 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| J.W. Godward: the Eclipse of Classicism, by Vern Grosvenor Swanson, Phd |
|
| | |
| | | | ||||||||||
| | |
Four major stages define the demise of classicism in Western art. The first equates to Neo-Classicism and is best exemplefied in the High Art of Lord Leighton. This art deals with the mythology, history and legends of classical Greece and Rome. It incorporates the traditional stylisms associated with formal classicism. In a compositional sense, Godward was a late adherent to this school of classicism. The formal qualities and simplification of design place one of his feet into Neo-classical art. Second would be the academic-bourgeois classicism of the "recontructionalist" who employed archeological strategies to their pictorial sense. Alma-Tadema would be the great practicioner of this school of art. While Godward also partook of the literal didacticism of this approach, in his mature work he did not concern himself with archaeological specifcity. Far simpler and plainer environments abstracted from antiquity were the basic elements of his content. The third classical approach was, in part, a reaction against the "5 O'Clock Antiquity" of the bourgeois reconstructionalists. It was promulgated by Sir Edward Burne-Jones and reached into the more romantic-mystic classical side of the equation. Its adherents are more closely associated, stylically, with Medieval Pre-Raphaelitism than classicism, yet their subjects often have direct Greco-Roman reference.315 The fourth artistic manifestation is Aesthetic-classicism movement as typlified by Joseph Albert Moore. Here we see Cecil Rea, George S. Watson, Jacomb-Hood, Percy Buckman and Robert Fowler among others working more abstractly. Unlike the Pre-Raphaelite Medievalism these Whistlerian artists gound greater solice in tonal impressionism, the enemy of the Burne-Jones school. The classicists conventions can be sliced a fifth way, which might be termed Modern-style classicism. These are the "Very Last Classicists" who attempted to reach an accomodation with the modernism of Cezanne. They sprang through early Renaissance, through Puvis de Chavannes, as the mediating factor between Neo-classicism and modernism. Here we see Harry Morley, Ernest Proctor and Glenn Philpott as some of the leading advocates.316 Another aspect of this fifth-column of modern-style classicists were those that were more influenced by Paul Gaugin and sixteeenth century Mannerism. Charles Sims, Charles Ricketts, Glyn Philpot and Charles Shannon exemplify this school which often forced pictorial accents in a centrifical manner to the edges of the composition in anti-classical fashion. These five groupings, along with their sub-headings plied Greco-Roman content to a fairly wide variety of stylistic approaches. Like the the Romanticists of the same period they all became relegated to the byway far from the mainstream of modern art. A number of English Classical-subject artists struggled onward in vain in an uneven battle for a few more decades though a lingering doubt haunted many of them. For the most part they could not come to grips with the idea that their modern formula for representing antiquity was out of synch with contemporary realities. The most active of these "believers", in death-date order from 1894 onward, include:
Other than Bulleid, Ryland and Reynolds-Stephens, the English artists most closely associated with Godward stylistically were: Abbey Altson, W. Anstey Dollond, William Oliver, Norman Prescott-Davis and Oliver Rhys. These artists formed the non-Olympian classical-subject milieu in which Godward painted. Together they fueled the last flicker of the twilight of the Gods. An older artist who may have had some influence on Godward was William Oliver (exh.1867-1897) of London. He exhibited fifteen works at the Royal Academy and would have been well known to the artists of Godward's generation. While his brushwork was a bit loose for the later artists, his choice of classical subject and simple compositions certainly appealed. Oliver Rhys (fl.1876-1897) began exhibiting at the RA in 1880, much in the style of Wm. Oliver. He too could have touched the art of the younger generation, not because of his greatness but because of his accessibility. At this time the "representing Roman antiquity in the guise of the 'low' category of genre, with its tradition emphasis on the minutiae of the everyday environment" was in vogue. However artists like Oliver, Rhys and many others including Godward, painted their patrician women in a simplified version of ancient settings. William Anstey Dollond (1858-1929) was active between 1879 to 1911. He lived in London by 1880 at 20 Newman Street close by Heatherley's at 79 Newman Street, thus leading us to believe he studied there in 1880-81. Prescott-Davies, Bulleid and Ryland also studied at Heatherley's. This may be a connection to Godward, another possible student who worked in the same style. Dollond then lives at 42 Bishop's Terrace in Fulham by 1884 and 48 Lilyville Road in Fulham from 1889. Again another possible connection with Godward. Dollond moves to Totteridge in Hertshire by 1897, then to Middle Deal in Kent by 1898, as well as Essex. He was slightly older than Bulleid and Ryland. It almost seems that they formed a watercolour clique of painters of antique Roman women in marble interiors. They did not, of course, but their aesthetic affinity seems uncanny. Though also known as a landscape and rustic genre painter in his early career, by the mid 1880's Dollond was solidly painting classical-themes. Again a path paralleling Godward. Dollond [sometimes spelled Dolland] did not exhibit much, only six pictures in the Royal Academy, seven in the RI, and a few in other venues. His only personal connection with Godward seems to be through his dealer, W. W. Sampson. Stylistically their work relates in terms of subject, particularly marble surfaces and tessellated floors. Their careful manufacture placed great value on the material elements of antiquity. Also a sense of placid tranquillity pervaded each picture of Roman women on marble benches. Differences are found in terms of medium and Dollond's occasional use of multifigured compositions, both of which Godward tended to eschew. Norman Prescott-Davies (1862-1915) was a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) and the Royal Society of British Artists (RBA) in 1893. He launched his career from his birthplace of Isleworth in Middlesex. He studied at the Royal College of Art, at the City and Guilds Art School and at Heatherley's.317 He then worked in London as a miniaturist, portrait and figure painter. By 1883 he was at No. 12 Chalcot Gardens in NW3 at Haverstock Hill. There he had the advantage of fellow classical painters, G. F. Wetherbee, Jessie MacGregor and Sydney P. Hall at No. 13 and No. 13. He began to exhibit at a youthful eighteen years of age in 1880 and continued past 1900. He exhibited eleven pieces at the Royal Academy, from 1880 then inexplicably quitting in 1893. His works were also shown in the RBA and the Royal Cambrian Academy (RCA). Though Prescott-Davies exhibited a lot he was a little known painter of classical-genre subjects. He relied overly much on Godward, Ryland, Dollond and Bulleid, in his appreciation of young women classically dressed on marble terraces. Generally speaking his scale is smaller and pictures less ambitious than Godward's. His brushwork is also fluffier, his colour more saccharine and his models more coy. He tended to exploit the 'keepsake' beauties market more readily than the better classical-subject painters of his day. His personal relationship with Godward is unknown, but their work correlates in numerous ways. An artist whose early work is closely associated with Godward's style was Abbey A. Altson (1866-1949). This Yorkshire native moved to Melbourne Australia, studied in Paris then lived in London. He exhibited at the RBA, RA and elsewhere from 1894. His work was mostly classical multi-figure genre subjects. Though softer in edge than Godward's paintings, oils such as his early Expectancy (Whitfored and Hughes) demonstrate a total reliance on Godward's style, subject and colour. Messrs. T. McLean also sold Abbey's work thus tying his art into the milieu of Godward.318 What most of the above mentioned artists had in common was a penchant for depicting young women in classical garb languishing in ancient Greco-Roman settings. For a younger generation of artists, those with real talent, such maudlin concerns were best left to commercial artists and illustrators. As Joseph Hone once degradingly said of Charles Ricketts' work which has much application to the older classicists as well, "Of course some people may think it very nice, but if is just not painting."319 | |
              | |
| | |
| | | | ||||||||
| | |
It was the relentless attack from these Modernist forces which overwhelmed entrenched Classical and academic realism. Godward and other classical-subject artist's seemed to wilt under the Nihilist fire from the avant garde and its atavistic aggression. Then there was also the paradigm shift from classical Mediterranean archaeology to more anthropological concerns of non-European tribal societies. These had tremendous influence on modern art and contemporary imagination at the expense of the Classical tradition. The slashing of Velasquez's Rokeby Venus by a suffragette in 1914 was indicative of the anti-classical sentiments for displaying idealized female form on a 'pedestal'. Yet classical-subject tradition suffered years before, between the death of Queen Victoria in 1901 and the 1914-18 War. This ennui is reflected by Charles Ricketts in March of 1914, after reading a novel by Anatole France: Some, such as Joseph Kestner believe that women's suffrage movement led to the demise of the Greco-Roman subject tradition. He believes that this tradition presented images opposed to female emancipation. The equalization of relations between the sexes, in his opinion, have rendered the myths of classical-subject painting untenable: It was already apparent that Classicism had lost its theoretical supremacy, though not its superiority. The last flame of the Greco-Roman genre saw its final flicker during the 1920's and 30's. The antique rhetorical heritage and education gave way at the same time as overtly conscience attempts were made by its adherents to retain the tradition. As John Christian surmised, "An acute sense of alienation, [was] induced by the march of modernism and of fighting a rearguard action on behalf of an older, richer and hopelessly doomed culture."322 Christian saw it in these terms: The net result of the efforts of more retardaire of these artists gave a stilted effect. Now the studio nude predominated as Venus. More and more it became art for the Royal Academy or for text-book illustration rather than a pervasive manifestation of artistic expression. It was very much like high opera, now presented as a high art form, that must be subsidized by officialdom, rather than a popular art with relevance to real life. By 1922, the year of Godward's death, the Bloomsbury School of aesthetic criticism had already triumphed over established conservative orders. The Camden Town Group, the London Group, and Vorticists, etc. conspired to demolished its conservative opposition. Though oblivious to the finer points of the aesthetic debate, Godward was certainly not immune to its effect. He must have roiled at what he would have considered insane and anti-civilizing art of the Post-Impressionists and Modernists. He now became a mute defender of what he never was a part of, the Entrenched Establishment. Though we have no direct statements from John William, Ivy Godward said that her father-in-law Alfred, the artist's brother, felt that Picasso was a lunatic and his art was evil.324 Alfred was of two opinions about modern art, "It was a waste of time and a waste of paint!" This probably summed-up the feelings of the artist as well, though he was probably more affronted and galled by its ugliness than by its incompetence. It was positively uncivil, while Godward's own work was assuredly suave, at least in the minds of a dwindling coterie' of artists and collectors. What must have rankled most were the disparaging attacks by the "beauty hating" modernist brigands upon traditional artistic typologies and prerogatives. At this point in time, many of the conservatives in English art would have been content to have called a truce, but critics like George Moore, Roger Fry and Clive Bell smelled victory. Fine art that Godward respected was first marginalized then repudiated in favour of barbaric futurist aesthetics. Alma-Tadema, who had died just a decade earlier, also felt the sting of derogatory criticism. Fry in the January 1913 issue of Nation said, in a review of the memorial exhibition: The great battle of this period was not between Academicism and Impressionism, but rather with them against Post-Impressionism.326 The general direction of modern art during the first decade of the 20th century was towards breaking down, then negating, the traditional absolutes and values held dear by the Royal Academy. By the end of his life, Godward had seen the rise of Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, German Expressionism, Futurism and worse of all - Dadaism. Godward heartily disapproved of these artistic aggressions. Graham Robertson wrote in the 1940's something along the same line: As a Tadema pupil, John Collier, made a remark whose truth would have resounded in Godward as well, "It is impossible to reconcile the art of Alma-Tadema with that of Matisse, Gauguin and Picasso."328 Now the aesthetic battles, fought between the turn of the century to the 1970's, have calmed to a great degree. It is now possible and even preferable to understand and appreciate art from both camps. One of the centers for attack was the academic artists insistence upon; Beauty [idealistic rhetoric], Craft [technical virtuosity] and Art [accumulative tradition]. In making a virtue into a fault, Modernism assailed sophisticated process as a numbing anti-aesthetic millstone. Godward's anonymity insulated him from direct assault by the leading critics of his day, but he felt their sting nonetheless. Moreover because of his adroit craftsmanship his "kind" of art was vulnerable to their imperious attacks, dealing him a psychological blow he would never recover. It is absurd to imagine how Duncan Grant's voracious abstract canvases could simply render the meditative work of Godward and his colleagues as shallow, trite and impotent. The Hell-fire of the avant-garde burned down the temple of Classicism. Interest in significant form, futurism, non-objective content, abstract design, expressive distortion, flatness, disassociation with the natural world and the ideas of civilization, and the fiery crucible of the "accident" repudiated Greco-Roman subject painting. It was the end of an orthodoxy that stretched back five hundred years to the early Renaissance in Italy. Half a millennium of influence on Western art simply disappeared during the 1920-30's. Artists had conspicuously lost faith in the long tradition of classical-subject painting. The last great exemplars of this legacy had died with; Alma-Tadema in 1912, John William Waterhouse in 1917, E. J. Poynter in 1919, Herbert J. Draper in 1920 and John William Godward in 1922. No painter, born after the 1860's, developed into a major classical-subject artist.329 It became nearly impossible for any young artist, having a modicum of talent, to pursue this line of painting. Those who developed their art before the mid 1890's could slip into this area but hardly at all afterwards. Philosophically classical-subject painting had "hit-the-wall." No new talents were replenishing the Greco-Roman reservoir and by the first years of the 20th century it become obvious that it was a dying genre in painting. John William Godward was among the brightest stars of the late classical-subject painters, during Classicism's twilight and final extinguishing. Many of the brightest talents had already departed to other styles and schools of art. Some of them 'diversified' from their Classical content in order to stay-up with the art market. George Lawrence Bulleid, for instance, was obliged from 1922 onwards to paint floral still-lives, in order to make a living. Even painters of the stature of Wm. Russell Flint, Herbert Draper and John W. Waterhouse, hedged their bets by broadening their subject matter away from Greco-Roman antiquity. Thus a school of "part-time Classicists" sprang-up in the early 20th century. On the continent and in America Classically oriented art was abandoned by those artists who understood that Modernism had already struck a death-knell to late Renaissance classical realism. The very nature of archeological-subject painting in the new century, which Alma-Tadema helped establish, was itself inordinately ideal in a crystalline and bourgeois sense. Like Alma-Tadema, Godward helped to demythologize and strip exemplum virtutis [great deeds by heros] from the classical-subject. The removal of myth and moral from the classical repetoire took Greco-Roman genre painting two steps closer toward its demise. In fact, rather than depicting Roman greatness, artist's from the 1870's to 1920's emphasized Rome's cruelty not virtue, à la Gibbon's Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. The doctrine of exemplum virtutis was abandoned for the most part, by those who should have preserved it. Portrayal of private and public vice not virtue, from Thomas Couture to Tadema became the order of the day. Along this lines Prettejohn noted: By stripping mythology and moral content from Classical art, replacing it with a didactic rationale, some artists were denying such painting of its most potent ally. Slippage occurred when style was replaced by subject with its attendant loss of power. Inadvertently Godward, himself, had contributed to the death of the very tradition he hoped to perpetuate. This sabotaging of the grand tradition was the unforeseen result of "painting down" to the middle-class, for the bourgeoisie cared little about the abstruse themes of antiquity. Alma-Tadema's death in 1912, perhaps more than any other elicited a reinterpretation of the entire classical orthodoxy. Roger Fry proclaimed that Tadema's art, "finds it chief support among the half-educated members of the lower middle-class": Fry was bullying British taste, not just for polemical purpose, but for what commercially might be called "market share" for the new art. Wealth had burgeoned at the middle levels of English society, thus attracting artists to its market. They were not allowed, by the constraints of dealers, to paint so eruditely as they had done for the classically schooled aristocracy or clergy. Archaeological knowledge of the ancients had broadened to such an extent that pictorial erudition replaced classical imagination. Traditional hierarchy of pictorial conventions now conspicuously relied upon photographs, while divine symettry and sacred geometry were replaced by on-site measurements. Painted snapshots of antiquity by their very nature were more comprehensible though less engaging than visionary classicism. As Prettejohn noted: This was certainly true, but it was only half the story. The drastic reduction of societal adherence to the culture of Greece and Roman came with the rise of the middle-class's interest in everything. While classical-subject painting at first attracted the nouveau riches for its cachet value, it failed to maintain its influence over them for more than half a century. Just as the Troubadour Style failed to survive the mid-19th century, so academic classicism failed to survive the late 19th century. This occurred not because it was too sophisticated for conventional Victorian audiences but rather that these audiences had diversified beyond a traditional classically educated elite. Like Marxism, Modernism had promised something truly new and 'better'. This proved too strong of an allure, it was an irresistible combination for the liberal intelligentsia then molding that society. The new orthodoxy simply replaced the older one for most of the 20th century. Classicism had become to the Edwardians what history painting had been to the Second Empire, a little too "high" of an art. Modernism and post-modernism serve as today's Official Art, and is as obnoxious as the predictable "history painting" of days past. We again have "High Art" shoved down our throats. At least the development of a didactic approach to late classicism made it seem all the more entertaining and less pedagogical. The middle classes and nouveau riches proved less traditional than the upper classes. They were also less willing to maintain this hierarchial distinction than the upper classes and more willing to jettison one art-style for another. Herein lies the real answer to the death of Greco-Roman genre painting; not ignorance but rather diversity undermined it. The hegemony of classicism led to a natural back-lash as other alternatives arose. Also the "real life" pictorial representations of the ancients by bourgeois classicists striped the veneer of prestige, leaving them as ordinary as a Dutch kitchen. Not all classical artists abandoned mythology and moral example in art. John William Waterhouse, for one, saw the power of myth as the raissone d'etre of his painting. This is why he is considered the best classical-subject painter of the late period. While Godward often titled his pictures with historical and mythological names, they were considered by his avant-garde detractors as "peep-show" confections rather than powerful evocations or re-interpretations of Greco-Roman fables, myths and history. This signaled the waning in the significance of the classical-subject itself. It was now relieved of its pedagogical and exemplary role. John Ruskin's Queen of the Air regarding the modern relevance of Apollo seems poignant in this context: Ruskin's powerful words seem even more profound against a backdrop of Greco-Roman Classicism as "costume" painting. Through trivializing that which had greater power, these painters lead, to some extent, to their own marginalization. It is doubtful, however, in the face of radical modernism, that any "return" to the past could have fared well. Certainly it would have slowed the speedy downfall and softened the resounding crash of this archaeologically based school of art, but it could not have averted it in the least. A new modernist style of Classical painting, made up of artists mostly born in the 1860-80's, included; Charles Ricketts, Charles Sims, Harry Morley, Ernest Proctor among others.334 They were able to keep a vestige of classical-subject painting going a little longer. They attempted to reinvest Classicism with new vigor learned from modern aesthetics while retaining myth. However the Classical look of these artists was lost with the demise of Art Deco, a transitional stylistic phase itself and certainly not a haven for classical subject-painting. Even Pablo Picasso, Ferdinand Leger and Giorgio di Chirico had contributed to both the maintenance and demise of objective Classicism. On the continent, Picasso through the formalities of Cubism and his later Greco-Roman references, animated "Modern Classicism." But all this would have been anathema to the brand of Classicism exercised by the High Victorian and most of the Edwardian artists. Godward, who did not trade in incongruity, would have recoiled at their 'invasion' of the ancient Classical world. Though allusions to ancient Greece and Rome are impossible to entirely expunge from the record of 20th century art, it became an increasingly rare occurrence. As modernism had for centuries been the seed which guaranteed the viability of tomorrow's art, the Classical tradition was the soil from which it grew. Far from being Modernism nemesis, the Classical heritage was the bedrock from which creativity could spring. Now that was gone, art became a teaming riot, and the avant-garde's alter ego disappeared. Art as a whole had lost its soul mate, its birshirta. Instead of an art which measured society, 20th century painting became increasingly about its own prerogatives. It became dangerously ingrown. The avant-garde was a monologue, while classical-realism carried on a dialogue. It was pour la pour l'art. It became autobiographical rather than societal. Most Modernist developments became as esoteric as the purism of High Classicism.335 If antiquity painting told us too much about the past, Modernist told us too little about the present. Both were, to some extent, elitist. Whereas Bourgeois-Classicism at least tried to reconcile itself to the masses, Modernism only came down to the corporation level. Now, finally, enclaves of highly talented artists, working in rather isolated circumstances are finding renewal in Classical-Realism. While their numbers have certainly not reached 'critical mass' they are growing rapidly. While England is rather behind the curve, America, Spain and Italy are moving along. Claudio Bravo, Richard Maury, Richard Lack, Nelson Shanks, Allan Banks, Steven Gjertsen, William Whitaker, Donald Seegmiller and many others have begun to recover the essence of Classical ideals, academic painting and picture making techniques. Though none paint with an eye to Greco-Roman subject-painting, they have reinvested their art with the Classical ideal of Renaissance space. Hilton Kramer spoke to this issue: It is improbable that another Neo-Classical revival of Greco-Roman genre will occur. Except, in a formal sense. Whereas in the past the classical-subject was inseparable from formal Classicism now it is thoroughly defined and separated. Formal grounds exist for a revival of abstract Classicism but not antique-subject oriented Classicism. Bauhaus and Minimalism, perhaps with the vaguest of Greco-Roman reference may rear itself, but classical-subject painting in either the 'grand style' or bourgeois sense is dead forever among classical realist fine artists. In reality classical-subject painting was but a veneer for a deeper epistemology, which will continue to live in art. It was the gospel of beauty, perfection, tradition and peace, that Godward and other artists felt were most profoundly transmitted through the classical-subject. In this day of reconciliation between the arts we find that Classicism is like the builder's square to Modernism's mariner's compass. The past and the future meeting in the present, it is now permissible to let their boundaries touch. Though there is a clear distinction between the Apollonian Renaissance and Dionysian Modernism, it does not mean that they cannot meet in ecumenical juxtaposition. Both have a lot to learn from the other. | |
   Hon. John Collier Priestess of Delphi Oil on canvas, 1891 160 x 80 cm Art Gallery of South Australia [ Image courtesy of Art Magick ]      Claudio Bravo The Temptation of Saint Anthony Oil on canvas  Richard Maury Seated Nude Oil on canvas, 2000 28 x 20 inches   Don Seegmiller Female Nude Oil on canvas    Stephen Gjertson Reflections Oil on canvas, 1992 44 x 32 inches Private collection of heirs of the artist | |
 |
