When a Civilization Goes Mad

Pajamas Media ^ | August 16, 2011 | David Solway

[AnAmericanMother]

Oh, for heaven's sake. Just because I don't like an artist's work I'm seethingly jealous? Come on. And I didn't say his models weren't lovely . . . in fact I went out of my way to say that Millais depicted Rossetti's wife beautifully in "Ophelia".

I hope you can see the similarities in the three paintings you posted, even though one is much earlier, of Elizabeth Siddals, and the others look like either Jane Morris or Cornforth. Rossetti didn't paint what he saw, he painted something that was inside his head.

But by any objective standard, Rossetti is not the artist that Millais or Hunt or (especially) Burne-Jones are. His sketches, especially, are awkward in modeling and perspective. He got so badly embrangled with perspective and figure size in "Found" that he never completed it.

Now compare that to Burne-Jones . . . I've picked one with the elongated figures and flattened perspective to avoid the retort that Rossetti was painting in a "medieval style" (he wasn't, but never mind) . . . and you can see that he has a mastery of figure drawing, composition, and perspective that Rossetti just could not attain.

All Pre-Raphaelites are not created equal.

[AnAmericanMother]

I swear I didn't look at your post before you brought up the "medieval style" canard.

But anyhow, Q.E.D.

And if you're going to argue that Burne-Jones wasn't "really" a member of the P.R.B., just consider "The Lady of Shalott" instead.

[Joe 6-pack]

I seem to have touched a nerve, lol. You didn't say you didn't like Rossetti, you said he couldn't draw. Care to post some of your sketches for comparison?

And the medievalism is no canard; nor was it their aim. Certainly they drew on medieval subject matter and mythology, but had their pure aim been medievalism, they would have called themselves the "Medieval Brotherhood." That was not their intent. They deliberately chose their name based on the rigid inflexibility in the European academies in the wake of Raphael. That does not equate with medievalism. Have you ever read their manifesto? I'd recommend doing so before you unveil any further irrational invective against Rossetti. If you read (and understand) the PRB Manifesto (and much of Ruskin's commentary on them) , you'll see that what Rossetti did was very much in line with what he set out to do. Whether you like it or not is entirely a matter of personal taste, and I don't begrudge you (or anybody) that. To skewer Rossetti's abilities as an artist without understanding what his aims were requires a retort. Your arguments against Rossetti bear all the weight of a person criticizing an architect who set out to build a round building for building a round building for not including any corners.

Of course, I'm guessing you had some feminist art prof along the line who decried Rossetti's 'misogyny' and have not liked him since. Too bad, but your loss for not seeing his paintings for what the are. And I enjoy how you continue to keep bringing up "Found." Every artist has pieces they became unhappy with and didn't complete. Few of these 'throwaways' merit the reknown and study that "Found" receives. So you don't like it...big deal. Neither did the artist.

And to further correct the record, in the strictest of senses, Burn-Jones was not a PRe-Raphaelite. Insist all you want, but he was not. Did he paint in their style, and was he heavily influenced by them? Certainly, as did many european and American artists in their wake. But the PRB was, and remains a clearly defined group. Rigidly so. He was not a member.

[Joe 6-pack]

Also, you stated...

"...Now compare that to Burne-Jones . . .and you can see that he has a mastery of figure drawing, composition, and perspective that Rossetti just could not attain."

His drawing, composition and use of perspective could be described as....well...Raphaelesque. Clearly you don't understand the intent and aims of the PRE-Raphaelite Brotherhood. There's ample evidence Rossetti could attain the techical goals of Burn-Jones; he just had no interest in doing so.

[AnAmericanMother]

You're not very convincing with your personal attacks. Why don't you just knock it off and discuss the merits instead of repeatedly imputing motives? It detracts from any actual arguments you have, and makes you look petty and mean.

Another annoying thing is that you continue to pose questions that I've already answered, and repeat in "attack" mode issues that I have already acknowledged (e.g. I anticipated that you would gripe that Burne-Jones wasn't "really" PRB. So I gave examples including Holman Hunt, who was indisputably a PRB member, indeed a founder, but didn't have the same problems with basic drawing that Rossetti had. Neither did Millais, another founder. I've noted several examples.) That simply makes you appear unwilling to engage on the merits.

I do apologize for mentioning "Found" twice, but since it illustrates in one place a number of persistent DGR problems (perspective, figure proportions, composition, and drawing) it's a good general example. And while everybody has stuff they should toss in the trash, you're supposed to work out those basic issues before you start applying paint to canvas, like in the preparatory sketching phase. Several of my Pre-Raphaelite books note this painting, by the way, so it has attracted some unfavorable attention from others as well.

Apropos of that, where I really notice things getting out of drawing is in the preparatory sketches. If you compare Rossetti's sketches with Millais', for example, it's immediately obvious who has the better command. Outline versus volume, again and again:

Perhaps Rossetti was simply bored with the preparatory work and didn't want to bother with it. That would explain some of the end product.

[Joe 6-pack]

LOL...My personal attacks?!?! You're still missing my point (and now you've mentioned 'Found' three times, BTW). And as for me being petty and mean? You're the one that came out sayin Rossetti couldn't draw. I'm still waiting for your sketches so I can see how it's really done. (By the way, some of my stuff is viewable on my FR homepage). You then go on to say, "And while everybody has stuff they should toss in the trash, you're supposed to work out those basic issues before you start applying paint to canvas..."

Are those your rules? I've thrown a lot of stuff away after I've started painting...or more expensively, started laying gold leaf. Sometimes, no matter how much you prep a piece, once you start fleshing it out, you don't like what you see. You rework it trying to salvage it. Sometimes it comes out better than you anticipated, but more often, you pitch it, or you keep it around for your personal reflection and study.

But back to my point...if you read the stated aims of the PRB, their declared purpose was to escape the 'painterly' and academic constraints that had evolved in Europe since the late Renaissance. Your criticisms of Rossetti are precisely that he didn't comply with the academic conventions of his time. If you've taken what I've said personally, it's because your criticisms seem to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what Rossetti had set out to do. As I stated before, if you think his work sucks, that's fine. If you think his stated objectives were wrong, that's your right to do so. However, if you want to criticize Rossetti for his failure to adhere to convention, or to work in the manner of other established artists, you're missing the point altogether.

[Fightin Whitey]

Thanks for your posts above.

You make your points well.

[Flag_This]

"My Senior Thesis for my Art History BA was on Cole's Voyage of Life."

I just had a flash-back of writing about Frederic Edwin Church and the Hudson River School...

[Joe 6-pack]

My favorite Church painting...suits your screen name :-)

[Flag_This]

I was always partial to "Cotopaxi"

[Joe 6-pack]

I think his best atmospheric study was Twilight in the Wilderness...

[AnAmericanMother]

I'm sorry, but I have no interest in continuing this conversation, as you seem completely unable to keep 'personalities' out of it.

You have leveled some extremely discourteous insults that you (I hope) would have been ashamed to make in person. I see no reason to tolerate that.

A pity, because I think you have some good ideas and points to make and I would have liked to discuss them in a civilized manner.

[Joe 6-pack]

That is a shame, since you started this whole dialogue with the assertion, "But Rossetti couldn't draw...and most of his women look downright weird."

Pretty big indictment of a reknowned artist who isn't around to speak on his own behalf. I saw no reason to tolerate that either.

[Eternal_Bear]

Still plenty of Christians everywhere. To condemn everyone in cities is just idiotic.