The Great Art Debate

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

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.

I'm not saying it's a slight on Raphael - just that his is a very odd choice of name as a marker. If a group called themselves the Pre Van Gogh movement, I would ask the same questions about their intellectual foundations and choice of name too.

I actually agree with much of what you're saying. In that article I linked to, there is this paragraph:

As for the pre-Raphaelites proper, with their penchant for swooning damozels and complicated allegories, he hopes that the Tate's vast new show will persuade visitors to reconsider them. The pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, formed in 1848, was determined to rebel against dreary Royal Academy conventions; for this reason its members have sometimes been compared, in spirit, to the Young British Artists of the 1990s. Maas, though, likens them to punks; every young artist wanted to be one. "Millais was the greatest draughtsman. Rossetti was the romantic, the natural heir to Blake. Holman Hunt is more difficult: the priggishness, the religiosity, the density: these are some seriously wacky paintings. But they're all so big, so brightly-coloured, so powerful. You can just imagine how they must have seemed once, when everyone was used to seeing Sir Sloshua Reynolds and his school." His eyes widen. "They must have seemed seriously psychedelic."

My take is that were rebelling against something in their immediate environment and overreached themselves my purporting to rebel against a lot more, because they didn't know what they were talking about.

[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.

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.

I don't think I have revised those original points, if that is what you are referring to.

I stand by (a) - they probably did think they were rebelling against four centuries of artists, but I don't think they had the knowledge to do that in a serious way (I suspect they realised this pretty soon after 1853, if not before).

And I stand by (b) - we might still have the label 'Pre Raphaelite Movement' for that period and those artists, but I'm not sure how much meaning that label really has. I'm saying as a movement in any definable sense, it fizzled out pretty quickly.

[TANGODANCER]

My take is that were rebelling against something in their immediate environment and overreached themselves my purporting to rebel against a lot more, because they didn't know what they were talking about.

A brave statement. I wouldn't be so bold.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

My take is that were rebelling against something in their immediate environment and overreached themselves my purporting to rebel against a lot more, because they didn't know what they were talking about.

A brave statement. I wouldn't be so bold.

Well there are some things that are biographically certain about them - in 1848 they were all young and not one of them had been to Italy!

[bobo the clown]

Well there are some things that are biographically certain about them - in 1848 they were all young and not one of them had been to Italy!

Which, as a marker for ignorance, gets my vote!!

[TANGODANCER]

My take is that were rebelling against something in their immediate environment and overreached themselves my purporting to rebel against a lot more, because they didn't know what they were talking about.

A brave statement. I wouldn't be so bold.

Well there are some things that are biographically certain about them - in 1848 they were all young and not one of them had been to Italy!

So, Rebels without a clue? (Incidentally, I've never been to Italy and I'm certainly not young.)

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Well there are some things that are biographically certain about them - in 1848 they were all young and not one of them had been to Italy!

Which, as a marker for ignorance, gets my vote!!

I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not, but I think it is a marker for ignorance in the field of European art history before colour photography and the internet.

[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.

I don't think I have revised those original points, if that is what you are referring to.

I stand by (a) - they probably did think they were rebelling against four centuries of artists, but I don't think they had the knowledge to do that in a serious way (I suspect they realised this pretty soon after 1853, if not before).

And I stand by (b) - we might still have the label 'Pre Raphaelite Movement' for that period and those artists, but I'm not sure how much meaning that label really has. I'm saying as a movement in any definable sense, it fizzled out pretty quickly.

Okay, if I understand you, you say a) the chaps thought they were rebelling against four centuries of art but were really only rebelling against Reynolds and the Academy in a vague sort of way and b) though we use the term pre-Raphaelite as a description of some artists for the second half of the nineteenth century it is effectively a meaningless label after 1853.

In this case you have not revised your opinion but I think you are on quite shaky ground IMHO.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Okay, if I understand you, you say a) the chaps thought they were rebelling against four centuries of art but were really only rebelling against Reynolds and the Academy in a vague sort of way and b) though we use the term pre-Raphaelite as a description of some artists for the second half of the nineteenth century it is effectively a meaningless label after 1853.

In this case you have not revised your opinion but I think you are on quite shaky ground IMHO.

Good, we are no longer at crossed purposes, at least!

Maybe 'meaningless after 1853' is a bit strong, but I certainly don't think it's meaningful to continue up to the First World War with that label, as is sometimes seen, thus applying it to a period equal to the entire High Renaissance.

[TANGODANCER]

Okay, if I understand you, you say a) the chaps thought they were rebelling against four centuries of art but were really only rebelling against Reynolds and the Academy in a vague sort of way and b) though we use the term pre-Raphaelite as a description of some artists for the second half of the nineteenth century it is effectively a meaningless label after 1853.In this case you have not revised your opinion but I think you are on quite shaky ground IMHO.

Im rather of the opinion Mummy thinks it's a meaningless label from 1848.
One thing I never really understood was why they were a Secret Society?

[bobo the clown]

Well there are some things that are biographically certain about them - in 1848 they were all young and not one of them had been to Italy!

Which, as a marker for ignorance, gets my vote!!

I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not, but I think it is a marker for ignorance in the field of European art history before colour photography and the internet.

How very dare you ?!?!


I believe fervently that being young and never having been to Italy is a crime against nature.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Okay, if I understand you, you say a) the chaps thought they were rebelling against four centuries of art but were really only rebelling against Reynolds and the Academy in a vague sort of way and b) though we use the term pre-Raphaelite as a description of some artists for the second half of the nineteenth century it is effectively a meaningless label after 1853.In this case you have not revised your opinion but I think you are on quite shaky ground IMHO.

Im rather of the opinion Mummy thinks it's a meaningless label from 1848.
One thing I never really understood was why they were a Secret Society?

I didn't know that they were - I thought they even published a newsletter explaining themselves.

[thebish]

Well there are some things that are biographically certain about them - in 1848 they were all young and not one of them had been to Italy!

Which, as a marker for ignorance, gets my vote!!

I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not, but I think it is a marker for ignorance in the field of European art history before colour photography and the internet.

How very dare you ?!?!


I believe fervently that being young and never having been to Italy is a crime against nature.

you may very well believe that - but it's not quite what Mummy is suggesting!

[Montreal Wanderer]

Okay, if I understand you, you say a) the chaps thought they were rebelling against four centuries of art but were really only rebelling against Reynolds and the Academy in a vague sort of way and b) though we use the term pre-Raphaelite as a description of some artists for the second half of the nineteenth century it is effectively a meaningless label after 1853.

In this case you have not revised your opinion but I think you are on quite shaky ground IMHO.

Good, we are no longer at crossed purposes, at least!

Maybe 'meaningless after 1853' is a bit strong, but I certainly don't think it's meaningful to continue up to the First World War with that label, as is sometimes seen, thus applying it to a period equal to the entire High Renaissance.

Perhaps you are a little anti-pre-Raphaelite because you like Millais, who abandoned the movement and joined the Reynolds school!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Okay, if I understand you, you say a) the chaps thought they were rebelling against four centuries of art but were really only rebelling against Reynolds and the Academy in a vague sort of way and b) though we use the term pre-Raphaelite as a description of some artists for the second half of the nineteenth century it is effectively a meaningless label after 1853.

In this case you have not revised your opinion but I think you are on quite shaky ground IMHO.

Good, we are no longer at crossed purposes, at least!

Maybe 'meaningless after 1853' is a bit strong, but I certainly don't think it's meaningful to continue up to the First World War with that label, as is sometimes seen, thus applying it to a period equal to the entire High Renaissance.

Perhaps you are a little anti-pre-Raphaelite because you like Millais, who abandoned the movement and joined the Reynolds school!

Ha, I wouldn't say I'm anti PR at all! I think they were, for a while the 'Victorian avant garde', as advertised in the Tate exhibition that Gary the Enfield went to and that I have now unfortunately missed.

If anything there's something appealing about a group of young, impetuous romantics who know they stand for something but are not quite sure what it is!

[TANGODANCER]

Ha, I wouldn't say I'm anti PR at all! I think they were, for a while the 'Victorian avant garde', as advertised in the Tate exhibition that Gary the Enfield went to and that I have now unfortunately missed.

If anything there's something appealing about a group of young, impetuous romantics who know they stand for something but are not quite sure what it is!

Whatever the reaction to their views, it can't be denied that, young as they were, they were all very talented artists in their own rights. I've never cared too much what artistic viewpoint they held, or what others had of them. I just appreciate the skill and talent they undoubtedly had. Their works, if not their influence can be seen everywhere even today.

[Gary the Enfield]

I just like redheads.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I just like redheads.

Bolton Boris?

[Gary the Enfield]

I just like redheads.

Bolton Boris?

No. Redheads are female, Gingers are Male.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I just like redheads.

Bolton Boris?

No. Redheads are female, Gingers are Male.

Another important distinction.