John Ruskin - 19th Century Art and the Middle Class

Here are Eight points which could sum up John Ruskin's View on Art as formulated by the art historian Kenneth Clark:

1.Art is not a matter of taste, but involves the whole man. Whether in making or perceiving a work of art, we bring to bear on it feeling, intellect, morals, knowledge, memory, and every other human capacity, all focused in a flash on a single point. Aesthetic man is a concept as false and dehumanizing as economic man.

2.Even the most superior mind and the most powerful imagination must found itself on facts, which must be recognized for what they are. The imagination will often reshape them in a way which the prosaic mind cannot understand; but this recreation will be based on facts, not on formulas or illusions.

3.These facts must be perceived by the senses, or felt; not learnt.

4.The greatest artists and schools of art have believed it their duty to impart vital truths, not only about the facts of vision, but about religion and the conduct of life.

5.Beauty of form is revealed in organisms which have developed perfectly according to their laws of growth, and so give, in his own words, 'the appearance of felicitous fulfillment of function.'

6.This fulfillment of function depends on all parts of an organism cohering and cooperating. This was what he called the 'Law of Help,' one of Ruskin's fundamental beliefs, extending from nature and art to society.

7.Good art is done with enjoyment. The artist must feel that, within certain reasonable limits, he is free, that he is wanted by society, and that the ideas he is asked to express are true and important.

8.Great art is the expression of epochs where people are united by a common faith and a common purpose, accept their laws, believe in their leaders, and take a serious view of human destiny.

Ruskin's criticism of the art and architecture of his time seems to have had to do with what he saw as its connection with the Industrial Revolution and, to some degree, the middle class and laissez-faire capitalism. My friend's criticism of artists such as Degas and Renoir (in the posts below) seems to make a connection between individualist innovation, the middle classes, and modern capitalism, but Ruskin seemed to be of the view that modern times were less fortuitous for the individual - praising the "crude and 'savage' aspects of Gothic stonework as proof of 'the liberty of every workman who struck the stone; a freedom of thought, and rank in scale of being, such as no laws, no charters, no charities can secure. Classical architecture, in contrast, expressed a morally vacuous repressive standardisation. Ruskin associated Classical values with modern developments, in particular with demoralising consequences of the industrial revolution."

The connection is between middle class (and mass markets) and standardization; not middle class/mass markets and liberty or individualism. In fact the more liberal musicians of the 19th century were reacting AGAINST the middle class ticket buyers whom they felt stifled their freedom. Think of Schumann's 'Davidsbundler' (League of David) which was to slay the 'Philistines.' (i.e. the general public). This is from whence the term 'philistine' acquires the connotation "uncultured."

And this is ultimately where the tradition of the symphony concert involving pretty exclusively "old masters" comes from. In the Baroque era, for example, Bach was constantly writing new music - not because he was a Bohemian looking constantly to innovate, but because, well . . . his patrons expected it.

As Kerman has noted, "[w]hile many aristocratic patrons cared less about music than display, and some excercised the most whimsical tastes, others actually encouraged composers to pursue new paths, or at least left them alone to do so . . . [t]he mainly middle-class [i.e. nineteenth century] buyers of concert tickets naturally wanted value, as with anything else they bought. What counted as value was something already established as a masterpiece, something that they already knew and liked."

In other words, a mass market may find it fortuitous to promote "individualism" for its own end. (i.e. "Be a rebel, just like James Dean. Buy this exclusively made James Dean leather jacket, etc") However, by its very nature, a mass market tends toward conformity - perhaps a set of options, but a set that fits within a simple enough grid. ("Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us," etc.) Rather shameless appeals to the individual ("L'Oreal - because you're worth it." "You deserve a break today." "Unleash the beauty that is you.") are meant simply to persuade more people to by a product - but honestly, I don't see a true connection between this and the individualism of 19th (and 20th) century liberal artists looking to innovate. Even if we may find them misguided at times-some of them very misguided esp in the 20th century. They would have found this just as abhorent.

Let's be fair.

In a sense, both liberals and conservatives were reacting AGAINST the middle class, industrialization, and lasissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century, but in different ways. Yes, liberal individualists were ultimately wrong as regards Ruskin's points #6 and #8, but humanly speaking, what were they to do? Society had broken down, the great systems of social support and patronage (the aristocracy and the clergy) were gone or severely reduced - THEY (liberal artists) didn't have the faith. What were they to do? They didn't create the system in which they were living. They pursued a path of individual innovation and aestheticism, which, frankly, in some cases produced some very striking art works.

I am sorry but I just cannot look at Degas or Renoir and see them as the forefathers of Wal Mart. (and let's not forget that Warhol, whom I am not a big fan of, nonetheless had as his point not the glorification, but the questioning of the very concept of the unique artwork of the INDIVIDUAL; and the deliberate banalization of the mass produced objects of a modern society: from brillo pads to movie stars).

My main point here is that people and ideas (no matter how bad or good they may be per se) are being lumped together with the assumption that they are sympatico or even in a cause-effect relationship. I am disputing this.

My second point is that when I look at Renoir's "Umbrellas," for instance, my reaction is, "that's beautiful," not "would this really exist in an ideal, fully Catholic culture." I am not sure that this is what a Distributist/Traddie would say, but I fear that is what some may be thinking. To my mind, all beauty comes from and leads back to God - although, I will fully admit that people can get stuck on beauty and turn it into an idol on the purely natural level. Though this need not be so. Lot's of food for thought.

OK class, let's discuss.