A.Ham Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Of Arms and Artists
Of Arms & Artists
>
Chapter 2
date
newest »
newest »
My apologies for overdoing it on the commentary on the paintings that so touched me in the discussion of Chapter 1. I'll attempt to keep my comments brief and to the point and not bore everyone with my rhapsodizing from now on. Art is one of my great loves -- but I will try to refrain from needlessly glutting the discussion with reactions which don't interest anyone else.I enjoyed learning about Peale's early life as a craftsman and about his earlier self-education as a painter, and his forays into visual propaganda early on. That he met John Singleton Copley in Boston in 1765 seems a fortuitous event. Certainly the financing of his London studies with Benjamin West by John Beale Bordley and Charles Carroll was a game-changer for Peale, in so many ways.
I am so intrigued by Benjamin West's gorgeous portrait of a "visionary" Peale, and especially by the fact that the pose mirrors the prophet Isaiah's in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel painting. How fortunate that West gave this portrait to Peale, who kept it for life. I love comparing it with Peale's self-portrait in the first chapter. That self-portrait, painted at Valley Forge, is (as the author intimates) surprising in its cheerfulness, considering the hardships of that winter.
Portraiture was certainly in high demand in this age of no photographs, by people in many walks of life, arguably more than any other form of painting. People wanted their likenesses, and those of their loved ones, preserved. And I think I can understand why those Valley Forge miniatures seem so idealized. Peale certainly witnessed horrible things during his time in the War. I was so touched by the account of his happening upon his brother James after his escape from New York, and the fact that Charles did not even recognize him at first. (I understand this moment has been immortalized at the new Museum of the Revolutionary War in Philadelphia.) I'm not sure that the miniatures represent a "romanticizing" of the War so much as they are an attempt to be a source of solace for the loved ones of these men, who had no guarantees they would escape terrible harm or death on the battlefield. I think of those official photographs of soldiers in uniform taken to this day. One small quote from the book: "...portraits were about the only way an officer could experience normalcy, or a family could imagine normalcy for him... In the midst of despondency, sickness, and death, Peale's cheery portraits were a form of reassurance and respite, a welcome excursion into well-being, however fictional that might be."
In times as desolate as those months at Valley Forge, some small easing of misery was necessary, and Peale's miniatures could provide some measure of comfort, not only for the families of the soldiers, but for the soldiers themselves. I don't believe those were an attempt to gloss over or romanticize the horrors of war, but rather were a way of making those unspeakable horrors more bearable.
PS This is just slightly off-topic, but here is a link to a fabulous podcast about John Singleton Copley featuring Jane Kamensky, author of "A Revolution in Color: The World of John Singleton Copley," another book I am anxious to read. He is surely one of America's great masters. I tweeted this link earlier today. Maybe someone else would enjoy hearing it.
https://www.benfranklinsworld.com/epi...
(That's enough for this chapter -- I always prattle on too long and still somehow manage to say very little that contributes to the conversation. I'll try to do better.)
Mod
I meant to add something more earlier... just a reminder that this book seems geared to a very general audience, and as its title implies, is more about the five artists and their roles in forming the narrative of our revolutionary years and our formative years as a nation, than it is about the art works themselves. I heard John Singleton Copley described this morning as a "visual intellectual," a term I found intriguing, implying that, although he did not leave behind much writing from which we can intuit the spirit and emotions of the time, his masterful images can certainly tell us much (perhaps even more) about the mindset of the era, of his own reactions to those events, and of his feelings about what their outcome would be.The author is our guide through the lives of these five men and their times, and while he also provides images and discussion of those images to help us understand, he asks us, as an audience perhaps primarily interested in history, to examine the way in which these artists tell us "who lives, who dies..." in the same way that the music of the time would. The artists are, of course, "who tells our story."
Perhaps I'll be proved wrong, but I am convinced that this book is less about art than about the brilliant creators who happened to be visual artists, providing us with a social, cultural, and historical context and commentary on the era as they knew it, and as best they could -- with images instead of words. Yes, works will be discussed, I'm sure, in laymen's terms, and we can all learn something from that, and I really look forward to that. So as a student of the humanities myself, I am interested in hearing reactions to the book from everyone, especially if you think you know nothing about art. The book can tell us much about the power of art and its role in forming our culture. We are all its intended audience, regardless of our backgrounds, and I'm eager to hear everyone's contribution to the commentary, everyone's opinion, equally. Maybe it's the former teacher in me -- but I really want to know everyone's response.
Mod
I really do think that it's the teacher in me speaking and sounding like a horse's ass... I used to get similarly exasperated when teaching humanities, which covered art, literature, music, history, and philosophy, but was a core course for every single major. The majors in those fields would take over the conversation when their fields were at the forefront, and everyone else would just sit there, quietly intimidated for no reason, never adding anything, when actually they many times had very good points to make. I want to hear what you all have to say! But I will just go away for good now.
Patti, your comments are always welcome and appreciated by me!I agree that this book seems to focus on the lives of the artists more so than their works but I'm okay with that. I'm enjoying learning about the artists.
Q1) It was interesting to me that even though Peale spent time being trained by West, where he saw how an artist could be treated with respect and dignity, he never really shook his past experiences with debt. "Though he had been trained by West to believe in the heroic ideals of high art, he instinctively and always kept one eye cocked on the rewards of the marketplace." This was especially true when he returned to America and had to find business. It was also interesting to me that whatever romantic thoughts of the revolution he initially had, his experiences in the war were seared into his memories.
In addition, I had never seen his painting Rachel Weeping before. How beautiful and heartbreaking all at once. Such a personal moment in their life, and yet they let us in to see their pain and suffering up close.
Between his indebtedness, the loss of a child, and his exposure to death during the war, he certainly had enough experiences to draw from creatively.
Q2) In my opinion, I don't think his miniatures from his time in Valley Forge glorified or romanticized war. I think he was probably disillusioned and needed this escape to maintain his own sanity. I'm sure his subjects appreciated it too, also allowed them to have a escape from the fighting and hunger.
Finally, I have a couple of questions regarding the painting of Peale with his family (open to all). Was it common at that time to paint self-portraits with the family? I know of self-portraits but usually they are just that. Had that type of self-portrait been done in the colonies before or was this unique?
Nancy wrote: "Finally, I have a couple of questions regarding the painting of Peale with his family (open to all). Was it common at that time to paint self-portraits with the family? I know of self-portraits but usually they are just that. Had that type of self-portrait been done in the colonies before or was this unique?"as a partial answer to your question: I'm not sure, paintings including a whole family are not that unique at this time so including oneself in a family portrait wouldn't be that odd. As for it being a new thing in the colonies. Maybe. The arts weren't as prolific in the colonies simply because there were few artists there or ways to study art (as they mention in this chapter). Portraiture at this time (and for much of art history) was considered a low art (Trumbull disliked portraiture and preferred the high art of history paintings", more along the lines of having your picture taken during the victorian era so many of these artists were traveling tradesmen from Europe or self taught Americans trying to make a living because they weren't backed by the same kind of sponsorship.
On to the questions
1. I hadn't realized he'd come to painting so late in life and for me that explains a lot of the technical issues I have with his work.
2. OK, Miniatures are really fucking hard to do, like really fucking hard (I can't do 'em, no way no how), because some of them are so damn tiny. To me it looks like he's just following the standard procedure to miniature portraits as, stylistically, they look like just about every other I've ever seen. It was probably part of his training in London. If your doing this type of work, your doing it for the money, so the faster you can produce them and the more pleasing they are ascetically, the more likely you'll be eating that week. Also, at $28 bucks a pop, your average starving solider is not going to be paying to have one of these done, It will be an officer who likely had family of means who sent clothes and food.
that's it for now.
Let's all thank Sarah for sharing her artistic knowledge last week and I'm sure in the chapters to come... (none of which I posses).
So here are some very generic questions...
1. This chapter, we learned about Charles Willson Peale. Is there anything particularly interesting the struck you about his life?
2. The miniatures that Peale painted at Valley Forge were described as somewhat idealistic & didn't truly represent a worn-out hungry soldier. In doing so, does this "romanticize" war in a way?