Not unlike many of my peers, as I embark on a path that will supposedly lead to expertise in a highly-defined, rather obscure area of knowledge, I am not without my doubts. These doubts range from the minor (will I pass my German exam?) to the major (will I find a job five years from now?).
As I muddle through my final days on this side of the Atlantic, however, my thoughts turn to a slightly different question, namely, “how can I be so ignorant about so many things, specifically in art history?” I recall a lecture by one of my former professors in which he discussed the waxing and waning of artistic styles through the centuries, and casually commented that this phenomenon applied equally to the popularity of art historical subjects. For instance, the history of Russian art was never popularized or widely taught in the United States. When I took 19th century painting as an undergraduate, I remember one chapter of our widely-read, well-received textbook being devoted to Russian art — which, of course, was not assigned for the course. Whenever I attend a symposium, I am almost always surprised by the discussion of something like Albanian modern art, for instance. If anything, these areas are given some attention when discussing Greek or Roman settlements in the ancient world, but even then it is usually ancillary to the main discussion. While it is true that less time is devoted to Chinese, Japanese, and African art in U.S. universities, they are certainly given more consideration than the art of Russian, Poland, or any of the other Eastern European countries.
So it was with a mixture of curiosity and trepidation that I approached the Gallery of 19th Century Polish Art housed in the upper floors of the Cloth Hall in central Krakow, wary of having my ignorance fully revealed to me. The Gallery was light and airy, with high ceilings and brightly painted walls. There are two main wings along with two smaller rooms at the center of the building.
The paintings on display are hardly dissimilar from what one would find in a French collection — there was a mix of history painting and still lifes, portraiture and landscapes, all executed in the normal stylistic trajectory of the 18th and 19th centuries — Neo-classicism to Romanticism to Realism to Impressionism (yes, I know this is a crude summary) with a smattering of others (or am I only imagining a Pointillist painting? Maybe I am.). With the obvious exception of national history, the subjects would not be particularly foreign to anyone with a passing knowledge of 19th century artistic conventions.
Here are a few of my favorites:
-
- K. Pochwalski, “Portrait of Aspazji von Goldschmidt”
-
- W. Podkowinski, “A Field of Lupin”
-
- Z. Sidorowicz, “Landscape with a Bridge”
-
- J. Chelmonski, “Dawn”
-
- Anna Bilinska-Bohdanowwiczowa, “Self-Portrait”
-
- J. Pitschmann, “Portrait of Empress Maria Christina”
-
- S. Grocholski, “Death of an Orphan”
While I hope that my dismay at being so ill-informed will translate into a project of educating myself, I hardly have any suggestions to remedy the narrow view of western art in general. Of course, there is the matter of resources, hours in a lecture, lectures in a week, weeks in a semester. And then there is the question of experts — I recall that it took the Mead Museum at Amherst nearly a year to find a Russian art curator. Also, how do you incorporate Russian or Polish or Romanian art into a course when you can barely get students to grasp the basic concepts of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment in geographical areas they are supposed to be familiar with? Perhaps I am just ashamed of my own ignorance and wish to find reasons for it. But shame, in my experience, is also an excellent motivating force.
Great post! I would be really interested to hear more of your thoughts on Eastern European art. For example: as an American visiting a gallery of Polish art, what do you think would help you understand more of it? More explanations about the individual artists, about the subjects of the paintings, or about Polish history? Or would it help if the Polish paintings were integrated in a gallery of international painting where they would be hung next to paintings representing the respective French, etc, artistic movements? What kind of books would you enjoy reading on this topic?
First of all, thanks for commenting!
While visiting Krakow’s museums, I think my main impediment was a lack of familiarity with Polish history prior to the 20th century since an appreciation and interpretation of the history paintings, battle scenes, and royal portraitures obviously depends on understanding the basic subjects of the scenes depicted. When it comes to other genres, such as landscape or still life, it is obviously much easier to interpret these works based on a general knowledge of western art conventions — however imprecise your results might be. While I would also want to learn more about individual artists, I would be even more curious to know about the organization of art training — were there schools, academies, and workshops? Did artists normally travel to Paris or Munich for additional training? Were there any family artistic dynasties? Etc., etc.
At the 19th Century Gallery, I particularly enjoyed their temporary exhibition on Jan Matejko’s “Reytan at the Seym in Warsaw in 1773″ and its influence on Solidarity poster art and contemporary Polish art, but it also embodied many of the frustrations I feel when approaching this topic. For example, I had never heard of Matejko or his painting, despite the fact he is an incredibly important figure, but actually had a really good foundation in the Solidarity movement and the revolutions of 1989. At the same time, I didn’t really know anything about the art used in the movement or how it might relate to a national tradition. So, this exhibition was incredibly informative, but also made me realize how many different “connections” I am probably not able to make in similar areas!
Thank you for your reply! I especially like your point about the organization of art training and the institutions. For someone who has a solid knowledge of mainstream European art history it is not so difficult to place the pictures in a context stylistically, but the local institutional and cultural context has to be explained. It is very interesting for me to see this from your point of view. But I have to tell you, if I went to Kraków, my situation wouldn’t be much different from yours. Maybe I know some things about the history of the country because there are many connections with Hungarian history, but otherwise Polish art wasn’t taught at my university in Hungary either.
Polish art is largely a forgotten corner of the field. Thanks for this. And don’t beat yourself up for not knowing everything. Just enjoy what you do.
Thank you, Barb! That is very kind of you.
I’m not being kind. There is no definition of what art is. In Greek times it included such things as politics and rhetoric, now it’s largely seen as visual art. There were also fixed notions of what great art was, referring to classical notions of purity and ratios. Now, the whole field of art is getting buried in artspeak, which annoys me when I just want to look at the work. Art is supposed to elicit a response in us, hopefully a positive one, to lift us up, to help us deal with the crap we know as daily life. Like I said, just enjoy it, and enjoy your blogging.
Pingback: Sidorowicz·