Neo-classicism

Term used later to describe a movement beginning in the 1750s as a revival of Antique and Renaissance forms and ideals (and 17th-century classicism) throughout European art.

In architecture, the classical orders and geometric forms were favored by exponents such as Sir JOHN SOANE (1753-1837). In painting, classical subject matter (especially Roman and Greek history) was preferred. French painter JACQUES LOUIS DAVID (1748-1825) and Italian sculptor ANTONIO CANOVA (1757-1822) depicted high moral standards and virtue, turning for inspiration to Antique sculpture and the work of RAPHAEL (1483-1520). In so doing they repudiated the frivolity of Rococo art. These processes were aided by archaeological discoveries of the time. Contemporary theorists (for example, Winkelmann) recommended ‘imitating the Ancients’, but not literally copying them (except for learning), whilst also advocating the artistic purification and ennoblement of Nature.

By the 19th century the ideal of a universal eternal art had been politicized by French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), and literal imitation and revivalism had distorted the high ideals of the earlier generation. However, elements of neo-classicism continued to exert influence throughout the era of romanticism.

Neoclassicism (also spelled Neo-classicism; from Greek νέος nèos, “new” and Greek κλασικός klasikόs, “of the highest rank”)[1] was a Western cultural movement in the decorative and visual arts, literature, theatre, music, and architecture that drew inspiration from the art and culture of classical antiquity. Neoclassicism was born in Rome largely thanks to the writings of Johann Joachim Winckelmann, at the time of the rediscovery of Pompeii and Herculaneum, but its popularity spread all over Europe as a generation of European art students finished their Grand Tour and returned from Italy to their home countries with newly rediscovered Greco-Roman ideals.[2][3] The main Neoclassical movement coincided with the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment, and continued into the early 19th century, laterally competing with Romanticism. In architecture, the style continued throughout the 19th, 20th and up to the 21st century.

European Neoclassicism in the visual arts began c. 1760 in opposition to the then-dominant Rococo style. Rococo architecture emphasizes grace, ornamentation and asymmetry; Neoclassical architecture is based on the principles of simplicity and symmetry, which were seen as virtues of the arts of Rome and Ancient Greece, and were more immediately drawn from 16th-century Renaissance Classicism. Each “neo”-classicism selects some models among the range of possible classics that are available to it, and ignores others. The Neoclassical writers and talkers, patrons and collectors, artists and sculptors of 1765–1830 paid homage to an idea of the generation of Phidias, but the sculpture examples they actually embraced were more likely to be Roman copies of Hellenistic sculptures. They ignored both Archaic Greek art and the works of Late Antiquity. The “Rococo” art of ancient Palmyra came as a revelation, through engravings in Wood’s The Ruins of Palmyra. Even Greece was all-but-unvisited, a rough backwater of the Ottoman Empire, dangerous to explore, so Neoclassicists’ appreciation of Greek architecture was mediated through drawings and engravings, which subtly smoothed and regularized, “corrected” and “restored” the monuments of Greece, not always consciously.

The Empire style, a second phase of Neoclassicism in architecture and the decorative arts, had its cultural centre in Paris in the Napoleonic era. Especially in architecture, but also in other fields, Neoclassicism remained a force long after the early 19th century, with periodic waves of revivalism into the 20th and even the 21st centuries, especially in America and Russia.

History

Neoclassicism is a revival of the many styles and spirit of classic antiquity inspired directly from the classical period,[4] which coincided and reflected the developments in philosophy and other areas of the Age of Enlightenment, and was initially a reaction against the excesses of the preceding Rococo style.[5] While the movement is often described as the opposed counterpart of Romanticism, this is a great over-simplification that tends not to be sustainable when specific artists or works are considered. The case of the supposed main champion of late Neoclassicism, Ingres, demonstrates this especially well.[6] The revival can be traced to the establishment of formal archaeology.[7][8]

Johann Joachim Winckelmann, often called “the father of archaeology”[9]

The writings of Johann Joachim Winckelmann were important in shaping this movement in both architecture and the visual arts. His books Thoughts on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture (1750) and Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums (“History of Ancient Art”, 1764) were the first to distinguish sharply between Ancient Greek and Roman art, and define periods within Greek art, tracing a trajectory from growth to maturity and then imitation or decadence that continues to have influence to the present day. Winckelmann believed that art should aim at “noble simplicity and calm grandeur”,[10] and praised the idealism of Greek art, in which he said we find “not only nature at its most beautiful but also something beyond nature, namely certain ideal forms of its beauty, which, as an ancient interpreter of Plato teaches us, come from images created by the mind alone”. The theory was very far from new in Western art, but his emphasis on close copying of Greek models was: “The only way for us to become great or if this be possible, inimitable, is to imitate the ancients”.[11]

With the advent of the Grand Tour, a fad of collecting antiquities began that laid the foundations of many great collections spreading a Neoclassical revival throughout Europe.[12] “Neoclassicism” in each art implies a particular canon of a “classical” model.

In English, the term “Neoclassicism” is used primarily of the visual arts; the similar movement in English literature, which began considerably earlier, is called Augustan literature. This, which had been dominant for several decades, was beginning to decline by the time Neoclassicism in the visual arts became fashionable. Though terms differ, the situation in French literature was similar. In music, the period saw the rise of classical music, and “Neoclassicism” is used of 20th-century developments. However, the operas of Christoph Willibald Gluck represented a specifically Neoclassical approach, spelt out in his preface to the published score of Alceste (1769), which aimed to reform opera by removing ornamentation, increasing the role of the chorus in line with Greek tragedy, and using simpler unadorned melodic lines.[13]

Anton Raphael Mengs; Judgement of Paris; circa 1757; oil on canvas; height: 226 cm, width: 295 cm, bought by Catherine the Great from the studio; Hermitage Museum (Saint Petersburg, Russia)

The term “Neoclassical” was not invented until the mid-19th century, and at the time the style was described by such terms as “the true style”, “reformed” and “revival”; what was regarded as being revived varying considerably. Ancient models were certainly very much involved, but the style could also be regarded as a revival of the Renaissance, and especially in France as a return to the more austere and noble Baroque of the age of Louis XIV, for which a considerable nostalgia had developed as France’s dominant military and political position started a serious decline.[14] Ingres’s coronation portrait of Napoleon even borrowed from Late Antique consular diptychs and their Carolingian revival, to the disapproval of critics.

Neoclassicism was strongest in architecture, sculpture and the decorative arts, where classical models in the same medium were relatively numerous and accessible; examples from ancient painting that demonstrated the qualities that Winckelmann’s writing found in sculpture were and are lacking. Winckelmann was involved in the dissemination of knowledge of the first large Roman paintings to be discovered, at Pompeii and Herculaneum and, like most contemporaries except for Gavin Hamilton, was unimpressed by them, citing Pliny the Younger’s comments on the decline of painting in his period.[15]

As for painting, Greek painting was utterly lost: Neoclassicist painters imaginatively revived it, partly through bas-relief friezes, mosaics and pottery painting, and partly through the examples of painting and decoration of the High Renaissance of Raphael’s generation, frescos in Nero’s Domus Aurea, Pompeii and Herculaneum, and through renewed admiration of Nicolas Poussin. Much “Neoclassical” painting is more classicizing in subject matter than in anything else. A fierce, but often very badly informed, dispute raged for decades over the relative merits of Greek and Roman art, with Winckelmann and his fellow Hellenists generally being on the winning side.[16]

Painting and printmaking

View of the so-called Temple of Concord with the Temple of Saturn, on the right the Arch of Septimius Severus; by Giovanni Battista Piranesi; 1760–1778; etching; size of the entire sheet: 53.8 x 79.2 cm; Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York City)

It is hard to recapture the radical and exciting nature of early Neoclassical painting for contemporary audiences; it now strikes even those writers favourably inclined to it as “insipid” and “almost entirely uninteresting to us”—some of Kenneth Clark’s comments on Anton Raphael Mengs’ ambitious Parnassus at the Villa Albani,[17] by the artist whom his friend Winckelmann described as “the greatest artist of his own, and perhaps of later times”.[18] The drawings, subsequently turned into prints, of John Flaxman used very simple line drawing (thought to be the purest classical medium[19]) and figures mostly in profile to depict The Odyssey and other subjects, and once “fired the artistic youth of Europe” but are now “neglected”,[20] while the history paintings of Angelica Kauffman, mainly a portraitist, are described as having “an unctuous softness and tediousness” by Fritz Novotny.[21] Rococo frivolity and Baroque movement had been stripped away but many artists struggled to put anything in their place, and in the absence of ancient examples for history painting, other than the Greek vases used by Flaxman, Raphael tended to be used as a substitute model, as Winckelmann recommended.

Oath of the Horatii; by Jacques-Louis David; 1784; oil on canvas; height: 330 cm, width: 425 cm; Louvre

Diana and Cupid; by Pompeo Batoni; 1761; oil on canvas; 124.5 x 172.7 cm; Metropolitan Museum of Art

The work of other artists, who could not easily be described as insipid, combined aspects of Romanticism with a generally Neoclassical style, and form part of the history of both movements. The German-Danish painter Asmus Jacob Carstens finished very few of the large mythological works that he planned, leaving mostly drawings and colour studies which often succeed in approaching Winckelmann’s prescription of “noble simplicity and calm grandeur”.[22] Unlike Carstens’ unrealized schemes, the etchings of Giovanni Battista Piranesi were numerous and profitable, and taken back by those making the Grand Tour to all parts of Europe. His main subject matter was the buildings and ruins of Rome, and he was more stimulated by the ancient than the modern. The somewhat disquieting atmosphere of many of his Vedute (views) becomes dominant in his series of 16 prints of Carceri d’Invenzione (“Imaginary Prisons”) whose “oppressive cyclopean architecture” conveys “dreams of fear and frustration”.[23] The Swiss-born Johann Heinrich Füssli spent most of his career in England, and while his fundamental style was based on Neoclassical principles, his subjects and treatment more often reflected the “Gothic” strain of Romanticism, and sought to evoke drama and excitement.

Neoclassicism in painting gained a new sense of direction with the sensational success of Jacques-Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii at the Paris Salon of 1785. Despite its evocation of republican virtues, this was a commission by the royal government, which David insisted on painting in Rome. David managed to combine an idealist style with drama and forcefulness. The central perspective is perpendicular to the picture plane, made more emphatic by the dim arcade behind, against which the heroic figures are disposed as in a frieze, with a hint of the artificial lighting and staging of opera, and the classical colouring of Nicolas Poussin. David rapidly became the leader of French art, and after the French Revolution became a politician with control of much government patronage in art. He managed to retain his influence in the Napoleonic period, turning to frankly propagandistic works, but had to leave France for exile in Brussels at the Bourbon Restoration.[24]

David’s many students included Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, who saw himself as a classicist throughout his long career, despite a mature style that has an equivocal relationship with the main current of Neoclassicism, and many later diversions into Orientalism and the Troubadour style that are hard to distinguish from those of his unabashedly Romantic contemporaries, except by the primacy his works always give to drawing. He exhibited at the Salon for over 60 years, from 1802 into the beginnings of Impressionism, but his style, once formed, changed little.[25]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *