American painting and its tradition : $b as represented by Inness, Wyant, Martin, Homer, La Farge, Whistler, Chase, Alexander, Sargent — John Shaqi
American painting and its tradition : $b as represented by Inness, Wyant, Martin, Homer, La Farge, Whistler, Chase, Alexander, SargentVan Dyke, John C.
History
American painting and its tradition : $b as represented by Inness, Wyant, Martin, Homer, La Farge, Whistler, Chase, Alexander, Sargent
Van Dyke, John C.
Painters -- United States; Painting -- United States
With Cole, Durand, and, later on, Kensett, that is about 1825, another
kind of painting sprang up on American soil. It was the painting of
landscape--landscape of the Hudson River variety--and, whatever its
technical shortcomings, at least it had the merit of being original.
Apparently nothing of artistic faith or of accumulated knowledge or art
usage was handed down to the Hudson River men by the portrait-painters
who had preceded them. The leaders worked from nature with little or no
instruction. They were self-taught, and if any inkling of how work was
carried on in the painting-rooms of Copley, Stuart, or Vanderlyn was
given them, they turned a deaf ear to it or found it inapplicable to
their landscape-work. If they knew of a tradition they ignored it.
This matter of tradition--the accumulated point of view and teaching
of the craft--is of some importance in our inquiry. It has gone to the
making of all the great art of the past. There were several hundred
years of sculptors in Greece, with a continuous story, before Scopas
and Praxiteles brought their art to final maturity; for centuries
painters, with their craftsman-making guilds, had preceded Raphael,
Leonardo, and Titian; countless “primitives” and “early men” went to
the shades unsung before Velasquez, Rubens, Rembrandt, Holbein came
to power. In America the Copley-Stuart contingent caught at, and in
large measure grasped, the foreign teaching handed down by Reynolds and
his school. Perhaps that accounts in some measure for their success.
A generation later Cole and Durand started out to paint landscape
without any teaching whatever. Does that account in any degree for
their failure? They failed to produce any fine quality of art, but
they had pupils and followers in whom the Hudson River school finally
culminated. It became a school because Cole and Durand established with
themselves a teaching, such as it was, and handed down to their pupils
a point of view and a body of tradition. Perhaps again that explains,
to some extent, the varied successes of such followers of the school as
Inness, Wyant, Martin, Swain Gifford, Whittredge, McEntee.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account