Realist painters and photography

My column this week looks at the artistic movement called “Realism” and the challenge of showing life as it really was.

Every time I teach the second half of the U.S. history survey course, the first artists I talk about in the Gilded Age are the ones grouped together under the classification of the “realists.” These were painters like Thomas Eakins, who sought to dispense with romanticism and idealization of life and to show things how they really were.

Eakins was born in Philadelphia in 1844 and lived most of his life there. In 1875, he painted one of his most famous pictures, “The Gross Clinic,” depicting a group of medical students operating on a patient under the guidance of a professor. The gritty portrayal of what surgery looked like and details like the blood on the professor’s hand and the grimacing woman near the table caused something of a controversy.

Fourteen years later, Eakins painted a similar scene titled “The Agnew Clinic,” and while it’s just as unflinching as the earlier work, one can clearly see how far medical science had progressed in the intervening years.

The lights are brighter, the young medical students and professor are all in white lab coats now instead of everyday dark suits, and an anesthesiologist is tending to the patient. Also a female nurse is standing nearby obviously unmoved by the scene, in stark contrast to the woman overcome in the 1875 painting.

The point of works like these is that, in addition to Eakins’ obvious skill as an artist, he’s providing a good account of what medical science really looked like in these years.

Other painters came along in his wake and continued his style of realistically portraying city life (particularly an unorganized group called the “Ashcan School”), but in terms of accuracy they could no longer compete with a new way of visual storytelling that was quickly becoming a sensation: photography.

Jacob Riis was five years younger than Thomas Eakins and came to the U.S. from Denmark at age 21. For a while in the 1870s he was homeless in New York, sleeping in public parks and surviving on handouts. He finally found work as a reporter and then moved on to photography. Some of his photographs of the grim side of life in New York were so movingly graphic that they spurred cries for reform.

And so successful was photography at showing how things really looked — without the assumed influence of a painter’s skill with a brush — the assumption that paintings could portray reality all but disappeared.

A new exhibit opening this week at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, however, can remind us that we once depended on painting to show us reality.

Eyewitness Views: Making History in Eighteenth Century Europe” is the only exhibit of its kind I’ve ever heard of. Most people will not know the artists included, but, honestly, great art isn’t the point. The curators explain that by focusing on historic events like pageants, ceremonies and even disasters “these paintings turn the viewer into an eyewitness on the scene, bringing the spectacle and drama of history to life.”

And they do. Of the ones I’ve looked at, perhaps the most striking is a 1765 canvas that depicts the ruins of a church in the city of Dresden that had been shelled by Prussian artillery during the Seven Years War. I’ve never seen anything like it, and it shows you a scene that, unless you know of this painting, can exist only in your imagination.

If you’re in Los Angeles between now and July 30, stop by the museum for a reminder that it was once painting that showed us what the world around us really looked like.

Where the arts are now (literally and figuratively)

My column this week looks at two recent studies that describe the current status of the arts, both in terms of where there are found, and how much the rising generation is experiencing them in schools.  One by the US Department of Education is called the National Assessment of Education Progress, while the other is done by a group at SMU called the Nation Center for Arts Research.

Read the whole thing HERE in the Waco Tribune-Herald.

 

 

How should we measure its worth?

Is it a valid argument to say that a dollar that goes to support the local museum or arts council is a dollar misspent in the face of poverty and illness?  How do we place an opportunity cost, as the economists might put it, on that which through the ages has moved us emotionally, or provided insight, inspiration, or surcease from pain?

Were his subsequent writings worth Solzhenitsyn having been thrown into the Soviet gulag?  Was the Ninth Symphony worth Beethoven’s deafness? How about “Starry Night” measured against the mental anguish that finally drove Van Gogh to suicide? Such questions point to the impossibility of dealing with art in purely material or, what’s even more in play in our current political culture, economic terms.  Pitting art against the practical is unproductive at best, misleading and disingenuous at worst.

In a materialistic society, however, such questions prey upon our inability to quantify precisely the contribution of the arts to life, and therefore, resisting quantification, the arts become downgraded to something less important.  Ultimately, this is in large part the reason why the arts are disappearing from our schools–they simply don’t fit with our determination to make things practical. But that’s more a problem with our culture itself, not a failing of the arts. 

Books smell like old people….

“Books smell like old people.” Maybe that explains why most teenagers these days are avoiding them so ardently. I came across that eye-opening rationale last week in an arresting article by journalist David Denby, who wondered if teenagers ever read seriously any more. He discovered the answer was no, and it was a teenager in New Haven who delivered that reaction typical of many in today’s generation.

“Reading has lost its privileged status,” Denby writes, so much so that “few kids are ashamed that they’re not doing it much. The notion that you should always have a book going — that notion, which all real readers share, doesn’t flourish in many kids.” Reading literature for pleasure is a declining pastime among younger people, and that has much in common with the plight of the arts in our current culture. Many people simply act as though neither activity is worth the effort. What’s most to blame is the materialism that is so characteristic of our culture.

Measurable results

While a few people clearly understand that reading literature can be a transformative experience, the problem is proving that to a society that demands measurable results. Standing in the way is “the American notion that assertions unsupported with statistics are virtually meaningless.”

How do you accumulate statistics when what literature, and the arts more broadly, give is immeasurable? How do you make a case for something profoundly spiritual in a culture that is increasingly materialistic? That’s the $64,000 question these days. (It’s OK if you have to look up that reference.)

That’s why interacting with art and literature is not within today’s idea of education, which for most people means science, technology, engineering and mathematics. No less prominent a person than the current president angered some people two years ago by remarking that the country doesn’t need a lot of people going to college and getting degrees in art history when they could be doing something practical like working in manufacturing. And then when he backtracked and apologized, one of the people currently campaigning to get his job immediately criticized him for apologizing.

“We need more degrees that lead to jobs,” Marco Rubio tweeted.

Pragmatism

So in a materialistic, practical society, why go see a play when the television is right there? Why go listen to an orchestra when you’ve got the mp3, or you can YouTube the New York Philharmonic from the couch? And who has time for a 20-minute symphony anyway? Why ought we to care about George S. Kaufman or Jackson Pollock? Why read “Moby Dick” or “Ulysses” or “Ode on a Grecian Urn”? None of that will help you get a job.

Last Sunday morning, already worried by this matter of vanishing readers, as I listened to a fine orchestra play a hymn I started wondering where tomorrow’s oboe players are going to come from.

Why on earth would a young person in so materialistic a culture as ours devote the time and effort required to master an instrument? From where will come the encouragement to press through the difficulty of mastering the oboe? (By the way, I have students whose parents instruct them not to major in history even if they love it — I can’t imagine what they’d say to the kid who wanted to be an oboe player.)

Thankfully, the wisdom of youth is not completely squelched by the shortsightedness of materialism. So we still manage to have oboe players, history majors and all those other inquisitive, gold souls who somehow manage to do something as countercultural as pick up a paintbrush, a musical instrument or, one can hope, a book.

Originally published (with these section breaks) in the Waco Tribune-Herald, March 13, 2016

From Moss Hart to Local Theater

My column this week is about American playwright Moss Hart, his fine autobiography, and how what he talks about in it is often clearly reflected in local theater.  Here’s an excerpt:

Writing, however, proved to be his strength and brought him back to the world he longed for.  He wrote his first hit play “Once in a Lifetime” in 1930, collaborating with the already legendary George S. Kaufman and then they followed with two more that became timeless pieces of American comedy: 1937’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “You Can’t Take it with You,” and “The Man Who Came to Dinner” in 1939.  Hart also wrote with famed composers like Cole Porter and Irving Berlin and later directed Broadway productions of “My Fair Lady,” and “Camelot.”

Of his writing partner Kaufman once remarked that “nothing happens to Moss in the simple and ordinary terms in which it happens to the average person.  The most normal of human experiences is crowded with drama where Moss is concerned.”  Appreciating the drama in everyday life is still a crucial element for those who love to work in the theater.

Read the whole thing HERE today in the Waco Tribune-Herald.

Moss Hart (right), with George S. Kaufman at the typewriter.