Once upon a time the intellectual world was a relatively simple place. There was a high degree of consensus on theoretical issues and the amount of material to be mastered was relatively restricted. This was true of all fields and not just of the world of art. In macro- economics Keynes’ General Theory of 1936 appeared to have provided the answer to all the major problems and former classical economists, such as A. C. Pigou had capitulated. Micro-economics -the theory of the firm and individual behaviour- was preoccupied with positive, predictive models, and welfare economics was neglected on the ground that inter-personal comparisons of utility were meaningless (Robins) or impracticable (Little). The field of social policy was restricted to discussions of the justification for the welfare state (Marshall) and to uncritical studies of its advent (Maurice Bruce et al). In philosophy there was almost universal agreement with the Logical Positivist view that statements which could not be verified were meaningless, and that the proper purpose of philosophy was linguistic analysis (Gilbert Ryle). Although moral philosophy was not entirely disregarded, it did not fit and was something of an embarrassment.
Above all, the study of art and the way in which paintings should viewed and evaluated, had been confined and simplified almost beyond belief and comprehension. Students of art could ignore the whole of Russian art for the simple reason that, with the exception of a brief Modernist flowering, there was none. The same was true of North American painting up to the Second World War: there was nothing that was worthy of notice. Scandinavian painting was almost unknown outside the region itself and was ignored Kent p6. Even more surprising, virtually the whole of British art could be safely disregarded. The English, declared Roger Fry, had “never understood plastic art”; nearly all its nineteenth century art was of the “feeblest kind”; and, indeed, Britain had failed, over the centuries, to produce a single first rate artist Fry1931 p965; Harris p129. As late as 1977 a book on British art began by endorsing Fry’s view that it was a minor school Shone1977 p9. It might be thought that Germany would fare better but even the Expressionists received the briefest of mentions, and then only as an adjunct of the French Fauvists. France, France, France, above all and beyond all, was seen as the empyrean of art. “From the beginning of the eighteenth century until the present day”, wrote Fry, “France has been the one great centre of artistic creation in Europe” Fry1931 p964.
This was written in 1931 and later, with the advent of Abstract Expressionism, America too was regarded as having produced canonical painting. Abstract Expressionism was now seen as another decisive step on the highroad of Modernism. For it was Modernism and Abstraction that had come to be regarded as the path of progress. The yardstick by which artists were evaluated was how far they had advanced the march of Modernism, and the extent to which they had furthered Abstraction, in the period since Courbet.
During the 1960s the widespread assumption that the history of modern art could & should be seen as the onward march of Modernism began to be called into question & a number of once derided pre-Modernist periods & painters started to be reassessed. As late as 1962, Victorian art was castigated by Michael Middleton, art critic & establishment figure, as a “national abdication of taste” Hbook p222. However, during the latter part of the decade a serious reappraisal of British Victorian painting began with books by Graham Reynolds, Quentin Bell & Jeremy Mass. These were followed in the early seventies by Linda Nochlin’ s book on nineteenth century European Realism &, later, by Gabriel Weisberg’s studies on the Naturalist movement. These general surveys were accompanied by works focusing on individual artists, including notably those by Gerald Ackerman on Gerome, Albert Boime on Thomas Couture, Christopher Newall on Leighton, Richard Ormond on Sargent & Michael Wentworth on Tissot.
A feature of these books was a return to a close reading of what paintings were saying. Linda Nochlin complained that, during her training as an art historian in the late forties & early fifties, the field was dominated by a formalistic approach. Although subject matter was mentioned, serious studies of the content of painting were confined to the pre-nineteenth century period & even there restricted to a special topic, iconography Nochlin1989 pp xii-xiii.
The expansion of the field –geographical, temporal & conceptual- provides those who view paintings with new opportunities and new areas of knowledge and interpretation. However, this expansion is itself daunting and bewildering. There have it is true been compensating developments in the form of excellent books that provide information and argument in a summary form; and, of late, that has been the provision of huge amounts of data on the internet. However, the sheer mass of information can be self-defeating. Moreover much of the material that is available from Wikipedia and other sources is too focused on facts with too little analysis and interpretation. All too often the reader is, for instance, told where an artist was buried but not why he or she was significant.
There is therefore a pressing need for a convenient overall view: one which not only provides necessary factual information but also deals with interpretation and issues. Hence this new and dedicated website. To begin with I did not aim to provide one. The project began as a series of summary notes for my own personal use: to help where memory had failed and to clarify concepts and movements that were ill-defined. For instance, I found it remarkably difficult to discover what the Impressionists had in common. The website is also the product at my frustration in art galleries at not having useful information readily on hand. It is my hope that in an ever more puzzling world my site will be of service to those who look at and are interested in painting.
***
I have not tried to cover all forms of art. My field is largely restricted to painting by which I mean the use of oils, watercolours, acrylic & other similar substances that artists spread on canvas or boards. This means that, as a general rule, pure collage is not included & nor is photography, Performance Art & Conceptual Art. However, an exception has been made in the case of the topics themselves because of their obvious importance to painters & painting. Performance & Conceptual Art have, for instance, led to the partial eclipse of painting itself.
Relatively little has also been said about drawing & engraving. Drawings that are merely preliminary trial sketches can be ignored, except insofar as they throw light on the pictures to which they give rise, or help to explain how painters set about their work. In particular whether they made drawings on the spot. However, where drawings are finished works in their own right, or are of particular importance they too have been covered. A somewhat similar approach has been adopted with respect to engraving. Where an engraving is a reproduction of a painting, it will be ignored, the only exception being where an important painting has disappeared & the engraving alone has survived. However, there are some engravings that were made ab initio, & these have been included where they appear to warrant inclusion. It would be foolish to ignore Whistler’s marvellous engravings of Venice, or the fine erotica of Agostino Carraci, merely because they were never made into paintings. Moreover the field of erotic art would be denuded by the omission of engravings.
At this point the question arises of whether it is legitimate to ignore photography, collage & Conceptual Art. If erotic engravings are to be included, why are erotic photographs being left out? I am tempted to echo Gertrude Stein & say, “Everybody must like something & I like seeing painted pictures. There is no reason for it but for some reason…anything painted in oil anywhere on a flat surface holds my attention & I can always look at it & slowly yes slowly I will tell you about it.”
Although I share this feeling, there are more concrete reasons why I have confined myself to oil painting & the other graphic arts. First, it would be impracticable to cover all the arts & art forms, if only because of my lack of knowledge. This explains why sculpture has been given cursory treatment. Second, drawing & painting have a number of aspects which I believe make them primus inter pares: (i) they involve a high degree of craftsmanship & manual skill; (ii) they require a substantial intellectual contribution both from the artist &, if the maximum value is to be extracted, from the viewer also; (iii) they appeal to the emotions as well as the intellect; & (iv) they are long lasting, not ephemeral, which means they can be savoured & re-assessed. No one of these conditions is sufficient justification for my claim that painting is the outstanding art form but taken together they do, I hope, provide at least an arguable case & explain why I have not extended my study.
***
This website has been divided into ten sections. Most of these are adequately described by their titles. There are, however, some preliminary points that require explanation.
In Section 1 each painter has been provided with a star rating. The source for this was the authoritative Yale Dictionary of Art and Artists by Erika Langmuir and Norbert Lynton, which is cited as L&L. The staring system was as follows:
**** indicates four or more columns, eg Durer, Raphael, Constable, Picasso.
*** at least two columns but less than four, eg David, Ingres, Gauguin, Manet, Courbet, Pollock, Rembrandt
** at least one column but less than two, eg Friedrich, Sargent, Rothko.
* at least half a column but less than one, eg Menzel, Millais, Leighton, Duncan Grant.
– the painter is listed but is given less than half a column, eg Bellows, Bonheur, Waterhouse.
.. the painter is not even listed, eg Stanhope Forbes, Norman Rockwell, Balke, Luke Fildes
? the artist was primarily engaged on sculpture &/or was not primarily a painter
The Yale Dictionary was not designed for this purpose & is subject to various biases. Nevertheless it should be helpful & at least gives some indication of how artists were regarded when it was published in 2000.
Artists’ names present a bewildering problem. There seems little point in describing exactly how they have been listed. It is hoped that almost any alternative designation that the reader has typed in at CONTENTS will find the painter that is being sought. Moreover alternative designations are provided for those who wish to scroll through the whole section. It may, however, be worth mentioning that Van or van (but not von) has been treated as the initial part of painter’s name, & the same treatment has been accorded to La, Le & El.
In Section 2 works have been treated as Masterworks if they were listed in 1001 Paintings You Must See Before You Die or were specifically referred to in L&L, the Oxford Dictionary of Art (OxDicArt) or the Oxford Dictionary of Modern & Contemporary Art (OxDicMod). The other principal sources were paintings that are reproduced in the key texts which appear in bold type in Sources Cited. Some paintings, not always masterpieces, were also included because they were considered of special interest. The location of masterworks has been shown in brackets after the title &, where possible, the date of the painting. NG stands for National Gallery & where this stands alone it refers to London. Where the gallery is well-known its town has been omitted but can be found in Section 6.
In Section 6 the principal world galleries have mainly been selected according to their ranking by the number of masterpieces or must view pictures listed in 1001 & Tietz etc. However, this has the disadvantage of ignoring prime collections in stately homes, palaces etc. Hence a list of these has been compiled (See below). Moreover, the listing of principal Galleries ignores some leading Galleries because my sources almost ignored Russia, apart from its non-Modern art, etc. Hence Russian & other important collections have been included, bringing the total to 50. There seemed little point in including Galleries but then only listing their (above defined) masterpieces. Hence other important works have been included for all selected Galleries, using Hughes1997, etc
The listing in Section 6 (& also Section 2) of works that are in the possession of galleries & other institutions does not necessarily mean that they can readily be seen. The great bulk of works in many of the leading galleries are not on view. They are in store and special permission will be required before such works can be viewed. In some cases such as the National Gallery the chance of viewing the picture will, unless it is on loan, be high but at others, such as the Tate, it will not be great. Another difficulty that confronts the visitor is that even if a work is present it may not be possible to study it. This is all too often the case in churches, palaces & stately homes. Sometimes this is because the works are on ceilings but the problem is frequently the poor hanging & lighting or inability to get reasonably close because of roping off. Some indication of which places the viewer will find particularly frustrating or user-friendly is provided but it is nothing more than a rough guide.
Section 8 is entitled “Painting Schools and Groupings”. These are legion. Fortunately many only require a brief mention but others were long lasting and their names are routinely employed by art historians and curators. Frequently this is a matter of convenience & does not mean that the members of the school or grouping had shared concerns, style or subject matter. The Impressionists, for instance, exhibited together, albeit in fluctuating combinations and together with non-Impressionists. However, apart from opposition to current academic painting, the Impressionists had little in common & certainly did not paint in a uniform style. Anybody who thinks that Monet, Degas & the earlier Caillebotte had a common style cannot have looked at their works with any care. Nevertheless it is impossible to disregard the customary groupings, however unsatisfactory, & they have accordingly been included.
The question remains of whether one should try to devise a more rational system of classification. Little systematic thought appears to have been given to this problem, although art historians who are interested in particular periods & areas have in some cases tried to provide workable definitions. Linda Nochlin’s treatment of 19th century Realism is a good example Nochlin1971 p13 etc. In Section 9 I have adopted a comprehensive system of classification based upon the assumption that it is possible to identify what I shall call Painting Movements. Here the word movement is being used do describe “a tendency or trend”, which is in one of its dictionary meanings. Hence artistic movements that I have identified are intended to embrace those who are, at about the same time, travelling in a particular direction, & whose paintings have important common characteristics in technique, composition, subject matter & approach. It is not essential that those who belong to the movement have close links, which seems to be in the main, though unacknowledged criteria, for the so-called painting Schools. The movements which I have distinguished are narrower than the broad & persistent themes that recur time & again throughout the history of art, such as realism, romanticism & linearity, as discussed in Section 7. On the other hand, they are broader than the particular groupings of painters, such as the Newlyn School, that are dealt with in Section 8. If attention is focused on narrow groupings what is supposed to be a system of classification & enlightenment will become self-defeating because of it is too complex & too many of the groups will overlap.
Hence in Section 9 I have tried to carve out artistic movements of an intermediate variety which are not so numerous as to defy memory & comprehension &, in particular, where the painters have common characteristics. It not been my aim to be original & some my categories are well-known, such as Baroque & Rococo. Others are sub-divisions of the broad topics that are discussed in Section 7, eg of Romanticism, which is a big baggy monster. In other cases, they are combinations of narrower groupings that neatly fit together, such as the Newlyn School & the Glasgow Boys. In almost all cases the categories that are used have been employed, or at least implied, by art historians of distinction, as I have shown in my discussions of historiography.
Any attempt to categorise artists is likely to be imperfect. One reason is that, as John Berger recognised, it is the secondary figures that fit most conveniently into categories. Moreover painters sometimes move from one grouping to another. Fortunately, the attempt to pigeon hole a painter will, even if it serves no other purpose, at least stimulate readers to analyse exactly why I am only half right, or just plain wrong. Regardless of my success or failure, it is vital that art historians should improve & explain their classificatory systems. It is necessary, not only in order to reduce clutter & make a complex artistic world intelligible, but also because the use of ill-defined groupings can lead to the disregard of one of the most important questions that confronts the art historian. This is the problem of whether the evolution of art has been driven internally by artists themselves -the Idealist viewpoint- or whether, on the other hand, artistic developments have taken place in response to changes in the outside world, be they political, economic or religious. Only if artists are put into suitable boxes will it be possible to see what impact, if any, environmental changes have had on their work. Those who refuse to categorise, or to use pigeon holes that are purely conventional, run the risk of assuming that artistic development is self-generated.
Sources Cited lists the source works on which I have relied, together with the abbreviations that have been used when they are used in other sections. My general aim has been to say nothing for which an authority cannot, & has not, been cited. Where I have departed from this rule & the view or comment is my own, the text is in the light blue used, for instance, in this Preface. Where a title appears in Bold Type the work has been used as one of the qualifications for including the painter in Section 1. The usual qualification for inclusion was the reproduction of one or more of his or her pictures.