Oft called the "most significant cultural revolution in the 19th century," Romanticism was an eclectic reaction against the Classicism that was pioneered by David (alone) during the previous century (725). Artistically, there was a noticeable shift away from the (homogeneous) style embodied by David; suddenly, style was individualized and permeated by decidedly non-classical subject matter such as the exoticism of the Orient embodied in Ingres' La Grand Odalisque. Paintings were no longer confined to strict representational subject matter or composition. It was as if, as Constable wrote, "it is the soul that sees." Constable's assertion was not his own, but rather that of the Romantic poet Wordsworth; Romanticism was highly interdisciplinary, with poets striving to capture the visual essence of their life and times and painters attempting to depict the poetry of the rainbow. Thus, the limits of reason and human emotion were tested; humans were no longer assumed to be rational, but rather highly intuitive and irrational creatures steeped in subjectivity. This temporal shift in belief fueled not only the artistic community, but also early 19th century nationalism and politics. Romantics could be intensely liberal--
VICTOR HUGO: "Romanticism, so often ill-defined is only...liberalism in literature. Liberty in Art, Liberty in Society, behold the double banner that rallies the intelligence."
Romantics could also be highly conservative--
CHATEAUBRIAND: "I wrote a book called The Genius of Christianity. Need I say more?"
Romanticism marked the movement away from the Enlightenment that would facilitate the development of a modern society; perhaps even the Romantic era could be considered modern in and of itself, although by no means modernist. Perhaps rather than measuring our cultural progression in regards to modernism, we should be considering it in relation to Romanticism. Wouldn't we all prefer to live in a Postromantic era?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That is a good analysis and overview of Romanticism, but I don’t entirely agree with your last paragraph. The modern sensibility of art and the artist that many of us have definitely came from the Romantic period, and Romanticism had a very large impact on the course of European history. However, Romanticism was only a reaction to a way of viewing the world and creating art. Modernism, for the most part, was a conscious attempt to make a significant break with the past. Many romantics looked to the past for inspiration or used texts from the past in their work. They did react to Classicism, but they were continuing the traditions of European art and culture on at least a technical level, whereas the modernists put their focus mainly on the present and the future and experimented with the basic building blocks of their respective mediums. Perhaps that distinction is not strong enough, and the two movements were similar in many ways, particularly in terms of a rejection of the past and individuality, but I still think that, while Romanticism did break with the past to some extent, this break was not enough to warrant a division in European history between everything that happened before Romanticism and everything that happened after.
ReplyDelete