wing arty types since the dawn of time) by 1853. This painting by Rossetti in 1880 can scarcely be said to be part of that movement, such as it was, if you ask me.

The brotherhood may have disbanded in 1853 as a formal organization, but the Pre-Raphaelite circle or movement continued for far longer. The 'idea' rejected far more than Reynolds but all painting since the Middle Ages. You said you preferred Jane in 'Proserpine' but I think she looks equally constipated tbh. Scary woman.

Well I am saying they purported to reject more than Reynolds but were, in fact, boys too ignorant to do anything of the sort.

Yes, I only prefer Prosperine in that the body 'makes sense'. I don't like it and Rossetti is not a painter I admire, unlike Millais.

Sorry, I was reacting to the quoted post and may have missed later revisionism. While I'm not a great fan of Rossetti as artist or poet, I prefer it to the rectangle chappie!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Sorry, I was reacting to the quoted post and may have missed later revisionism. While I'm not a great fan of Rossetti as artist or poet, I prefer it to the rectangle chappie!

Ha, there was no revisionism! If you had quoted my Artfinder comment in full, it would have been pretty obvious I don't think much of Rossetti.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm not sure the P.R.B. actually had much to do with Raphael himself, but the period before him for its wide range of subject from fantasy and legend. As opposed to anything new, subject wise, it was just the opposite, ie going back into history. Pre-Raphaelite surely means exactly what it says.

It is they who chose to look at the period 'before Raphel' and to include his name in theirs. How can it not have much to do with him? Surely it is not a random selection? But I am saying it is an ignorant one.

And what is this painting before Raphael that draws on a 'wide range of subject'? Was there much at all painted in Europe before then that wasn't religious (or, at least, stately) in subject?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Sorry, I was reacting to the quoted post and may have missed later revisionism. While I'm not a great fan of Rossetti as artist or poet, I prefer it to the rectangle chappie!

Ha, there was no revisionism! If you had quoted my Artfinder comment in full, it would have been pretty obvious I don't think much of Rossetti.

In your comment that I quoted (on TW not Artfinder) you said:
a) It was a vague rebellion against Reynolds and I suggested it was a rebellion against four centuries of artists not just Reynolds.
b) The painting by Rossetti (1880) could scarcely be said to be part of the movement (as it died out in the 1850s) if I asked you. I pointed out that the brotherhood may have died out in the 1850s but the movement lasted far longer and that Rossetti was considered part of it in the 1880s.

It seemed to me you might have revised the originals points. This has nothing to do with whether you like Rossetti or not, but the nature and duration of the Pre-Raphaelite movement.

[TANGODANCER]

I'm not sure the P.R.B. actually had much to do with Raphael himself, but the period before him for its wide range of subject from fantasy and legend. As opposed to anything new, subject wise, it was just the opposite, ie going back into history. Pre-Raphaelite surely means exactly what it says.

It is they who chose to look at the period 'before Raphel' and to include his name in theirs. How can it not have much to do with him? Surely it is not a random selection? But I am saying it is an ignorant one.
And what is this painting before Raphael that draws on a 'wide range of subject'? Was there much at all painted in Europe before then that wasn't religious (or, at least, stately) in subject?

Think you might be missing my point here Mummy. This is how I see it, but you may not agree:

They chose to go back to medieval times ( before Raphael) for their subjects, not any paintings or painters in particular. As an instance, suppose a modern group was formed calling itself The Pre Van Gogh Movement because they wanted to portray the France of a by-gone era. It wouldn't be a slight on Van Gogh. Did Raphael paint knights in armour or Arthurian legand? Raphael was a major artist and influence but, Holman Hunt and co didn't try to change that in any way. They wanted a broader canvas (pun) of days of yore and the variety it gave for (as previously stated) romance, legend and fantasy. There are no rules where those things are concerned. It also allowed them to buck conventions and make new rules in the art world. It succeeded for some time and their works still live on.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Did Raphael paint knights in armour or Arthurian legand?

A very unlucky choice of question, as it happens!

[TANGODANCER]

Did Raphael paint knights in armour or Arthurian legand?

A very unlucky choice of question, as it happens!

Well, I know about St George and the dragon,so that's two, but do expand?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm just saying that that is a picture of a knight in armour painted by Raphael!

[thebish]

I'm not sure the P.R.B. actually had much to do with Raphael himself, but the period before him for its wide range of subject from fantasy and legend. As opposed to anything new, subject wise, it was just the opposite, ie going back into history. Pre-Raphaelite surely means exactly what it says.

It is they who chose to look at the period 'before Raphel' and to include his name in theirs. How can it not have much to do with him? Surely it is not a random selection? But I am saying it is an ignorant one.
And what is this painting before Raphael that draws on a 'wide range of subject'? Was there much at all painted in Europe before then that wasn't religious (or, at least, stately) in subject?

Think you might be missing my point here Mummy. This is how I see it, but you may not agree:

They chose to go back to medieval times ( before Raphael) for their subjects, not any paintings or painters in particular. As an instance, suppose a modern group was formed calling itself The Pre Van Gogh Movement because they wanted to portray the France of a by-gone era. It wouldn't be a slight on Van Gogh. Did Raphael paint knights in armour or Arthurian legand? Raphael was a major artist and influence but, Holman Hunt and co didn't try to change that in any way. They wanted a broader canvas (pun) of days of yore and the variety it gave for (as previously stated) romance, legend and fantasy. There are no rules where those things are concerned. It also allowed them to buck conventions and make new rules in the art world. It succeeded for some time and their works still live on.

what new rules did they make in the art world? not sure I follow....

[TANGODANCER]

I'm not sure the P.R.B. actually had much to do with Raphael himself, but the period before him for its wide range of subject from fantasy and legend. As opposed to anything new, subject wise, it was just the opposite, ie going back into history. Pre-Raphaelite surely means exactly what it says.

It is they who chose to look at the period 'before Raphel' and to include his name in theirs. How can it not have much to do with him? Surely it is not a random selection? But I am saying it is an ignorant one.
And what is this painting before Raphael that draws on a 'wide range of subject'? Was there much at all painted in Europe before then that wasn't religious (or, at least, stately) in subject?

Think you might be missing my point here Mummy. This is how I see it, but you may not agree:

They chose to go back to medieval times ( before Raphael) for their subjects, not any paintings or painters in particular. As an instance, suppose a modern group was formed calling itself The Pre Van Gogh Movement because they wanted to portray the France of a by-gone era. It wouldn't be a slight on Van Gogh. Did Raphael paint knights in armour or Arthurian legand? Raphael was a major artist and influence but, Holman Hunt and co didn't try to change that in any way. They wanted a broader canvas (pun) of days of yore and the variety it gave for (as previously stated) romance, legend and fantasy. There are no rules where those things are concerned. It also allowed them to buck conventions and make new rules in the art world. It succeeded for some time and their works still live on.

what new rules did they make in the art world? not sure I follow....

I didn't say they did. The word "allowed" refers to fantasy, a subject where almost anything goes and nothing is right or wrong because it's unreal. Bear in mind, I'm passing views here, not facts. I made that quite plain.

[TANGODANCER]

You might find this Guardian view of last year worth a read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... lites-ybas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;