…ISMs

I thought it was about time I set down the ISMs in Art that I’m aware of in some semblance of order.

Renaissance: “Rebirth” in Italy of Classical Art. From 1400 onwards. Raphael was one Renaissance master. Much later his name was used by the Preraphaelite Brotherhood who were big fans of Art of the Middle Ages.

Neoclassicism: circa 1750. Pure form of classicism.

Pre-Raphaelites: A “secret society” of young British Artists in opposition to the classicist ideal prevailing at the Royal Academy circa 1848. (Perhaps revealing of their own superciliousness, they referred to Sir Joshua Reynolds as “Sir Sloshua” as “sloshy” meant laxity in the process of painting anything commonplace or conventional. In her essay Jenniffer Meagher says: “The (Preraphaelite) Brotherhood at its inception strove to transmit a message of artistic renewal and moral reform” in times of industrialisation.)

Impressionism: Artists such as John Constable and Claude Monet (water lilies) painted “en plein air” so as to best describe their surroundings in a more natural way.

Post Impressionism: from circa 1886 (the last Impressionist show) where changes in style took place.

German/Expressionism: Art where reality plays second fiddle to methods expressive of the artist’s inner world. (Wassily Kandinsky. Earnest Ludwig Kirchner. Frank Marc.)

Modernism: Global movement towards using new mediums imagery and techniques in keeping with modern societies.

Cubism: An approach to representing “reality” from multiple viewpoints simultaneously (circa 1907)

That’s tidied up that little lot in my mind’s eye for now. Something on which to build knowledge of the intervening century. It seems each reacts to the ones preceding it whilst reflecting upon and/or reacting against societal norms or conventions. It seems that the artists who have made waves are those that buck the trend. What if the trend were to advance so far that it disappeared? Seriously. What if we went full circle to cave painting for example? Back to our shamanic roots?

What is it about Art that makes it so important? Why does it seem so impenetrably exclusive right now? Context matters. What was the context for cave painters? Depends on where they lived. Context again.

Like the Preraphaelite Brotherhood’s superciliousness, it can be difficult to see oneself outside of one’s own context. Change is a reliable fact of life both for cave dwellers and for “secret societies”. Incremental rather than cataclysmic change is what we are used to adapting to.

If there was a revolution/social upheaval/apocalypse – would the Art of today be appreciated? Once removed, the context is no longer there to support it. Would Contemporary Art stand up to scrutiny? The answer depends on our criteria. But the criteria then relies on context. The context of our rhetorical “new world order”. The Art of the present, like other periods in Art stands up to scrutiny only if it is relevant. When change affects context, all bets are off.

Context in Art is so much more important than I realised prior to engaging with Drawing 1: Drawing skills.

References:

Meagher, Jennifer. “The Pre-Raphaelites.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/praf/hd_praf.htm (October 2004)

(Date of access: 05/05/20)

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms

(Date of access: 05/05/20)