Posted on 10/18/2002 3:18:25 PM PDT by rhema
LATELY, WHEN EXHIBITS OF GREAT European artists—the Impressionists, Vermeer, daVinci—have traveled to America, hordes of visitors have lined up at the nation's great museums for the chance to see such magnificent works.
Last spring, the tables were turned. Europeans flocked to a traveling exhibit of American art—not the modern art that finally earned Americans respect in the art world, but art from the 19th century, art by Christian artists working out of a distinctly biblical worldview.
"Stunning," said the sophisticated reviewers. "Wonderful." The London Times called it "one of the most exciting and revelatory exhibitions ... in recent years." One of the curators reported that the show provoked an uncharacteristically emotional response from the generally cool British gallery goers. "You could hear audible gasps of amazement when people walked in and saw these scenes."
The show was titled "The American Sublime: Epic Landscapes of Our Nation, 1820-1880," a collection of paintings by the so-called Hudson River School. Known for their awe-inspiring depictions of spectacular natural vistas, the Hudson River artists created America's first original artistic movement.
Though popular in their time on both sides of the Atlantic, the Hudson River artists fell out of favor in the 20th century, the age of abstract expressionism and pop art. Most Europeans today had never even heard of these artists, let alone seen their paintings. London's prestigious Tate Gallery, working with its Senior Research Fellow Andrew Wilton and Yale art historian Tim Barringer, borrowed nearly 90 paintings from American museums and collections to assemble the show.
After its British run, the exhibition traveled back to its homeland in the United States, which, ironically, had also all but forgotten some of its greatest artists. "The American Sublime" was at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in Philadelphia through the summer and is currently at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts until Nov. 17, after which the paintings will go back to their owners.
The term "sublime" refers to the aesthetic experience of being overwhelmed, filled with awe at something so majestic that it evokes a sense of infinity. The paintings in this show, typically huge in themselves, depict vast mountain ranges, sunsets, waterfalls, storms.
The artists were not interested in painting trifles that were "pretty." They wanted to take the viewer's breath away with scenes of terrifying grandeur.
They did this because they were self-consciously developing a distinctly Christian aesthetic. They wanted the viewer to get from their paintings a sense of the infinite power and glory of the One who created this astonishing universe.
The originator of this style, Thomas Cole, was a devout evangelical. One of his students was Jasper Cropsey, a member of the Dutch Reformed Church and heir of the Dutch Masters. Another, perhaps the best artist of them all, was Frederic Church, who, in the tradition of the great Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards, developed the notion that nature is its Creator's self-expression.
This first generation of artists lived in New York and specialized in painting the magnificent scenery of the Hudson River valley, though Church would venture as far north as the Arctic and as far south as South America.
The later generation of artists influenced by this movement, such as Albert Bierstadt and Thomas Moran, went west to capture on canvas the limitless panoramas of the frontier. In those days before either road trips or photographs, these artists presented the Rocky Mountains, Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon to the American public. Philadelphia curator Kim Sajet observes that these paintings were largely responsible for the creation by Congress of the national parks. "Congress did not see the places," she points out, "they saw the paintings."
When these artists are studied today, they are usually lumped together with the Romantics, who also had a high view of nature. But the Christian artists of the Hudson River School scorned the Romantics' focus on the self. Instead, they made sure that their human figures in their paintings were very, very small, and that viewers too would feel their littleness in light of the grandeur of God and the objective universe that He has ordained.
Neither is nature absolute. A typical Hudson River school painting will show a wide open plain, which is dwarfed by a great mountain, which, in turn, is dwarfed by an even greater mountain in the distance. Then—as the perspective goes back further and further into seemingly infinitely receding depths—come glimpses of even greater mountains, until the farthest distances dissolve in light. In other words, when looking at a Hudson River landscape, the viewer looks through nature to its Creator, the light of the world.
Hudson River landscapes are transcendent, both visually and in their understanding of the relationship between nature and God. This is in stark contrast to the next school of American artists, the Luminists, who, influenced by the Transcendentalists, really were Romantics. In their landscapes—which are beautiful to see and which anticipate the European Impressionists by decades—the light seems to pulsate from within the natural scene. God, for them, is in nature. Whereas, for the Hudson River Christians, God made nature, sustains it, is involved with it, cares for it, but however vast the natural landscape, He alone is infinite.
To the credit of its curators, the "American Sublime" exhibit, in its labeling and catalog, recognizes the religious impulse in these paintings. It also recognizes the centrality of faith to the formation of American culture. The Hudson River school artists "were trying to forge the idea of a great nation, one that was close to God," says Ms. Sajet, "and that this was a country blessed by God."
No wonder people jaded by the content-free pretensions of modern art, and made cynical by the ironic contradictions of postmodern art gasp at the sight of these American landscapes.
Contemporary Christian artists, in whatever field, can learn much from their predecessors. Many follow secular styles, naively trying to force some Christian content into intrinsically incompatible artistic theories. They would be better off devising original, new styles of their own suited for the truth they want to convey, styles that will make the secular world want to emulate them.
I'm familiar with a few of the artists of the Hudson River School, but we passed over them in Art History. I had no idea they were coming from such a religious perspective. Their paintings are awe-inspiring.
You have no idea how much I like Frederic Church. His "Moonlight in the Tropics" is probably my favorite painting ever. A yellow-white moon illuminating a mysterious dark lake edged with tangled branches and leaves. It's so magnificent that I could spend hours looking at it, a lifetime if given the chance. It used to be hard to tear myself away from it. If I could own one famous painting, this would probably be the one.
It's presently off-view from the De Young Museum in San Francisco (since the museum has been closed and razed, due to earthquake fears). They're building a new museum, and I'm hoping that when it opens, the painting will once again be on view (the paintings are rotated, so you never know).
It's too bad that two of San Francisco's major museums have disappeared (the De Young Museum and the Asian Art Museum). They had some very excellent art, though we still have the Palace of the Legion of Honor and the Museum of Modern Art.
This one by Frederic Church took my breath away. Wish I knew how to link or post. (I knew how to at one time. I've since forgotten.)
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/church.html#images
If you want me to show you how to link just freepmail me...it's not difficult
No. I did not state what anyone can and cannot like. You really need to get off of your high horse and get your underwear out of the bunch they are in before you blow an artery. I am saying that to take a monumental work, such as Bierstadt's, and compare it to something along the lines of a Pollack or Picasso is crazy. Bierstadt wins hands down. However, HAVING STUDIED MODERN ART, I know from reading that modernists have rejected the use of such techniques as chiaroscuro found in such works as the Odalisque, by Ingres. They also have a rejection of the realism of past artwork as not being real art.
And, by extension, “modernists” (whatever the hell that means) despise art that predates modernism. Tell me what exactly is modern art?
Modern art is the movement that rejects the former notions of realism and capturing the subject, as seen by the human eye. As it became increasingly more politicized, and bogus, it developed into the absurd notion that it did not matter what came out in the medium, by the artist, it was what the artist was feeling at the time that made the work "art". For instance, I could take a paintbrush, make a bunch of zigzag marks on the canvas, state that I was doing it as a protest against the views of the Catholic Church, and it would be labeled art.
You mischaracterize it as something monolithic and provide caricatured examples and then knock down your straw man argument.
Modern art is monolithic. Do you seriously think that anyone who painted like Bierstadt or the Hudson River school would receive an art grant, or favorable mention by any "art critic"?
You actually think that I like Yoko Ono or a slashed canvas simply because I haven’t categorically rejected “modern art”?
I didn't state what you liked. I used those two as examples. You really are going off the deep end over a simple criticism. Many people don't like the things I enjoy, but I'm not having a stroke over it. Grow up and develop a thicker skin.
Right there is the fork in the road. Some see the universe and feel very small. A speck of dust. Others see the universe and feel they are part of something very big. Creation's eyes and hands.
Somebody should take a poll.
Rainy Season in the Tropics by Frederic Church, 1866.
This is one that used to hang in the De Young Museum in San Francisco. When the new museum is built, I'm sure it will be shown again.
Duane Hanson did some very competent representational sculptures. Here's a sample:
I don't care for his viewpoint on life. Think of him as a 3 dimensional Norman Rockwell who sees everyone as being beaten by life. At museums, they have problems because people keep trying to talk to the works. Polyvinyl castings with real hair and clothes. He died in 96. Very popular in Broward County, Florida, though, if you want to get an idea of his politics.
Personally, I think most of the good work is going on with computer artists today. Here's a piece my brother did. 
He illustrated computer games for about ten years, but got tired of working 80 hour weeks, only to get laid off as soon as the game was completed. Check out photographers and computer artists working outside the mainstream and you'll find some very good work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.