Idealistic versus Naturalistic Art - Essay Example

?Alex Hartzler Museum Response Paper ARTH 1010-001 6/4/12 Idealistic vs. Naturalistic Art Throughout history, artists and sculptors have created masterpieces that portray different people, places, and things in ways that show meaning and emotion through specific traits and values. Some of these pieces portray their society's idealistic values through the way in which they show their subject. This gives a lot of meaning to the content of the artwork and how it pertains to a specific time in history. Because of this tendency, we are able to learn a lot about societies that existed in the past, even when we don't have a lot of written work to tell us what the people were like. In contrast, some artwork focuses more on depicting the naturalistic qualities of the subject. Artists do this in order to capture the raw emotion of the scene and give the viewer an accurate, unbiased image that reflects the reality of their time. People viewing the artwork can determine which type of art it is, idealistic or naturalistic, based on specific elements seen within the painting. During my visit to the Utah Museum of Fine arts, I chose two pieces of art that I believe show the difference between naturalistic and idealistic qualities. By examining the Equestrian Statue of Louis XIV by Jacques-Phillippe Bouchardon as an example of idealistic art and the painting "Preparation for Dinner" by James Taylor Harwood as an example of naturalistic art, it becomes easier to discuss the differences between these two painting styles. The Equestrian Statue of Louis XIV by Bouchardon now on display at the Utah Museum of Fine Arts is a reduction model of a seven-meter statue built by Francois Girardon and installed in 1699 at the Place Louis-le-Grand in France, what is today the Place Vendome (Louvre). Converting that into American measurements, the original statue was almost 23 feet tall not counting its pedestal, which added another 10 meters or almost 33 feet. The original statue was built in 1685 when Louis XIV’s war minister created a new square in Paris and chose Girardon to sculpt a full-scale statue of the king. His choice of artist and his intentions for the square were mostly influenced by his desire to create a more magnificent square than that created to celebrate the king's earlier victories in the Dutch War of 1679 (Louvre). The large square in Paris was the perfect setting for such a marvelous statue of the king to stand. King Louis XIV holds the merit for being the longest reigning king in European history, governing for seventy-two years. Unfortunately, the original statue, which took two years to create, was destroyed in 1792 with the first wave of the French Revolutionary wars (Art Tribune), but several smaller models had been made. The sculpture has many idealistic qualities to it that aid in celebrating the royal image of king. For example, the piece shows Louis XIV as a Roman emperor, calling on the authority of the ancients to equate him with the heroes of the ages. He is shown wearing a contemporary curly wig and sitting atop a strong steed, further demonstrating his ties to authority and nobility. The quality of the horse is also intended to reflect on the quality of the man as the head of a wealthy and prosperous nation. Louis sits the horse without saddle or stirrups. This can have a few interpretations. First, it shows that the rider has enough grace and agility to be able to remain on the back of such a powerful horse without having to be buckled in place or hold on to some kind of strap. Second, it proves his mastery over all things in that he can presumably convince the horse to do what he wants with very little effort. The horse itself stands majestically in a walking position with one leg raised and one leg standing on the shield and sword of a defeated enemy. As a result, the artist has captured the king as an active participant in the wars he has led, shows the horse to be a warhorse (adding yet more prestige to the idea that the king is controlling him without stirrups), and demonstrates the king crushing the enemies of France. In spite of the action, the king sits with his back straight and the index finger of one hand pointing imperiously into the distance. The scroll of paper he holds in his hand indicates planning and strategy. Because of these elements of the artwork, Louis appears to be a man who remains calm in the heat of battle, a man concerned with the future of his nation and a man who brings careful thought and wisdom into every decision he makes. All these traits were chosen purposefully to portray the king as a very powerful and wealthy person. Even the creation of the statue takes on an idealistic element as it was the largest single cast bronze statue ever to have been made in France (Louvre). Although the statue is used here as an example of idealistic art, there are some naturalistic elements to it as well. For example, the clothing the king is wearing reflects the understood fashions of a real historical period and the musculature of the horse, although tending toward the perfect, is realistic for a horse of this nature. The pose is relatively natural as well, with the horse balancing on two legs as horses do and the other two legs bent appropriately. The king sits naturally on the horse's back and his position is also realistic. Hair, bridle, reins and other elements of the statue look as if they could simply be brought into real life, too. What makes this statue a great example of the idealistic approach to art, though, is the clear intention of depicting everything as larger than life and as perfect as it can be. Each element of the artwork is intended to show that element at its best, maximizing the positive qualities of the figure and using as many symbols of greatness as can be added without detracting from the overriding intent which is to depict this particular king. By contrast, Harwood's "Preparation for Dinner," an oil on canvas painting, focuses on providing a realistic image and attempts to leave interpretation to the viewer. The painting was created in 1890 while Harwood was studying at the Ecole des Beaux Arts and heavily influenced by the then-popular realist movement. The realist movement was based on the concept that the purpose of art should be to show life as it really was, in all its common activities. This concept suggested that art should be free of the idealism and biased interpretations seen in previous movements. French Realism was, in part, inspired by various political movements that occurred during the period. According to Finocchio, it was a time in which the people of France were attempting to gain a better lifestyle for themselves by demanding rights for the ‘common’ man. They wanted the same kind of recognition as had been achieved by common Americans less than a generation earlier. In attempting to ‘accurately’ reflect life in all of its objective detail, French realist artists worked to find the most ‘common’ examples of French life. They sought the people of the fields and villages and painted them while they were engaged in performing their most humble and mundane everyday activities. "Preparation for Dinner" is a large painting, measuring 37.5 inches by 50 inches and framed in a gilt frame for display. The painting represents the first time Harwood was accepted into the prestigious Paris Academy Salon and the first time an artist from Utah received such international distinction. The painting depicts a young woman sitting in a simple wooden chair at a simple wooden table as she peels potatoes for the evening's meal. This is fully in keeping with the realist approach because it shows a common person doing a common activity, something she must do every day of her life. The woman has a large bowl in her lap that she is using to catch the peelings and she is placing the vegetables with others on the nearby table. There is nothing special about the bowl, no markings, edging or painting to show it as something of value, and the vegetables on the table are all very common garden variety vegetables - onions, potatoes, carrots and lettuce. While the carrots and lettuce add color to the table, there is nothing special or remarkable about them. There is a window just above the table that lets in afternoon sunlight slanting across the small alcove where the table has been placed. Through the window is visible some greenery growing against the outside of the house and a white wall on the other side of presumably a small garden space. The room the woman is sitting in also contains a simple wooden bench, a couple of large but plain baskets, a few of clay urns, and some empty glass bottles. The floors are made of uneven wooden planks and there is an indication of a painting on one wall, but not enough of it can be seen to determine what it shows. Other than the indication of the painting, the walls are blank, showing an uneven coating of whitewash indicating a clean and tidy but very common and utilitarian space. As with the statue, this realist painting does have some elements of the ideal within it. For example, the woman's clothing is very traditional Dutch clothing which may or may not have been the actual everyday costume of the model in the painting. The white collar she wears seems very unsuitable to the kind of gardening work that would have been necessary to acquire the vegetables she is working on and her hair is perfectly tucked up under the little red cap she wears. The wooden shoes on her feet also may or may not have been the actual everyday wear of the woman. While wooden shoes are reputed to be ideal for Dutch farmers and others, they seem out of keeping with the rest of the woman's wardrobe, which is spotlessly clean and shows no sign of outdoor labor. Again, though, the image is dominated by elements of the real as opposed to the ideal and conveys a sense that the artist is simply attempting to capture a moment in time in the real life of a country woman. Although it is difficult to explicitly spell out the elements that make one piece of art idealistic and another realistic, it is clear from the examination of these two pieces of art found at the Utah Museum of Fine Arts that there are distinct differences. Idealistic art is heavy with the interpretations of the artist who is attempting to make his audience see or feel a specific way about his subject. This is usually in a positive way, as in making the king appear to be honest, just, wise, powerful, wealthy, noble, and suitable to live forever within the halls of heroes. Realist art is more focused on attempting to remove the artist's impressions and simply present a scene as it would naturally occur, particularly a scene that would take place among the greatest number of people - the common people. Neither approach is able to completely eliminate elements of the other, but through their focus and depiction, it is possible to tell one from the other. Works Cited Finocchio, Ross. (2004). “Nineteenth-Century French Realism.” Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–2004. Web. Louvre. "Louis XIV on Horseback." 2012. Web. The Art Tribune. "The Louis XIV sculpture returns to Versailles." 2009. Web. Read More