Two pieces read so far this year are very different: one about the infamous libel trial, between James Whistler and John Ruskin, and one discussing the legitimacy of the paintings of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart. Although these readings have varied topics, some themes are common. One theme is of legitimacy in artwork. James Whistler's legitimacy as a true artist was questioned when the critic, John Ruskin, said his painting was "flinging a pot of paint in the public's face" (3). In contrast, the legitimacy of a work of artwork was questioned by the National Portrait Gallery Director, and the artist, Gilbert Stuart, himself (2). Another shared theme is the weight given to certain works of art. Although Gilbert Stuart disavowed the full length portrait of George Washington, it is considered a prominent and important American painting, which First Lady Dolly Madison rescued from a fire besieging the White House (2). The painting Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket by James Whistler also carried weight, but in a different way: it filled Whistler with bruised pride and ruined him financially, and broke down John Ruskin mentally.
The two readings provided different perspectives on trends in different historical periods. For example, Gilbert Stuart (may or may not have) done the painting of George Washington in 1796 (2). He was one of the most popular American artists at the time. His artwork was traditional in style and composition, and was made to be as realistic as possible. It was also a distinctively American painting, with the simplicity of the first president's clothes contrasting with the opulence of his surroundings. His posture and expression command power, showing that the President Washington had control as a straightforward man in this land of new wealth and beauty. The painting that caused strife between Whistler and Ruskin was painted nearly a century later, in France. At that point in time, there was a transition into modernism, foreseen fearfully by Ruskin (2). The painting was whimsical and almost abstract, a far cry from traditional works of art. In America, with Gilbert Stuart, he fought to say that his socially accepted and well received work was not his. In France, a century later, James Whistler fought in court to state that his painting was, in fact, art.
In both readings, there is strength in that they give a sense of atmosphere: one can visualize the dramatic libel trial between Whistler and Ruskin, one can imagine George Washington posing begrudgingly for his portrait, and one can imagine the two very different art worlds in two very different times and places. Another strength of the pieces is that they both provide historical background about the different perspectives on art. In the Whistler vs. Ruskin piece, it describes the historical background of the art world at that time. In the piece about Gilbert Stuart, historical background is shown about the different critics and artists thoughts on the painting of George Washington at different moments in time. The reading on Whistler vs Ruskin has strength because it is not only descriptive about the two parties, but about the painting Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket and the other works favored by Ruskin at that time. Some weaknesses of the pieces are that the reading on Whistler vs Ruskin does not leave room for individual interpretation and has a strong bias. The reading on Gilbert Stuart does not give much information on the art itself but focuses solely on the mystery surrounding the portrait.
What I found most interesting about the piece on Whistler vs Ruskin was how the trial essentially solved nothing. Whistler, despite his dramatic defense and moving speeches, was left ruined financially. Ruskin retired soon after, due to his grief and a mental breakdown. Abstract art and modernism, understood by both artist and critic, was not understood by the judicial court, and nothing came of the trial. What most surprised me about the reading on Gilbert Stuart was that an artist could disavow a work, especially one that was well received. That this, one of the most famed and most seen American paintings, could be disavowed by the artist and questioned was astounding. It also surprised me that people are still discussing the legitimacy of this work and are not trusting the opinions of art historians.
The two readings provided different perspectives on trends in different historical periods. For example, Gilbert Stuart (may or may not have) done the painting of George Washington in 1796 (2). He was one of the most popular American artists at the time. His artwork was traditional in style and composition, and was made to be as realistic as possible. It was also a distinctively American painting, with the simplicity of the first president's clothes contrasting with the opulence of his surroundings. His posture and expression command power, showing that the President Washington had control as a straightforward man in this land of new wealth and beauty. The painting that caused strife between Whistler and Ruskin was painted nearly a century later, in France. At that point in time, there was a transition into modernism, foreseen fearfully by Ruskin (2). The painting was whimsical and almost abstract, a far cry from traditional works of art. In America, with Gilbert Stuart, he fought to say that his socially accepted and well received work was not his. In France, a century later, James Whistler fought in court to state that his painting was, in fact, art.
In both readings, there is strength in that they give a sense of atmosphere: one can visualize the dramatic libel trial between Whistler and Ruskin, one can imagine George Washington posing begrudgingly for his portrait, and one can imagine the two very different art worlds in two very different times and places. Another strength of the pieces is that they both provide historical background about the different perspectives on art. In the Whistler vs. Ruskin piece, it describes the historical background of the art world at that time. In the piece about Gilbert Stuart, historical background is shown about the different critics and artists thoughts on the painting of George Washington at different moments in time. The reading on Whistler vs Ruskin has strength because it is not only descriptive about the two parties, but about the painting Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket and the other works favored by Ruskin at that time. Some weaknesses of the pieces are that the reading on Whistler vs Ruskin does not leave room for individual interpretation and has a strong bias. The reading on Gilbert Stuart does not give much information on the art itself but focuses solely on the mystery surrounding the portrait.
What I found most interesting about the piece on Whistler vs Ruskin was how the trial essentially solved nothing. Whistler, despite his dramatic defense and moving speeches, was left ruined financially. Ruskin retired soon after, due to his grief and a mental breakdown. Abstract art and modernism, understood by both artist and critic, was not understood by the judicial court, and nothing came of the trial. What most surprised me about the reading on Gilbert Stuart was that an artist could disavow a work, especially one that was well received. That this, one of the most famed and most seen American paintings, could be disavowed by the artist and questioned was astounding. It also surprised me that people are still discussing the legitimacy of this work and are not trusting the opinions of art historians.