The Iconography in The Clinic of Dr. Gross by Thomas Eakins - Term Paper Example

?The Iconography in the Work The Clinic of Dr. Gross by Thomas Eakins Introduction Throughout history, the culture and the arts have either merged well with or in an opposite position against political or popular leaders and personalities of the time. Leaders and personalities always mean the content of society newspaper pages, or the so-called talk of the town, those who have, attendants as well as speakers of social functions and important gatherings. On the other side may be revolutionaries, artists, writers, critics, and sometimes, media personalities, and those who have not. Although in most instances, media men, artists and writers who may soon be popular after their deaths (post mortem) or even a part of history later, they, too, consisted of those who have not. This social divide may have been typical of many societies throughout history that it is sometimes ironic that the products of this opposite side are “honored”, collected, or soon appreciated by the prevailing side (politically and economically well-off). With this premise, this paper will try to determine the representation of The Clinic of Dr. Gross. But prior to a full understanding of any artist’s work, it is important to comprehend the artist: or at least an overview of his life, his art work themes, passion, and others that may shed light to any perceived mystery or message that might be conveyed in a certain work. This is applicable to Thomas Eakins’ The Clinic of Dr. Gross. Thomas Eakins Eakins is one of the more important American realist painters who was also an avid photographer and innovator in the field of photography. In addition, he was also a passionate educator who rose from being a volunteer in 1876 to director by 1882 in Pennsylvania Academy (Foster, 102). In his paintings, Eakins used Philadelphia personalities as his subjects and he has focused on the human figure moving, the anatomy of human and animal body as depicted in his commissioned work with William Rudolf O’Donovan in 1893 to 1894 that created the Lincoln and Grant bronze sculptures in Brooklyn, New York (Goodrich, 282). Eakins is known to have finished hundreds of paintings and his subjects depicted his friends, family, and people known to him. He has been described by Goodrich as the most profound and strongest realist in his time and maybe, beyond (Goodrich, 283). In the words of Kimmelman (P 5), Eakins’ work: is bound up with our national identity as much as any other American artists’, to the point that it remains nearly impossible to see America, or at least to look back on the country in the 19th-century, without some refraction through his art (1). Eakins painted nude men swimming, rowers, sailors, baseball players, his students, himself, professors, sitters, models and artists, boxers, wrestlers, and more (Simpsons, 28). While most of his active life as an artist showed a difficult appreciation by the public, Eakins was recognized starting in 1902 when he was made National Academician. His wife Susan Macdowell Eakins, also an artist, had been cooperative and provided much of Eakins’ paintings to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Pennsylvania Academy, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art (Goodrich, 283). The Clinic of Dr. Gross For a modern viewer and un-initiated, the painting, a large 96 inches by seventy eight inches, depicts a theater, probably spherical because behind was the audience, and yet, the painter’s perspective was at the front. There in the middle was the main subject in his coat; much the same like the others. His erect body posture exudes confidence and power, while all about him, the men of the same dark colored outfits attend to their business, except for one who has a frock and dress but also of the same dark garment, whose face was turned, her hand and fingers clawed as if to defy pain. The audiences on the background were either attentive or sleepy, but there was one who seems to be busy taking down notes. With the bloodied hands, the exposed flesh, and the medical instruments on the foreground, one will conclude there must be a surgery going on. And one would immediately come to think: so, this is how they did it at that time? With audiences and all? Dr. Samuel Gross is a renowned Philadelphia academic trauma surgeon. He taught anatomy and transferred from one university to another until he settled in Pennsylvania in 1856 when he became professor of surgery at his alma mater Jefferson Medical College. Eakins was said to have chosen Dr. Gross as a novel subject with the focus on the discipline of modern surgery. Together with another painting the Chess Player, Eakins attempted to present The Clinic of Dr. Gross at the Centennial Exposition in 1876 but has been rejected for the Art Gallery (Simpson, 28). The painting finished in 1875, depicted Dr. Gross as the focal subject, in his surgical theatre. He was treating a patient which was not visible whether a male or a female. In fact, there was difficulty in locating the actual position of the patient at all. However, the realistic depiction of the bloodied hand or fingers of Dr. Gross as well as his patient and assistant made the somewhat sober presentation freaky. Another character that stood out in the painting is a cringing female whose face was not visible, and assumed as the mother of the patient (Nuland, 2003). One of the earlier understandings about the painting was its relation to the depicted profession as another painting The Agnew Clinic came after in 1889. It is assumed that Eakins may be providing a progression of the work – from environment to the conduct of surgery, and even hygiene (in the medical field (Kirkpatrick, 2006). It has also been suggested that both paintings have been controversial and were refused during their time for portrayal of publicly unacceptable images. On the part of The Gross Clinic for its depiction of blood and the actual surgery, and for the second: depiction of partially nude woman (Kirkpatrick, 68). It was considered “shocking” until today although it is also considered “the finest 19th-century American painting” by Kimmelman (2). However, it could also be the other works that depicted American life in general, and the bounty of Eakins’ works that earned Eakins that accolade. As observed by Kimmelman, “their patient, probably a teenage boy, although only his legs and buttocks are visible, along with a pair of socks on his feet, the figure a hard-to-decipher fragment of cloth and limbs,” (p 1) providing an unclear role of the patient and even aesthetics on its positioning or appearance. Analysis In providing a reason behind the depiction of Eakins’ works that include The Clinic of Dr. Gross, it should be fully understood that Eakins was unconventional at most. He has been described as having his own system in teaching his students to the point of undressing in front of his student Amelia van Buren when she asked him in class about the movement of the pelvis (Homer, 91). He, being an academician, suggested that a teacher’s role for his student is at best become an instrument of the student’s growth, and that influence may be little. The teacher or the master is also expected to say the least if he is expected to be greater or better (Homer, 91). As mentioned earlier, some of his works were not always acceptable to the intended audience or those who should appraise it. Instead, controversy reigned. As Nuland (122) suggested, the prevalent causes of controversy includes: introduction of an entirely novel concept that flouts normative standards far conceivable to conventional thinkers so that it is denied an art at all; there is a deliberate intent for the artist to shock or make people pause and think, shake them off complacency, or even simply delivering a message; unintentional creation of pother by the artist. These characteristics were all present in the reception of many of Eakins’ art work, but most importantly, for The Clinic of Dr. Gross. While Rembrandt also depicted a similar art work through The Anatomy Lessons of Dr. Nicolaes Turp (1632) for the Amsterdam Guild of Surgeons, their similarity is limited on the theater depiction. Rembrandt’s work was commissioned so that the doctors depicted paid to be included in the painting, also seen to be historically important for its representation (Rachlin, 68). Eakins’ however, had been rejected by the Art Gallery, and considered controversial for the viewers were shocked with its vivid depiction of the gory surgery. At this point, to suggest that Eakins’ works are celebratory such as claimed by Elizabeth Johns (31) who said that Eakins’ subjects are the heroes of modern times is already lost on The Clinic of Dr. Gross. There is simplification in accepting that Eakins’ arts are a depiction of reality despite their close resemblance to their subjects and the mastery of which Eakins illustrated and presented the human form in movement, with muscles and precise contortions of the body. In the same note, Kimmelman also observed that “Disciplined, patient and exact. That is what Eakins shows us, and also how he went about his business as a painter,” (p 1). For Nuland (122), it was not only a celebration but a depiction of a message about the non-modest Dr. Samuel David Gross, then president of the American Medical Association, and non-believer of the existence of germs as proposed by his opponent Joseph Lister of the University of Edinburgh. Nuland proposed that “Thomas Eakins was certainly aware of this greatest of the controversies then roiling the international profession of medicine,” (2003, p 122). At that time, Eakins studied anatomy under Dr. Joseph Pancoast at the Jefferson Medical College with the interest on muscular functioning (Nuland, 123), an interest he pursued throughout his life. By the time he started on the painting, it was highly possible that Eakins already formed his own understanding on the controversy (Nuland, 123). In consideration of the hygiene issue mentioned earlier, Nuland (2003) suggested about the painting that: There is not an iota of antisepsis in sight. Not only are the surgeon and his three assistants bare-handed, but over their shirts, waistcoats, and ties they are wearing ordinary frock coats, no doubt the same ones they don before every operation, rarely if ever cleaned of accumulated blood and pus. (2). This was in relation to the Lister debate Nuland proposed earlier. At that time, there was a growing fatality of amputee cases under Dr. Gross’ clinic whereas fatality was decreasing under Dr. Lister’s clinic (Nuland, 125). It would also be known that Lister have come to Philadelphia by invitation of Gross, as was to be read in Eakins’ autobiography, so that in the book, The Clinic of Dr. Gross was never mentioned. Yet, Nuland suggested that “America’s leading surgeon came to realize, even if others did not, that he had been ridiculed by Eakins,” and that the banishment of the painting to a venue Eakins did not expect, must have been an indication of Gross’ influence ta that time (Nuland, 125). For a modern viewer, and with the understanding of history behind the painting, it can be considered that the painting itself is a depiction of reality that was damning during that period. According to Nuland (124), negative and abusive criticism followed the painting which did not fail to shock the majority of its viewers. For Nuland, Eakins was not presenting the accomplishment of an academician and surgeon but: in reality an expose of the backwardness and smugly misguided self-aggrandizement in which American medicine was then wallowing, as exemplified by one of its most renowned professors […] Eakins was portraying Gross as the pompous antediluvian he was later shown to be – the proprietor of a gross clinic indeed (3). In consideration of Nuland’s observation, this writer agrees that there is something else beneath the shocking presentation that the painting brings. It is not about the introduction of shock through the blood or the honorable depiction of a great surgeon but something else that should be considered and reconsidered by viewers especially today. Conclusion The totality of a painting is usually observed when presented to a viewer, viewers, or critics. First, the focus or the subject, then, the theme, then, visual aesthetics: use of color, light, balance, perspective, technique, style, and many others that only the skills of the artist could render. In inspecting the The Gross Clinic, the most immediate focus of my attention has been on the body being treated by Dr. Gross and his team. It should be noted that Eakins is a realist painter, thus, his portrays or images depict the actuality or near actuality of the images, and this is applied on the main subject Dr. Samuel Gross. Despite its realistic depiction, one can immediately notice the lack of proper perspective on the patient – was that a torso or hips, or legs being treated? Where is the head? Where are the other parts of the body? With these questions left un-answered on the painting, the focus is then returned to the subject: Dr. Gross. But the message cannot be again established at this time especially where the viewer may be ignorant or semi-ignorant about Dr. Gross, and the narratives behind the politics of medicine at that time: the debate against Dr. Lister and the theory of germs causing deaths on amputees. It is therefore important that the viewer be acquainted either with The Agnew Clinic or the politics behind Dr. Gross and Dr. Lister. Only then will the message of Eakins become clear: The Gross Clinic, as Nuland observed, is a reminder and depiction of a time when great men, well-respected and occupiers of society’s most respected circle, are not actually great. It was a statement that even in greatness, a man is has his stupid moments. And for one like Dr. Gross: it was his name and the painting by Thomas Eakins. 1 – Kimmelman, 2002, p 1 2 – Nuland, 2003, p 124 3 – Nuland, 2003, 125 Reference: Foster, Kathleen A.. Thomas Eakins, Philadelphia Museum of Art. p 102. 2001. (Print) Goodrich, Lloyd. Thomas Eakins. Harvard University Press. P 282. .1982. (Print) Homer, William Innes. Thomas Eakins: His Life and Art. Abbeville Press. P 91. 1992. (Print) Kimmelman, Michael.. Art Review: A Fire Stoking Realism. New York Times June 21. Accessed from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/21/arts/art-review-a-fire-stoking-realism.html 2002. (Web) Johns, Elizabeth. 1983. Eakins: The Heroism of Modern Life. Princeton, New Jersey. P. 24. 1983. (Print) Kirkpatrick, Sidney. The Revenge of Thomas Eakins. Yale University Press. P. 67. 2006. (Print) Nuland, Sherwin. The Uncertain Art: The Artist and the Doctor. The American Scholar. Ebsco. 121. 2003. (Print). Rachlin, Harvey. Scandals, Vandals and Da Vincis. Chrysalis Books. p. 68. 2007. (Print). Simpson, Marc. 2001. Thomas Eakins. Philadelphia Museum of Art. p. 28. 2001. (Print ). Read More