Fred M. Lauderdale
Creatine College
France is something like a Mecca to the art world, yet it would be fair to say the “god” of this sacred city has changed seats more times than a game of duck-duck-goose. I plan on comparing and contrasting two periods of art: the mid-19th century versus the early 20th century. One may be tempted to think that Realists and Cubists were light-years apart. After all, Realism depicted the world from an empirical perspective, focusing on veracity, while Cubism is considered by many to be the first abstract art style. Both art periods were a reaction to, a rebellion against, the traditional art style preceding them. While Realism and Cubism seem diametrically opposed, they both attempted to tell the truest story in a two-dimensional image. In fact, some even call Cubism “a kind of Realism” (Gersh-Nesic, 2014). They both wanted to truthfully show people what the world looks like.
Realism rejected the Romantic period of art, which, in itself, was a reaction to the rationalization of nature and the Age of Enlightenment/ Reason. A brief history lesson is in order: “Cogito; ergo, sum,” (“I think; therefore, I am”), spoken by Descartes, signaled a dramatic change in the way people looked at the world. Suddenly, superstitions and the supernatural became muted and ignored. Suddenly, the scientific method procured technologic breakthroughs, spawning the “Industrial Revolution,” which completely altered the social and cultural dynamics of France. Suddenly, nature became less sacred and money became the focus. Artists around this time (1800-1860) romanticized about a simpler time, when people had deep spiritual beliefs and emotions played a role in what people considered “the truth.” Realists, wary of painting things that may not exit, ratcheted up the role of reason in art in response to the Romantic period’s renditions of forces ineffable or unobservable. Gustav Courbet, in 1861, famously declared:
The Realists wished to represent the world to the utmost authenticity. They also depicted humble people not from the nobility, often portraying “ordinary, or working-class, people, as opposed to heroic, historic, biblical, or royal figures” (Connecticut Grolier Incorporate Danbury, 2000). Instead of painting art for the church or aristocracy, Realists chose to tell the story of ordinary, poor people and anything else occurring in their current place and time.
The Cubists, on the other hand, wished to represent multiple perspectives in their art, trying “to describe, in visual terms, the concept of the Fourth Dimension” (Gersh-Nesic, 2014). Cubists provided a more encompassing, multi-perspective visual conception of an object—not resigned to mirror the natural senses—but bestow enough information for the mind to understand its full breadth, revealing all its angles and at all points in time. In a sense, Cubists tried to capture an object’s essence: not what it appeared to be at one moment, but how something appears in all moments, its totality. Later, Cubism influenced the styles “Futurism in Italy, Vorticism in England, Suprematism and Constructivism in Russia, and Expressionism in Germany” (Cubism – the first style of abstract art, 2014 para. 12). In fact, all modern, abstract art— Dadaism, Geometric abstraction, the Harlem Renaissance, Surrealism, etc.—was influenced by Cubism’s other worldly technique of witnessing the world.
“Woman with a rake,” the oil canvas painting by Jean-François Millet, is a prime example of a realist painting. The subject-matter is a poor woman, working to move the hay into a pile. The expression on her face appears sad or at least occupied. The background conforms to geometric perspective, as the objects beyond the woman appear smaller and fainter in the dawn light. Roger de la Fresnaye’s “Artillery” (also oil on canvas) depicts an imaginary scene of soldiers loading cannons, being barked at from a commanding officer on a horse and cheered on by a military music band. Geometric perspective, here, is abandoned. Each element of the painting holds prominence. It may be argued that both paintings contain a political commentary: “Woman with a rake” undermines the illusion that France is full of miracles and wealth for all by focusing on the peasant-class. And “Artillery” painted an eerie foreshadowing to the “Great War,” “The War to End All Wars,” or what we call today, World War I.
Realist works of art chose subjects existing in their contemporary world—not angels unseen or the nobility that hides away. They wished to accurately depict these subjects the way it entered their senses (photo-realistically, in the loosest sense of the word). They also tailored their art for the common people. Cubists intended to capture a subject’s quintessence, more than a camera possibly could, by integrating multi-angled cognitive interpretation. They both wanted to represent the world as truthfully as possible in a two-dimensional work. The Realists did so by rejecting what the aristocracy wanted, abandoning supernatural subjects, and painting by what their eyes actually saw. The Cubists did this by embracing the painting medium over camera devices, yet refusing to let its two-dimensionality limit the scope of representation. The difference is simple to spot: Realist paintings look, well, real. And Cubist paintings are clearly abstract. Yet they both broke against tradition—they both revolutionized the art world—with the intent to show the consumer of their art what the world truly looks like.
References
Cubism - the first style of abstract art. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.artyfactory.com/ art_appreciation/art_movements/cubism.htm
Fresnaye, R. (1911). Artillery [Oil on canvas].
Gersh-Nesic, B. (n.d.). Cubism - art history 101 basics. Retrieved from About.com website: http://arthistory.about.com/od/modernarthistory/a/cubism_10one.htm
Millet, J. (1856). Woman with a rake [Oil on canvas].
Realism vs. Cubism essay. (n.d.). Retrieved from Art History 2009-2010 website: https://sites.google.com/site/arthistory20092010/assignment-calendar-spring-semester/realism-vs-cubism-essay
The new book of knowledge. (2000). New York City, NY: Grolier Academic Reference.
