Colonization & Portraiture
(c.1750-1820)
Colonization Art Analysis Sheet | |
File Size: | 22 kb |
File Type: | doc |
Essential Questions:
How did colonial American artists compare with their European counterparts in terms of artistic ability?
how did colonial artists communicate differing cultural values between the American colonies and their mother countries of Europe?
For each of the following sample works, consider:
Hint: Click on the picture to zoom in on its details of it and get a brief description of its background.
How did colonial American artists compare with their European counterparts in terms of artistic ability?
how did colonial artists communicate differing cultural values between the American colonies and their mother countries of Europe?
For each of the following sample works, consider:
- What elements of the work stand out or catch your eye? What's the first thing that comes to mind when you see the image? What are the things you notice next?
- What do you think the artists was trying to say or communicate to the viewer? Explain
Hint: Click on the picture to zoom in on its details of it and get a brief description of its background.
European Portraits
European skill ability was generally better because artists there had access to formal training in art schools.
Problem the worst technical skill is displayed in the last European work by Gainsborough. Can you see why this may be true?
- The paintings generally do have huge problems with perspective, three-dimensions (there is depth/distance), inaccurate rendering of human proportions (heads too big for bodies, arms too long or short, etc).
Problem the worst technical skill is displayed in the last European work by Gainsborough. Can you see why this may be true?
- While Europeans who commissioned these works valued family and wanted to preserve the images of loved ones, they also wanted these portraits to convey to the public a sense of wealthy, power, and title. We see fancy clothes, in pompous postures, and/or they are surrounded by their wealth or land holdings.
American Portraits
American artists were inconsistent in terms of their skill and technical ability
Americans who commissioned these works valued family and were less concerned with displaying wealth and power. These were intended for more private, personal viewing.
- The artists, such as Copley, who received formal training show great skill. In the series by Benjamin West, you can clearly see how his technique clearly improved over time with his training.
- Hicks and Johnson are more typical, in that they received little or no formal training, and simply relied upon their natural skill. The result is what we call "naive" art. Note problems with perspective (table tops look as if they are sloping, walls are at strange angels, floors seem to "come up" to the viewer), three dimensions (people look "flat" like paper dolls), and problems rendering the human form (they "hide" hands in pockets and sleeves, heads are too big for bodies, etc).
Americans who commissioned these works valued family and were less concerned with displaying wealth and power. These were intended for more private, personal viewing.
- Subjects appear more casual-sitting informally, causally leaning, and in modest clothing and with subdued backgrounds. Apparently, title, wealth, and power were less a concern.