What is a Pre-Raphaelite Landscape?
One of Prettejohn’s readings from this semester discussed Pre-Raphaelite landscape paintings. In the first two pages on the subject, the author gives four very different and in my mind somewhat incompatible descriptions of Pre-Raphaelite landscapes. The first is from Ruskin’s “Work”; he claims “Every Pre-Raphaelite landscape background is painted to the last touch, in open air, from the thing itself. Every Pre-Raphaelite figure, however studied in expression, is a true portrait of some living person.” In other words, a landscape scene must be pained outside and exactly as observed in order to be considered Pre-Raphaelite. Prettejohn offers a slightly different idea- the artists can claim their paintings “are true to nature in a special way – that the scene on canvas is a tangible result of an encounter with the natural world.” She goes on to say that these paintings “go beyond visual observation to encompass a more thoroughgoing physical experience of ‘nature’”. Here, Prettejohn argues that a truly pre-Raphaelite landscape is more than a simple observation transcribed into paint, the painting must embody the experience of making a particular observation. In other words, capturing the act of viewing as opposed to the view itself- a subtle but powerful difference- makes a pre-Raphaelite landscape special. A few sentences later, she quotes Barthes (a French theorist) saying, “in photography I can never deny that the thing has been there”. One can read this statement in relation to painting; a photo is a perfect snapshot of time, but a painting can never be this snapshot because paintings are not instantaneous in the same way. The argument contends that you can define Pre-Raphaelite landscape however you like, but it is not and can never be photographic. Different still from all these claims, and in direct opposition to the latter claim, are those of the artists who maintain, as Prettejohn said, “That they act like photographic cameras, recording only what was there in physical substance before their eyes.” (Prettejohn, 166)
I have taken all of these ideas, and several others, to generate my own modern understanding of what a Pre-Raphaelite landscape painting is and what it is not. Each of these claims from the reading has helped shape how I see not just Pre-Raphaelite landscapes, but all paintings under the label of “landscape”. Following is my understanding based on the course and its related material of what a Pre-Raphaelite landscape is.
Painting (or any art form) is about choices. Every choice made defines the work in some way. We, as viewers, put labels upon these choices made by the artists and that, for us, defines the painting. When the artist paints the outdoors we call it “landscape”. When they paint landscape while outside, we call it “landscape en plein air”. If an artist paints in hyper detail with a strong emphasis on nature (as well as other criteria but we’ll keep it simple), then we may label them “Pre-Raphaelite”. A Pre-Raphaelite painter must perform these things to generate a Pre-Raphaelite landscape, but the painting itself ends up being more- it is “of the thing” as Ruskin says, but not photographic as some of the artists have claimed. Rather, the painting captures the sensation of looking at world in the same way the artist does. Not necessarily true to nature, but rather, true to the artist's vision of what the world should look like.
Take Brett’s Stonebreaker as an example:
The painting is falsified from reality in many ways, though still considered one of the best Pre-Raphaelite landscapes in existence. Brett inaccurately depicts the mile marker and the pile of stones his brother sits on in terms of their location; he “moves” Box hill in the background substantially closer to the viewer to shorten the mid-ground; the church shifts backwards so that it is visible in the scene, while in reality, its location remains behind the hill. The painting is highly detailed and “photographic” perhaps in its style, but not in its composition. This, in conjunction with his determination to paint the scene entirely from one spot while outdoors and using Pre-Raphaelite conventions, explains how Brett was able to capture his idealized view of a landscape and transcribe it into oil. This criteria makes Stonebreaker a Pre-Raphaelite landscape painting.
References:
Prettejohn, Liz, The Art of the Pre-Raphaelites, Tate Publishing, 2000
Payne, Christiana. 2010. John Brett, Pre-Raphaelite Landscape Painter. Yale University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment