I have been in love, so I understand that Meghan is everything in your eyes and that you want to be at her side and near Archie. Meghan is now in her country and among actors, and other celebrities. But she may follow you. Your country is Britain and Britain needs you. You are a British Prince and you are Archie’s father. He too is royalty and your family would love to see him.
May I urge you to go to Britain. The Palace is safe and your country needs you. I haven’t kept up with the Sussexes, but I know that you are in Malibu, California, which is quite a distance away from Britain. William and your entire family need you more than ever. You are in the military and so is William. The two of you are young and strong and both have duties.
Please fly home immediately and take Archie. He is British Royalty. It could well be that Meghan will accompany the two of you. She married a Prince of the United Kingdom. You also have a home: Frogmore. I heard that Meghan was taking acting lessons. These can be postponed. Britain needs your energy, your smile, and your love. Remember that you are an accomplished Prince. That is your job. Remember as well that today is the first day of the rest of your life. You are William’s brother and he needs you. Imagine how awful it is for him to be alone.
Your grandmother is showing considerable courage and leadership at this very dark hour, but she and your grandfather are ageing.
We have a monster to beat.
Purcell‘s Trumpet Voluntary Budapest Brass Quintet Petz Pál, Palotai István – trumpet Füzes Péter – horn Farkas István Péter – trombone
In my last post, dated 6 July 2016, I expressed alarm because, with the exception of Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, British Leaders were resigning when in fact the country was in dire need of leaders who could deal with the result of the Brexit vote. It seems Jeremy Corbyn’s fate is being decided as I write by members of the Labour Party.
In other words, Brexit is not over, but Parliament is nearly functional, which is how it should be. Prime Minister-designate Theresa May (née Brasier; born 1 October 1956) will be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, beginning Wednesday evening, 13 July 2016. Theresa May was Home Secretary.
British Prime Minister David Cameron would not take into consideration a petition signed by 4,000,000 Britons. It could be that Mr Cameron had to respect the letter of the law or be perceived as inconsistent. But 1,000 lawyers are now saying that the Brexit result “is not legally binding.”
The Brexit decision was surprising. Britain was a formidable colonial power, but would Amerindians return the descendants of Pilgrim Fathers and Puritans to their ancestors’ native land, England? No. They wouldn’t and couldn’t. Yet, European colonial powers made themselves at home on territory they had merely discovered. In the Americas, they nearly wiped out American “Indians,” north and south. Many were displaced and many starved. A large number died because they had no immunity to the diseases of Europeans, such as smallpox. Several were otherwise eliminated.
“Current estimates are that the epidemic killed up to 90 percent of the Native population in the Massachusetts Bay area. When the Pilgrims arrived in 1620, they saw evidence of massive depopulation and attributed it to the “good hand of God . . . that he might make room for us there.” Another epidemic—this time smallpox—hit in 1633–1634.” [1]
As practised by Europeans, both genocide and settler colonialism have typically employed the organizing grammar of race.” [2]
Not that anyone should feel guilty and atone. These events belong to the past. But times have changed and one should respect all members of the human race and particularly the citizens of countries one colonized.
Countries have the right to limit immigration, but the “Yes! we won! Now send them back” is rather ugly. If British political leaders used the EU referendum as a platform to lure voters into thinking that voting to leave the EU would justify their getting rid of “them,” they acted irresponsibly. Just who is “them?”
Moreover, thinking and stating that Britons would be “better off on their own” may not be the case in a global economy and so many years after entering into a partnership with the EU.
Theresa May speaks to reporters after being confirmed as the leader of the Conservative Party and Britain’s next Prime Minister outside the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, central London, 11 July 2016. (REUTERS/Neil Hall)
Conclusion
Britons need not put themselves through the agony of another referendum. They have shown that they were divided in nearly equal halves, which probably suffices. But the matter of a second referendum is under discussion.
I didn’t intend to write another post on Brexit, but Britain has a new leader in Theresa May.
Love to everyone♥
P. S. Jeremy Corbyn will be on the Labour leadership ballot, NEC rules.
Most teachers consider a mark of 51.89% on a quiz or test a very low grade. It usually indicates that the student is likely to fail the course. Moreover, in certain Canadian universities, teachers are asked not to give a final mark between 45% and 50% to a student who is graduating or finishing his or her degree. Marks between 45% and 50% are lowered or raised, depending on the student’s overall performance and, occasionally, on his or her circumstances.
Therefore, according to classroom standards, if 51.89% (17,410,742) of Britons agreed to leave the European Union, and 48.11% (16,141,241) voted to stay, breaking away from the European Union is not warranted. It is too literal a reading. The spirit of the law negates its letter. (See United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, Wikipedia.)
If we delete Bregrets (1,2 million) from the “leave” voters, the gap is even narrower. Bregrets may feel they did not know precisely what they were voting for or against. They may also feel they were not sufficiently informed regarding the consequences of their vote.
Using numbers instead of a percentage, 17,410,742 million Britons (51.89%) voted to leave the EU and 16,141,241 million (48.11 %) voted to stay. If Britain leaves the European Union, it would be by too small a majority. Although Bregrets voters (1,2 million) cannot be counted officially, they cannot be ignored. Nor can one ignore the demonstrators in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere in Britain. I dare not subtract 1,200,000 from 17,410,742, and add 1,200,000 to 16,141,241.
Misrepresentation
sovereignty
immigration
The plot thickens. According to professor Michael Dougan, there was misrepresentation on the part of Brexit advocates.
One issue was sovereignty. Some voters believed, or were made to believe, that the UK would regain its independence if it left the European Union. Such a view is puzzling. Britain was one of the foremost colonial powers in history, if not the foremost. It is independent.
Propaganda(Photo credit: Google images)
Another issue is immigration. Some “leave” voters thought they were voting to exclude certain immigrants from entering England or to send them back.
Countries do regulate the number of immigrants they accept, but we cannot assume that migrants who are risking their lives to enter Europe are terrorists. Migrants flooding Europe are fleeing terrorism, war, and repressive autocracies. They are the victims of Isil or Daesch, the Syrian Civil War, and autocrats who violate human rights. Some countries cannot accommodate immigrants at this point because they are still recovering from the breakdown of the Soviet Union.
Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly refused to step down. (Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images)
For instance, Jeremy Corbyn,Leader of the Labour Party, now regrets using the words Hamas and Hezbollah. However, is anyone suggesting Mr Corbyn is an anti-Semite? If Mr Corbyn is an anti-Semite, so is Noam Chomsky. YouTube has several videos featuring Noam Chomsky discussing various subjects, including Israel and Palestine.
There is sympathy for Palestinians, and many countries recognize the State of Palestine. Nearly 50 years after the Six-Day War, Israel still occupies Palestinian territory and it is building a wall part of which is located in the occupied territories.
I will conclude borrowing several words from my last post. I then wrote that it may be in the best interest of Britons not to break from the European Union at this point. My opinion has not changed. John Kerry, the United States Secretary of State, has suggested Britain could walk back its decision, which may be a good idea. Should Britain leave the EU if its population does not express itself clearly? There is no consensus at the moment.
In my opinion, the EU referendum failed to give British Prime Minister David Cameron a clear mandate to either leave or remain within the EU. One must also consider that although a decision made on so tiny a majority would be legally acceptable, it may be too literal, in which case it may not “sit well” with Britons, a factor that cannot be dismissed.
Moreover, can Britain leave the EU if there was misrepresentation? If voters believed, or were led to believe, that once it was “independent,” Britain could close its door on Muslims or certain other immigrants, or send them back, there may have been unsavoury political manoeuvering. However, I will not go further regarding this matter for lack of information. What we know is that there was no planning.
We also know that Britain is experiencing a leadership crisis. Prime Minister David Cameron plans to resign in October and Mr Corbyn has been asked to resign but has resisted such requests. A nation cannot be without leaders. Whether or not Britain wants to leave is not clear; yet its leaders are being asked to resign.
This is my last post on the of Brexit “incident.”
The Canadian experience may be worth looking at. The 1995 Quebec Referendum nearly broke Canada (49.42% voted in favour of separation and 50.58% voted against), which led to the passing of the Clarity Act. If a province, Quebec or another province, wishes to leave Confederation, the decision will not be based on a 50 – 50 vote, i.e. 49.42% (leave) versus 50.59% (stay). Such a result showed division.
British Prime Minister David Cameron as he speaks in the House of Commons on June 29, 2016(Home Office / Parliamentary Recording Unit via Agence France Presse Photo)
The day after the vote…
I remember the Quebec Referendums, the 1995 referendum in particular. There was so much fear.
Would older Quebec citizens get their pension cheques?
How would Quebecers purchase groceries?
Could they still use Canadian currency?
Would the Canadian armed forces still protect them?
Would Desjardins be the only bank?
Just how would they pay the rent or make their mortgage payments?
Would they need a passport to visit friends and family in Ottawa, Toronto and provinces west of Ontario or east of Quebec?
What would happen to Acadians and other French communities living outside Quebec?
Would Canada cease to be a bilingual country?
Could Quebec count on its immigrants to remain in Quebec?
Would there be yet another exodus of its more affluent population? (This is what happened when the Parti québécois was first voted into office (1976).
Would Quebecers leaving Quebec sell their home in American currency? Some still do.
etc.
These may seem picayune details, but they are not, which is why the Clarity Act was passed. Canada had to made sure no province could walk away from Confederation in a precipitous manner thus creating considerable anxiety, disorder and years of instability.
Britain
As it turns out, those who advocated leaving did not have a plan. What would happen the day after the vote?
Not all European countries have joined the European Union. But the countries that did not join knew that the next day would not differ from the day before. Their decision not to join was not made overnight and could not plunge millions of citizens into years of detrimental uncertainty. As for other countries denied membership, they simply remained as they had been.
There is nothing wrong with not belonging to the EU, but the decision to leave must reflect the will of the people.
Countries belonging to the European Union. This map still shows Britain as a member.(Photo credit: Google)
It would seem imprudent for countries to leave the EU overnight and do so after a mere referendum. Important decisions, such as leaving the European Union require more than a referendum. There has to be a consensus. Too many citizens are opposed to leaving the European Union. The referendum showed that nearly half of Britons opposed leaving the European Union. Therefore, there is no consensus.
After Donald Trump attacked President Obama for not blaming Muslims for the Orlando massacre, President Obama stated that Mr Trump, the Republican presidential presumptive, had a “dangerous mindset.” I believe the gentleman shown in the photograph below also has a “dangerous mindset.”
Yes! We won! Now send them back. (Diamond Geezer via Associated Press)
John Kerry’s Suggestion
John Kerry, the United States Secretary of State, has suggested that Britain could “walk back” its decision. The British Government held a referendum, but there is dissent and a “dangerous mindset.”
Protesters gather against the EU referendum result in Trafalgar Square on June 28, 2016 in London, England. There is still the possibility that the British government will disregard the referendum result.(Jeff J Mitchell / Getty Images)
In short, it may be in the best interest of Britons not to break from the European Union at this point. Not if there isn’t a consensus. Not if the motivation was even remotely racist. And not if there wasn’t a plan.
One is surprised and one isn’t. During difficult periods of history, folding back has occurred, and we are at a difficult moment in history.
However, given that the results of the Brexit vote were very close and that the “leave” vote was followed by a wave of racist comments directed at Muslims and at members of the Polish population of Britain, I wonder whether or not Britons want to leave the European Union.
The reaction of many Britons brings to mind Donald Trump’s hasty determination that ISIL terrorists were the perpetrators of the Orlando Massacre. It appears the LBGT were targeted even though the suspected killer was an American citizen of Afghan origin.
A man wearing an anti immigration T-shirt walks during Armed Forces Day Parade in Romford, England, on Saturday. (Diamond Geezer via Associated Press)
Quebec has held referendums regarding a possible separation from the rest of Canada. For all practical purposes, the answer to the last referendum was both a “yes” (49.42%) and a “no” (50.58%). (See Quebec Referendum, 1995, Wikipedia.) As a result, the Clarity Act was passed by the House on 15 March 2000, and by the Senate, in its final version, on 29 June 2000. (See Clarity Act, Wikipedia.)
During the political campaign that led to the election of Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Mulcair, the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, asked the current Prime Minister of Canada what his number was regarding the Clarity Act, or Bill C-20. Mr Trudeau waited a little and then answered that his number was 9. “Nine Supreme Court justices said one vote is not enough to break up this country.”
I realize that British prime minister David Cameron is opposed to another referendum, but it would be my opinion that the results of the British referendum are inconclusive. Nearly half of Britons voted against leaving the European Union and it turns out that among those who voted in favour of leaving, several misinterpreted the question. (See United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, Wikipedia.)
The Brexit question was not whether or not Britain should exclude Muslims and Poles from entering their country. If “leave” supporters misread or misunderstood the question, democracy may not have been duly served.
The refugee crisis is a destabilizing factor in Europe, particularly in those countries that have yet to recover from the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Moreover, there have been dreadful terrorist attacks. One lives in fear of another. But Muslim refugees are the victims of terrorists and autocrats.
In short, if Britain leaves the European Union, Britons would be making a numerically democratic choice, but if nearly half of Britons voted not to leave and if the “leave” vote reflects a perceptible degree of racism, it could be that the results of the referendum are both too close and too tainted for Britain to act.
I am not suggesting that the United Kingdom pass a “clarity act,” but if it is ascertained that racism played a significant role in the “leave” vote, it could well be that the tail is wagging the dog.
The Poppy Tile by Walter Crane (Photo credit: Google Images)
The Industrial Age and Socialism
In our discussion of art in Britain during the 19th century, I mentioned that William Morris and Walter Crane were socialist activists. The Industrial Revolution (beginning in the middle of the 18th century) led to an abuse of workers. Workers were often very young, they worked 60 hours a week over 6 days, the noise produced by machines was deafening, repeated movements, crippling, not to mention other detrimental consequences.
William Morris was born to a wealthy family and Morris & Co. was a successful business venture. By and large, employees of Morris & Co. (now Liberty of London and Sanderson [the designs]) were craftsmen, as was William Morris himself. The Kelmscott Chaucer, printed at the Kelmscott Press, named after Morris’ Kelmscott Manor, which he rented, was a modern illuminated manuscript. Morris was a calligrapher and painter as was his friend Sir Edward Burne-Jones. When the Kelmscott Chaucer was published, in 1896, it was as a joint effort and the first two copies were presented to William Morris and Edward Burne-Jones.
However, the work differed from a craft in that it was printed, which made it accessible to several individuals. The books produced by the Kelmscott Press are ancestors to books produced by the current Folio Society. In particular, the paper will not age into a brittle and yellow paper. It is acid-free paper or nearly so. It is the paper used by waltercolour artists and printmakers. An artwork will not otherwise survive.
Such were the books printed by the Kelmscott Press, established in 1881. Liberty of London has to use mechanization or it could not offer fabrics, etc. in bulk. But times have changed. The forty-hour week is no longer a rarity and workers use headphones to deafen the sound. However, the abuse has not ended and the working environments where abuse occurs are not restricted to factories.
Neptune’s Horses by Walter Crane (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Walter Crane
the arts domesticated
Arts & Crafts exhibition in the US
To keep this post brief, I will focus on Walter Crane’s activities as a member of the Socialistmovement (socialism) to which he was introduced underWilliam Morris‘ influence. As an artist, both he and Morris tried to “bring art into the daily life of all classes.” (See Walter Crane, Wikipedia.) The products of today’s Liberty of London can be described as carriage trade). For instance, the lovely tote bags it sells are not available to the poorer classes, poverty still exists, but it is art domesticated. There is truth however to the saying that no one is sufficiently rich to buy a product that will not last or to overindulge in the trendy.
Crane was not an anarchist, but when domestic and other art designed by members of the Arts and Crafts movement were exhibited in the United States, Walter Crane attended a social in Boston and said that the “Chicago four,” who had been executed, were wrongfully convicted. No sooner did he voice his opinion that he was shipped back to London. Workers were agitating in the hope of bringing the work week down from 60 hours to 48 hours.
On 4 May 1886, during a demonstration, in favour of the 48-hour week, someone threw a dynamite bomb at the police. People then start to shoot. Seven (7) police officers and four (4) civilians died and many more were wounded. The Demonstration took pace at Haymarket Square in Chicago. (See Haymarket Affair, Wikipedia). The Chicago four were the four men who were hanged. Although none had thrown the bomb, one or more of the seven men who who were convicted had built it. One of the convicted men was sentenced to life imprisonment, but seven men were condemned to death. Among the seven, four were hanged, the death sentence of two workers was commuted to life imprisonment, and one committed suicide. Prisoners were pardoned in 1893 by governor John Peter Altgeld. Because of the Haymarket Affair, May 1st became the International Workers’ Day.
According to Wikipedia, “[f]or a long time he [Crane] provided the weekly cartoons for the Socialist organs Justice, The Commonweal and The Clarion. Many of these were collected as Cartoons for the Cause. He devoted much time and energy to the work of the Art Workers Guild, of which he was master in 1888 and 1889 and to the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, which he helped to found in 1888.”
However, Walter Crane is best known for his illustrations and, in particular, for his illustrated edition of Edmund Spenser‘s Faerie Queene (1894-96). But he was a socialist activist. William Morris was a card-carrying member, as may have been Walter Crane.
Britomart viewing Artegal
Holiness defeats Error
Florimell saved by Proteus
Conclusion
William Morris and Walter Crane were both associated with at least two of the art movements of 19th-century English. Crane started out with the Pre-Raphaelites as did William Morris. Both were members of the Arts and Crafts Movement, and both were socialist activists. As for the movements, all culminated in the aesthetic movement and art produced as the 19th century drew to a close often displays the curvilinear Art Nouveau style. The borders of Walter Crane’s illustrations for Spenser’s Faerie Queene are an example of Art Nouveau. So are the borders of the Kelmscott Chaucer (see Sources and Resources).
Morris was the giant, the businessman, the coordinator, and immensely eclectic. In Walter Crane, we have the most prolific illustrator of his times. But both realized the industrial revolution had brought misery to workers and, therefore, to the lower classes. Awareness of this misery is associated mostly with William Morris and Walter Crane, but the Arts and Crafts Movement was nevertheless a statement.
Flora’s Feast by Water Crane, 1889 (Photo credit: Google Images)
Many of the artists associated with the above movements knew one another and were members of more than one movement. For instance, William Morris was a medievalist yet he was a member of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood as a painter. Morris and employees of Morris & Co., William Morris’ company, designed and made furniture. It may not have been in the Anglo-Japanese style, but it was furniture.
Moreover, not only was Morris the founder of the Kelmscott Press, but he was also a calligrapher and illuminator. He and Sir Edward Burne-Jones produced the Kelmscott Chaucer, a 19th-century illuminated manuscript, reviving a medieval practice. Production began in 1892 and the book was published in 1896, four months before William Morris’ early death.
It would be difficult to associate the Kelmscott Chaucer with the Arts and Crafts Movement. The Kelmscott Chaucer is unique, but if it has to be classified, it would be considered a product of the Aesthetic Movement, the movement associated with Sir Edward Burne-Jones. He and Morris met as students at Oxford University and their friendship endured.
Burne-Jones contributed paintings and stained glass to the Red House, Sir Burne-Jones reinvented the medieval art of staining glass but he is usually associated with the Aesthetic Movement. In fact, all four movements culminated in the Aesthetic Movement and eclecticism is a characteristic shared by several artists belonging the above-named movements.
His medievalism is William Morris’ contribution to the art of the Pre-Raphaelites, but it is not ‘grotesque’ (from grotto: cave). Architects used the grotesque, such as gargoyles (water spouts), as well as stained glass windows. Both originate in the Middle Ages. Some Victorian houses have beautiful stained glass windows.
SOL by Edward Burne-Jones, 1878 (from the Franklin Collection, 1970) (Photo credit: see Sources and Resources below)
Domesticity
“If I were asked to say what is at once the most important production of art and the thing most to be longed for, I should answer, a beautiful home.”
The Arts and Crafts Movement‘s main characteristic is its domesticity. Artists and artisans made ceramic tiles, wallpaper, cushions, textiles, prints. Moreover, they were architects, cabinet-makers and interior designers. Although a piece of furniture such as Arthur William Godwin‘s sideboard, shown in an earlier post, would be very expensive, it could be said that it belongs to a democratization of the arts.
The Emery House (Photo credit: The Guardian, UK)
William Morris: A Renaissance Man
Morris (24 March 1834 – 3 October 1896) was a renaissance man. He is described as:
The Arts and Crafts Movement was an international movement. Swedish artist Carl Larsson (28 May 1853 – 22 January 1919) was an interior designer. He also worked as an illustrator and made paintings portraying his home, his wife and his children.
Artists associated with the Arts and Crafts Movement often used the curvilinear and international Art Nouveau style. After World War I, it would be replaced by Art Deco, but fine styles resurface or leave an imprint. Morris’ socialism will not be discussed here. We have pictures to look at.
Boreas by John Willam Waterhouse, 1903 (Photo credit:WikiArt.org )
Prelude
Britain’s Golden Age of illustration, the illustration of children’s literature in particular, was ushered in, at least in part, by Japonism. Other factors contributed to the flourishing of children’s literature adorned with exquisite illustrations, but the beauty of the Japanese prints that flooded Europe after the Sakoku period elevated the status of illustrators whose art was engraved and printed. Moreover, the illustration of children’s literature allowed and sometimes required substantial creativity on the part of illustrators. For instance, as discussed in a previous post, Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and its sequel, Through the Looking-Glass (1871), featured literary nonsense.
But there is more to tell. We will now introduce Britain’s following movements or style:
I will also refer to the curvilinear and very popular and influential Art Nouveau. British illustrator Aubrey Beardsley (21 August 1872 – 16 March 1898; aged 25) is a representative of the style, but Art Nouveau is usually associated with Czech artist Alfons Mucha. It is a characteristic of art produced in the last decade of the 19th century and in the years preceding World War I.
The Anglo-Japanese Style
In Britain, Japonisme was applied to furniture making and was referred to as the Anglo-Japanese style. The Anglo-Japanese style was true to the idealism of the Pre-Raphaelites in that it rejected the depiction of “any thing [sic] or any person of a commonplace or conventional kind.” (See Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Wikipedia.)
For instance, the sideboard shown below, designed in the Anglo-Japanese style by Arthur William Godwin (26 May 1833 – 6 October 1886), cannot be considered “conventional”. It may reflect Japanese furniture, but it is also consistent with the concept of art for art’s sake, l’art pour l’art, advocated by French poet Théophile Gautier (30 August 1811 – 23 October 1872) and shared by certain members of the Aesthetic Movement, such as James Abbott McNeil Whistler. Yet, as noted above, the Anglo-Japanese style is partly rooted in the creed of members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.It is innovative, Charles Baudelaire‘s “du nouveau,” newness.
Plonger au fond du gouffre, Enfer ou Ciel, qu’importe? Au fond de l’Inconnu pour trouver du nouveau!
The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was founded in 1848 by British artists William Hunt (2 April 1827 – 7 September 1910), John Everett Millais (8 June 1829 – 13 August 1896) and Dante Gabriel Rossetti (12 May 1828 – 9 April 1882). As noted below (see 3), it would not allow any thing [sic] or person “of a commonplace or conventional kind.”
The movement was called brotherhood, which could suggest equality and fraternity, but members of the brotherhood were brothers in that they rejected Sir JoshuaReynolds, (16 July 1723 -23 February 1792), renamed Sir ‘Sloshua’, the founder of the English Royal Academy of Arts.
Pre-Raphaelites also wished to return to the art preceding the High Renaissance paintings of Raphael (6 April or 28 March 1483 – 6 April 1520).
Pre-Raphaelites would not allow “anything lax or scamped in the process of painting … and hence … any thing [sic] or person of a commonplace or conventional kind.”[1] (See Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Wikipedia.)
The Pre-Raphaelites’ mentor was John Ruskin (8 February 1819 – 20 January 1900), the most prominent art critic of the Victorian era who advocated “truth to nature.”
Echo and Narcissus by John William Waterhouse, 1903 (Photocredit:WikiArt.org)
The Aesthetic Movement
roots in the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood
roots in the Gothic (William Morris & Edward Burne-Jones)
roots in Japonism (Impressionism)
The Aesthetic Movement promoted the concept of art for art’s sake, l’art pour l’art. Consequently, there are affinities between the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and the Aesthetic Movement. They may differ however in that the Pre-Raphaelites “continued to accept the concepts of history painting, mimesis, imitation of nature as central to the purpose of art.” This could explain why John Ruskin (8 February 1819 – 20 January 1900) praised the movement (see 5). He advocated “truth to nature”.
For Ruskin “truth to nature” did not seem consistent with the allusive nature of McNeill’s Impressionism. John Ruskin therefore criticized American, but London-based artist James McNeill Whistler stating that Whistler was a “coxcomb” who “asked two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.” (See James Abbott McNeil Whistler, Wikipedia.) Such was John Ruskin’s description of Whistler’s “Nocture in Black and Gold, the Falling Rocket”. Whistler sued and won, but he had to declare bankruptcy and lost the “White House” designed for him by Arthur William Godwin, the cabinet-maker who created the “sideboard” shown above.
Yet if the Pre-Raphaelites are to be linked to another 19th-century British art movement, it would be the art for art’s sake Aesthetic Movementwhich paralleled, albeit to a lesser extent, the decadence of French poets and artists of the second half of 19th-century. French poets were drinking absinthe, which contained an hallucinogen, thujone. For his part, Dante Gabriel Rossetti took chloral.
Although James McNeill Whistler introduced Dante Gabriel Rossetti to Japonism in 1860, the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood is not related to Japonism. It remains however that if the Aesthetic movement could accommodate “Ruskinian Gothic,” not to mention the medievalism of such devotees as William Morris and Sir Edward Burne-Jones, one wonders why it would reject Ruskinian “truth to nature”.
The Gothic
William Morris
Edward Burne-Jones
Arthur William Godwin‘s “sideboard” is in the Anglo-Japanese style, which, as is the case with all the movements listed above, is a forerunner of Aestheticism. As an architect-designer, Godwin, who designed the desk displayed above, also drew his inspiration from “Ruskinian Gothic”. Although exotic Japonism helped shape the art of 19th-century Britain, the stained-glass pieces of Sir Edward Burne-Jones (28 August 1833 – 17 June 1898) reached into the Medieval era, as did Arthur William Godwin’s gothic Northampton Guildhall. Morris and Burne-Jones met as students at Oxford and both were attracted to the Middle Ages, or Gothic, praised by John Ruskin (8 February 1819 – 20 January 1900) who was not only the most prominent art historian and critic of the Victorian era, but also a fine artist.
The Peacock room, The Princess from the Land ofPorcelain by William McNeill Whistler (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Japonism and the Aesthetic Movement
Whistler was one of the first to appreciate the true significance of the Japanese prints which had begun to appear in the West after Japan’s centuries of isolation ended in the 1850s, and to see that such works, whose subject matter was generally unknown or without much meaning even when it was ascertainable, forced people to think and to see entirely in terms of pictorial qualities, of line and pattern and color; to adapt them as demonstrations of the principle that Reality in painting is intrinsic, not a matter of copying anything outside itself.[3]
Japonism, however, would characterize the art of American but London-based James McNeill Whistler and American impressionist William MerrittChase (1 November 1849 – 25 October 1916). Their Japonism is one of subject matter mainly, but exotic subject matter depicted in the rather allusive manner of Impressionism. Both showed blue and white porcelain, fans, screens and ladies wearing kimonos that displayed an oriental motif. “The Blue Kimono,” featured below, is one of the finest paintings created by William Merritt Chase.
The Blue Kimono by William Merritt Chase, 1898 (Photo credit:WikiArt.org)
Cult of Beauty or Symphony in White no 2 (The Little White Girl) by James McNeill Whistler (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Whistler and Chase: the Decorative Arts
rooms copied
studios copied
Ironically, it could be said of both Whistler and Chase that their Japonism was of a decorative nature. The rooms they showed became fashionable and so did the clothes worn by the ladies they portrayed. Whistler’s “Peacock Room” is not altogether consistent with the domestication of the arts advocated by the Arts and Crafts Movement, founded by William Morris. Whistler’s “Peacock Room” is a room, but it borders on art for art’s sake. It was designed in the Anglo-Japanese style and is housed in the Freer Gallery of Art, in Washington D.C..
The Tenth Street Studio by William Merritt Chase (Photo credit: WikiArt.org)
Conclusion
the broadening of the arts
the versatility of artists
Anglo-Japanese Style was applied to cabinet-making. However, the 19th-century British art movement we tend to associate with interior design and the decorative arts is the Arts and Crafts Movement, founded by William Morris(24 March 1834 – 3 October 1896). The Arts and Crafts Movement will be discussed in a separate post, but we have already witnessed a certain domestication of the art and a broadening of the field of art. Henceforth, it will include applied arts and such artists as William Morris and Sir Edward Burne-Jones will be extremely versatile. Whistler, who designed the luxurious “Peacock Room” and sued revered Ruskin, was an interior designer, a painter, and a printmaker.
