(no subject)
Throughout the 18th century art all over the world began thriving in all areas. Art can best be viewed as a type of methodology where the art itself is a a promoter and we the recepters and is made to be whatever we interpret it to be. Art is one of the best forms of history that we have today, this was evident espeically during this time in American Art specifically in protraiture. American Family portraits became a big deal during this time, and to the regular viewer it is just a painting of a family, something most people have as a keepsake, however to a closer eye American Family portraits were much deeper then that. In the reading "Reading eighteenth century american family portraits: social images and self-images," by Margaret Lovell suggest the fact that these family portraits were a shift from individual protraits to one centered around the children and mother. Furthermore one of the most important facts about family protraits is it was a change to signify the changing roles in society, from gender to social class. These protraits became a new way to ellude what was important to these people and their families, which mainly was wealth and power.
One of the most vivid details in eighteenth century american portraits is the way to use these protraits to show wealth and high class of the family within society. Families used the pictures as ways to display luxuries that many other families might not possess. For example in paintings by Robert Feke, it is clear that the faces and other parts of the body are very simplistic and lack much detail, however the clothes and the furniture is what stands out in these paintings. As Lovell mentions ..."Wests presentation of himself- clad in pastel, embrodered silks and a fashionable wig,"(Calo, Mary Anne. Critical Issues in American Art Colorado: Westview Press, 1998)cleary demostrates how the models wanted to be viewed as these successful people who can afford these luxuries and do very well in life. There is apparent evidence of this clearly by just sutdy the clothes of the figures in these family protraits, there are frivilous siiks, satins and other fabrics that were very exspensive at the time. To have your own gown in these fabrics and such only showed that you were well off enough to afford these types of materialistc items. Lovell also makes it evident in say "... based on shifting attitudes toward time, privacy, authority and other basic issues of a wealthier more powerful class,"(Calo, Mary Anne. Critical Issues in American Art Colorado: Westview Press, 1998)." By having the artist have you protrayed in such fabircs and clothing as well as making sure a exsoensive piece of turkish work is at the center of the picture, was one way to ensure that the family was protrayed as wealthy and powerful in the society in which they lived. These protraits illustrated what was important to these people, they were really to show what was important socially and what was appropriate not how it was in reality. It was already a way to show wealth even to have a painter come and paint a family protrait, so this became such a huge phenomenon during this time because to have a protrait identified with the way you were protrayed in society. These all show the growing shift in society from family homestyle relationships, to consumerism and materialism.
In addition to showing off wealth and power, these issued family protraits were ways to illustrate gender classes and social roles of the ever changing time. These paintings are important purley because the show the differences in roles between men and woman. One of the ways this is shown is by the positions and ways the bodies are placed in the picture. Men stood more vertical and stood tall to show power and strength to symbolize the "Man", the "Boss." Woman were normally horizontally sitting next to their husband to show their title as "the Wife," and their husbands property. They would never have been shown standing same height next to each other because in society, men and woman were not equal to each other and were never next to each other in level. Lovell also states "...the principal male figure coolly ignores the household as he gazes in intently at the spectator ,"(Calo, Mary Anne. Critical Issues in American Art Colorado: Westview Press, 1998)," this clearly shows Lovells outlook on the way the men wanted to be shown, as someone who has more class and a sense of knowledge and questioning of the world, something very different then the way the woman were shown. Soon this relationships were shown in other ways as society was changing. Men were normally painted with long objects in their hand to imply that they had much contact with other men of their status and with the outside world. On the otherhand woman were painted with flowers, fruit or pets to infer the womans role, someone angelic, quiet, shy and virginly. Lovell proves this very well in her statement," In these protraits visual and very real gender-specific social conventions differntiate between the kinds of objects and the type of appropration that link individuals to the outside world and outside experiance(Calo, Mary Anne. Critical Issues in American Art Colorado: Westview Press, 1998)." The men or woman were linked to their knowledge and experiance of the world by showing what they were standing or sitting with, it was common to see a man have a more worldly tool with him as he was seen as someone more intellectual and experianced in life, and the woman of course mainly only knew about homelife, cooking, flowers and being in a home environment.
Furthermore there was another key way that protraiture was a way to reflect social convetions. As the 1760's surged forward there became new ideas in society and new ways to illustrate what was important of the time. There was a shift from individual or marriage portraits to ones that added more of the family members mainly children to show the newfound idea of celebrating family and the home in its entirety. Before this it was the children who were seen as well mannered, quite still figures. Their parents were the head of the house and applied strict rules which were enforced in the way the children are posed in the paintings. they are still, centered and obiedient to their parents. Slowly this began to change however and its is clear especially in Copleys," Sir William Pepperrell and His Family," that there was a much different role set for the children in the protraits. The children were shown as playing, having fun and freedom, there is much interaction between them and their parents suggesting the idea of wanting to show the loving relationships between the child and the parents. It is still clear through the children, however the husband and wifes role in the family. The father is shown as not having much interaction with the children only looking on, because was to be shown as not having a role of playing with the kids or taking care of them. However the mother has children in her lap and playing all around her reinforcing her role in the family life, as someone who looked after the children, played with them and took care of them.
One of the most vivid details in eighteenth century american portraits is the way to use these protraits to show wealth and high class of the family within society. Families used the pictures as ways to display luxuries that many other families might not possess. For example in paintings by Robert Feke, it is clear that the faces and other parts of the body are very simplistic and lack much detail, however the clothes and the furniture is what stands out in these paintings. As Lovell mentions ..."Wests presentation of himself- clad in pastel, embrodered silks and a fashionable wig,"(Calo, Mary Anne. Critical Issues in American Art Colorado: Westview Press, 1998)cleary demostrates how the models wanted to be viewed as these successful people who can afford these luxuries and do very well in life. There is apparent evidence of this clearly by just sutdy the clothes of the figures in these family protraits, there are frivilous siiks, satins and other fabrics that were very exspensive at the time. To have your own gown in these fabrics and such only showed that you were well off enough to afford these types of materialistc items. Lovell also makes it evident in say "... based on shifting attitudes toward time, privacy, authority and other basic issues of a wealthier more powerful class,"(Calo, Mary Anne. Critical Issues in American Art Colorado: Westview Press, 1998)." By having the artist have you protrayed in such fabircs and clothing as well as making sure a exsoensive piece of turkish work is at the center of the picture, was one way to ensure that the family was protrayed as wealthy and powerful in the society in which they lived. These protraits illustrated what was important to these people, they were really to show what was important socially and what was appropriate not how it was in reality. It was already a way to show wealth even to have a painter come and paint a family protrait, so this became such a huge phenomenon during this time because to have a protrait identified with the way you were protrayed in society. These all show the growing shift in society from family homestyle relationships, to consumerism and materialism.
In addition to showing off wealth and power, these issued family protraits were ways to illustrate gender classes and social roles of the ever changing time. These paintings are important purley because the show the differences in roles between men and woman. One of the ways this is shown is by the positions and ways the bodies are placed in the picture. Men stood more vertical and stood tall to show power and strength to symbolize the "Man", the "Boss." Woman were normally horizontally sitting next to their husband to show their title as "the Wife," and their husbands property. They would never have been shown standing same height next to each other because in society, men and woman were not equal to each other and were never next to each other in level. Lovell also states "...the principal male figure coolly ignores the household as he gazes in intently at the spectator ,"(Calo, Mary Anne. Critical Issues in American Art Colorado: Westview Press, 1998)," this clearly shows Lovells outlook on the way the men wanted to be shown, as someone who has more class and a sense of knowledge and questioning of the world, something very different then the way the woman were shown. Soon this relationships were shown in other ways as society was changing. Men were normally painted with long objects in their hand to imply that they had much contact with other men of their status and with the outside world. On the otherhand woman were painted with flowers, fruit or pets to infer the womans role, someone angelic, quiet, shy and virginly. Lovell proves this very well in her statement," In these protraits visual and very real gender-specific social conventions differntiate between the kinds of objects and the type of appropration that link individuals to the outside world and outside experiance(Calo, Mary Anne. Critical Issues in American Art Colorado: Westview Press, 1998)." The men or woman were linked to their knowledge and experiance of the world by showing what they were standing or sitting with, it was common to see a man have a more worldly tool with him as he was seen as someone more intellectual and experianced in life, and the woman of course mainly only knew about homelife, cooking, flowers and being in a home environment.
Furthermore there was another key way that protraiture was a way to reflect social convetions. As the 1760's surged forward there became new ideas in society and new ways to illustrate what was important of the time. There was a shift from individual or marriage portraits to ones that added more of the family members mainly children to show the newfound idea of celebrating family and the home in its entirety. Before this it was the children who were seen as well mannered, quite still figures. Their parents were the head of the house and applied strict rules which were enforced in the way the children are posed in the paintings. they are still, centered and obiedient to their parents. Slowly this began to change however and its is clear especially in Copleys," Sir William Pepperrell and His Family," that there was a much different role set for the children in the protraits. The children were shown as playing, having fun and freedom, there is much interaction between them and their parents suggesting the idea of wanting to show the loving relationships between the child and the parents. It is still clear through the children, however the husband and wifes role in the family. The father is shown as not having much interaction with the children only looking on, because was to be shown as not having a role of playing with the kids or taking care of them. However the mother has children in her lap and playing all around her reinforcing her role in the family life, as someone who looked after the children, played with them and took care of them.