What is a portrait? With modern advancements in technology and the ambiguous genre-blurring nature of contemporary art, it feels as if the term "portrait" is interchangeably associated with picture/photo in everyday life. With Apple devising "portrait mode" as a photography option in iPhones, the modern masses merely see a portrait as a close-up headshot of an individual. This makeshift portrait evidently contains a low degree of context, detailing, or associated symbolism. However, such trivial energy expended on portraits nowadays wasn't the case for the majority of art history, as an orthodox portrait painting involved extensive planning. Such detailing embodied the desired emotions of the portrait's sitter/subject, and more importantly, embraced the political, social, and economic norms of the respective portraits' eras. Specifically, we can see the divergence of function by chronologically examining the following portraits and their corresponding contexts: The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulip, Philip IV on Horseback, Lord Heathfield, and Insane Woman.
In sequential order, the first portrait listed is Rembrandt van Rijn's oil painting The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp. Specifically, the category it falls under is group portraiture, as seen with the gathering of physicians at the scene.
Given the early 17th-century time period of the painting, specifically 1632, one would expect typical European portraiture to serve as royal propaganda, flaunting/idealizing the monarchy's wealth, power, and religious influence. However, with the new Dutch Republic established after border skirmishes with Spaniards, the Dutch culture appeared to embrace new mediums and subjects in portraiture. With wealth obtained from trades, there was an evident rise in the middle-class economy, and Dutch artworks were now commissioned for and by middle-class merchants instead of solely depicting traditional monarchs/religious entities. Previously, influential individuals were exclusively displayed in portraits, however now the bolstering of middle-class wealth enabled commoners, including traders, craftspeople, bureaucrats, and doctors, to commission and collect art. This helped elucidate the subject of the painting and the commissioner: a more ordinary individual in Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, going about his typical tasks of an anatomy lesson on a cadaver. Evidently, the purpose of the painting was to display such an anatomy lesson, highlighting the increased art patronage of ordinary folks and the rise of the Dutch Middle class. Additionally, while formerly touching on religion, it is evident The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulip is also a sub-product of religious/social influences governing the Dutch Republic. Italian works of this time were largely ornamental, focused on biblical scenery, and incorporated eye-popping colors/opulent room decoration. In contrast, the Dutch Republic had established Calvinistic values, which frowned upon Ostentation. The Protestant and Calvinistic values rejected the idealized/overexaggerated depiction of subjects in paintings, as the beliefs called for subject depictions in ordinary, realistic, and almost bland light. Dutch art aimed to depict with more optical accuracy and less flamboyancy. The portrait by Rembrandt embodies this notion, which validates why there is very dark, monochromatic clothing with little decoration, flashiness, or personality. This is also evident in the physicians' outfits: a uniform black robe and white neckpiece. Conclusively, the exuberance of the scene is not the focal point of the work; upholding Calvinistic values was of higher importance.
Traveling to the Spanish Empire merely a few years later, there is a stark difference in portraiture. Relating more to Italian artwork displaying monarchs and grandness, the portrait of Philip IV on Horseback in 1634 by Diego Velasquez differs from Dutch Republic portraits.
While Dutch art empowered the middle class and displayed modesty, Spanish art of the same time aimed to forcefully flaunt the power and wealth of the nation via idealized Prince Philip IV iconography. To provide some political context for the era, the Thirty Years' War initiated the Spanish Baroque Period, imperiling the welfare of the powerful Spanish Empire. Additionally, citizens were discontent with tax burdens, triggering potential initiations of civil war. In response, King Philip IV tries to use artwork to unify the country and instill confidence, attempting to manifest his iron rule and control over Spain through glorified portraiture. Undoubtedly, the portrait is royal patronage. Commissioned by the royal monarch family, painter Diego Velazquez was meant to glorify the monarch. The portrait empowers the king, as he is mounted high in the air on his horse, standing on its rear legs to evoke a more powerful stature. The gold-plated armor suit of Philip IV only heightens his depiction of mightiness. The curvet positioning of the horse and Philip's displayed calmness is a testament to his equestrian skills and figuratively represents his unwavering control over the Spanish Empire. The juxtaposition of his calmness with the animated nature of the horse also symbolizes Philip's steadfast confidence and management over his people and adversaries, even in the heat of battle or turmoil. The horse's extensive detailing and powerful position represent a crossbreed of Arab Stallions, horses known for their superior traits, handling, and beauty (which tactfully associates with King Philip IV). Overall, to reiterate, the artwork serves to show King Philip IV in a god-Esque light, as not one shred of weakness/humbleness is to be displayed. With the dangers of the war and the potential downfall of the Empire, the portrait of Philip IV serves to convince the Spanish people and broader European audience of how the turmoil is under control. The portrait comically serves as a Trojan horse of the Empire: on the outside, Philip IV displays its elegance and power, but on a deeper level, it blankets the controversy and instability of the Spanish Empire.
Over a century later, Europe's social ideologies and art have transcended dramatically. In the late 1700s, The Enlightenment was in full swing, an era when logic, empirical observation, and science dominated the masses' beliefs. With famous influencers ranging from Voltaire to Newton, one such individual in Rousseau helped push the art trends from Rocco to a more natural/realistic depiction, hence, birthing the Natural Art Era. Furthermore, with the war efforts in the Great Siege of Gibraltar and the ominous expectance of ground root revolutions (such as the French and American Revolution), the virtues/traits of valor, heroism, sacrifice, and patriotism circulated the social scenery. Portrait Lord Heathfield encapsulates these various influences.
As we can see from the unidealized background and details of the subject, there are no artificial/frivolous manipulations of coloring or scenery, as the seriousness and accuracy of Heathfield in a battle scene are prevalent (representing the Natural Art era). The dirty red coloring of the subject's jacket and bland pastels used for the trousers diffuse well into the overarching black soot in the background, truly representing a battle scene (similar dramatic scenery seen in Benjamin West's General Wolfe). References to the Enlightenment are also prevalent, as the subject's body follows physiological/anatomy laws, and there is an optical accuracy in the portrait. Furthermore, the portrait also appeals to the various characteristics associated with war/revolution. The English Commander is depicted in a powerful stance amidst the battling, representing his heroic efforts of defending in the Great Siege. The empowering nature of the subject's depiction, flanked by a cannon and smoke, uncontestedly embodies the attributes of patriotism and bravery that were circulating in Europe at the time. Ironically, although the portrait encapsulates British victory, one must wonder if the artwork's association with patriotism and bravery helped fuel the American Revolution against Britain.
At the turn of the 18th century, Neoclassicism and its associations with the Enlightenment were rejected, as the Romanticism movement emerged in regions like France. Following the French Revolution, ideals of liberty, patriotism, and valor transgressed into the unadulterated emotions/irrational world of the artist. With Romanticism, subjects/settings in paintings appeared more abstract and imaginative, as altered body compositions represented nightmare-like eeriness in paintings. These various techniques/ideologies were all interjected in the portrait Insane Woman by Théodore Géricault.
Contrasting the Spanish monarchy painting of King Philip IV, this painting exemplifies the worst of an individual, as the subject appears to be mentally suffering and of devilish appearance rather than idealized and powerful. Furthermore, this specific portrait doesn't have an individual who commissioned it like the works seen with Dr.Tulp and King Philip IV. Rather, the work instead jumps aboard the moving train of Romanticism, analyzing and displaying inmates of mental hospitals and criminally insane individuals (since they embody the psychotic, nightmare, emotion-infused nature of the Romanticism movement). In the portrait, the bloodshot red eyes, scrunched face, and eerily deranged nature of the woman all ignite extreme emotion in a nightmare-like state, thus the textbook definition of Romanticism. Uniquely, this European period of Romanticism portraits deviates sharply from other analyzed portraits in this study. Previous portraits discussed display a desired trait/scenario: the Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp embraces the middle class, Philip IV on Horseback glorifies the monarch, and Lord Heathfield celebrates heroism. All of these portraits' contexts have positive connotations. On the other hand, Insane Woman illustrates the mentally ill and craziness of a woman: typically undesired traits. Such a peculiar portrait serves as a testament to the versatility and evolution of portraiture throughout Western art history.
In modern society, it seems the true definition of portraiture has been diluted to the definition of a picture: merely snapshotting someone via a camera. However, throughout the history of art, portraits have had a much more significant role, as they are meticulously crafted with a pertinent tie to varying political/social movements across Europe. The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp highlights the Calvinistic attitudes and rise of the middle class, Philip IV on Horseback (in an orthodox manner) depicts a glorified Monarch, Lord Heathfield embraces the scientific and heroic values of the Enlightenment era, and Insane Woman testifies to the emotionally driven Romatisitic era. Circling back to technology, rather than criticizing its effect on art interpretation, perhaps we can leverage it to our advantage to preserve art history. To reiterate, maybe we can use technology to depict modern subjects in portraiture relating to the themes listed in this study. For example, perhaps tourists purchasing jamón ibérico (a Spanish ham) in Spain can recreate some of King Philip IV's portraits using some sort of software to mimic the 17th-century works, or a Dutch medical student can recreate the anatomy lesson portrait with similar dark, tone neutral colors. Unfortunately, while we cannot physically bring back revered artists to depict our portraits (like my wishes with Munch), perhaps we can use progressing technology as a medium to recreate past portraiture.
Comentários