[pic]

“Did the development of a middle-class ‘public sphere’ significantly alter artistic practice during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?”

In The Structural transformation of the Public Sphere[1], Jürgen Habermas describes how this area in social life, both separated from the “private sphere” and the “sphere of public authority”, where people can get together and freely discuss and identify societal problems and trough that even influence political action, has not always existed. Its creation was part of a long process that had its peak at the turn of the eighteenth century. He also explains how, although this phenomenon concerns the whole of the European society, the British case stands out.

The genesis of the public sphere is first of all associated to an economical factor. As a result from the modernization of the economy, based upon a systematic use of public credit and the free circulation of goods and capital, it is especially the city of London that expanded at a remarkable speed with the sudden and fast development of merchant banking and insurance, as well as warehousing and trading.

This new horizon of possibilities on terms of wealth and independence unfolds simultaneously to important shifts in the political arena. After years of blood spill trough civil war, which ended with the execution of King Charles I, a constitutional monarchy was finally established. The idea of a freer, more horizontal conception of social relations started to spread, and regardless of the fact that there still lay a gap between the aspiration of citizens becoming the main political actors and the actual realization of it, from then on Crown’s actions and Parliament’s decisions would be under constant commentary and criticism fuelled by the press, and the public authority would continuously be called before the forum of the –now wider and more literate- public.

As for the alterations on the intellectual framework a new generation of scientist and philosophers began to promote a less theological way of thinking, relaying on acquiring knowledge trough experimentation rather than theory.

These were just some of the components regarding the birth of the public sphere, the particularity laying on the fact that it is a portion of society emancipating itself from the aristocracy, financially, politically, and intellectually. The growing popularity of the coffee houses are a good example for this, because they represent a new physical space for exchanging opinions on almost any topic, engaging in political discussions, gossiping and talk about taste and culture.

The whole concept of culture as a subject that can be discussed is a novelty in the period[2]. As Blanning explains: “Culture was transformed from something which is representational into a commodity which could be desired for its own sake. Cultural industrialization had begun. The more that art objects were produced for the market, the more they escaped from the control of the old patrons – the court, the Church, and the nobles.”[3]

In this statement we recognize on one hand the economical factor as influential in artistic development, since the expanding commercial wealth engendered a new audience for it, as well as the changing of its function.

To answer the question that guides this essay I will point out some elements of two pictures, each emblematic to their period of production. The differences are not hard to spot, and on what follows I will try to link them to the social context of its creation.

I have already mentioned the growing artistic possibilities –regarding creation and acquisition- as one of the characteristics of eighteenth century England, which makes it unattainable to consider that contrasting only two pictures exhausts the possibilities of comparison. It is still worth it though, for some interesting conclusions are to be drawn even by mentioning only the most basic elements, allowing us to reflect on the relationship between art and social changes.

Minerva protecting Pax from Mars (Peace and War) [Image 1] was painted by Peter Paul Rubens between 1628 and 1630 and it displays many of the elements present in almost every painting of the period.

As for the political context of its creation, Rubens had been send on a diplomatic mission to Spain by King Charles I, and the scene depicted is an allegory to his attempt to establish peace between both kingdoms.

It is possible to interpret the whole political scenario if the viewer is familiar with the mythological characters and the relationship between them. But this knowledge was only accessible to the hierarchic upper section of population, those who had access to higher classical education, meaning that the public who is supposed to understand the messages behind this painting is very specifically delimitated. But even if one has not the means to infer all the elements in this painting and the meaning that lay behind them, what comes across inevitably is the grandeur, the theatricality and bold drama of the scene.

This painting, as well as most contemporary works is very ambitious in many senses. Art was one of the means on which the crown relayed to show power. “In England, the court guided the most important artistic decisions, strong in its belief that the function of art was to exalt the reigning dynasty.”[4] The crown took every decision in matters of taste and of what was desirable, everything included in a painting is a direct allusion to that what is supposed to be valuable.

Roy Strong explains how “courtiers were seen as heroes, kings became gods, actions were emblems, all of which demanded a viewer able to read the visual images unfolding before him. (…) Depending on an acceptance that seeing was believing, that the sage pictures he created had both a philosophical meaning and a moral force.”[5] In the example we are using, the depicted scenario has much in common with the ‘masques’, theatrical representations that were popular at the court of Charles I. There is no hint to a specific authority, the symbolism is flexible and open to interpretation but still, since the court has complete power over art production, it refers to how the nobility projects itself. On a general level it is possible to state that the court is trying to draw an impression of absolute power and transmit the greatness of kingship per se.

Art and cultural works had one specific function that was manipulated by the nobility. “Those who exercised power –monarchs, nobles, prelates- expressed their status in public in a concrete, non-abstract way, through insignia, clothing, gesture, or rhetoric. Power was both exercised and represented (in the sense of “being made present”) directly: ‘as long as the prince and the estates of the realm still “are” the land, instead of merely functioning as deputies for it, they are able to “re-present”; they represent their power “before” the people, instead of for the people”[6] articulates Blanning.

Regarding our example it is interesting to think about the figure of the artist: Rubens was one more member of court. The fact that he was sent for a diplomatic mission by the king himself shows that he was held in high esteem and also shows the dimensions that courtly patronage could adopt. At last it is interesting to mention Rubens Flemish origins, as for that time the most prominent artists were foreign.

If we now move over to analyze an artwork produced a century and a half later, such as Portrait of Sir William Chamber, Joseph Wilton and Sir Joshua Reynolds [Image 2] by John Francis Rigaud we recognize a much less dramatically scene: it shows a quotidian conversation between three men that happen to be senior officials of the Royal Academy of Arts -an architect, a sculptor and a painter. Rigaud himself was a member of the academy, which was founded in 1768 trough a personal act by King George III with the purpose of promoting art trough education and exhibition. From there emerged the so called ‘English school of art’, which got to rank among the most prestigious and well-known of the period.

Its creation is one of the answers to the emerging production and demand for art, which on one hand offered a world of opportunities for promising talents that came to London from all over the country, and on the other hand threatened to vulgarize those high-class values that were still hold in high esteem by the traditional elites. Solkin summarizes the controversies around its founding: “(…) certain tensions emerged within the audience for painting and between the mass of relatively inexperienced consumers and certain especially ambitious artists – tensions that burst out into a highly politicised schism with the founding of the Royal Academy in 1768.”[7]

Without going into the political aspects of it, it is interesting to note the growing interest in exhibiting art, a new habit in which the Royal Academy played the principal role. Because exhibiting was not only an answer to demands of the public, but also a way of showing a selection of what kind of art was valuable and which was not. In other words, it was a way to shape taste.

It is clear that this picture is not anymore addressed only to privileged court members: there are no allusions to kingship and the symbolic attributes -though still present- are reduced. On his comments on portraiture, Ogée insists upon one of its most important features being “its insistence on the naturalness of behaviour, as opposed to the static artifice of grand aristocratic portraiture. The conversational ideal called for more emphasis on movement and exchange, and the new painting were therefore designed to be more narrative than allegorical or emblematic.”[8]

This observation goes hand in hand with the previously mentioned intellectual climate of the period, where English contribution to enlightenment revolved around scientific experimentation. We also see reflected the new way of looking at nature –including human nature- from a more ‘sensible’ point of view, rather than theoretical. The quoted author also continues emphasizing the weight of the narrative aspect on these paintings, explaining it as closely related to the increasing literacy of society.

Another feature to be noted in relation to the middle class is the intention of highlighting status elements. Even though this group of people was trying to emancipate itself from courtly influence, which translates to patronage in matters of art, there remains an ambition to show high taste and morals. Vaughan states: “the bourgeois had mixed feelings towards the aristocrats. On the one hand they despised them for their arrogance and suppose idleness, on the other they wished to emulate their style and status. While more responsive to a ‘modern’ taste of advanced artist, they did not wish to appear uncultured and needed to be reassured that the art they liked was also tasteful.”[9] This can be identified in the triple portrait trough the Greek sculpture in the background, alluding to the still esteemed classical education, and the fashionable way the sitters are dressed and distinguished with international emblems (eg. The Order of the Polar Star on Chambers).

Vaughan writes also on the shifting position of the artist stating “(…) a new understanding of creativity was emerging which was to become the norm in modern times. This was the view of the artist as original genius, whose works made visible unique and innate gifts, rather than the fruits of earnest learning.”[10] This painting shows its sitters at ease combining their role as artists but also their condition of gentlemen - a virtuous public way of being as servers of the king with a private one.

Even though there are infinitely more points to interpret from a painting in relation with the social context of its creation, the few ones I have mentioned to this point seem to guide in one clear direction referring to the question that guided this essay: it is undeniable that there has been a notably big shift in the ways of producing art during the transition from the seventeenth century to the eighteenth, and that this happened hand in hand with social changes turns out evident.

Sure, the growing economical opportunities made a wider audience for art possible, an audience impregnated with new, less court-orientated values. One can definitely state that in deed the development of a middle-class ‘public sphere’ significantly altered artistic production.

Nonetheless, I would like to add the possibility of thinking of this process as retroactive, considering that the alterations on artistic production may have also made their contribution to the development of a middle-class ‘public sphere’. This way, the phenomenon falls into the category of all social studies, for which lineal interpretations are always limiting, and trough which one can draw conclusions but hardly ever prove one true.

To summarize, far from trying to verify which transition actually enabled the other one, I believe it is interesting to think of changes in society and changes in art as rising in a parallel manner, “contributing to each other’s definition trough the period”[11] as Oigée well says.

2201 Words

[pic]

[Image 1] - Peter Paul Rubens Minerva Protecting Pax from Mars or Peace and War (1628)

[pic]

[Image 2] - John Francis Rigaud, Portrait of Sir William Chambers, Joseph Wilton and Sir Joshua Reynolds (1782)

Bibliography

Bindman, D. (ed.) The History of British Art, 1600-1870 (New Haven and London, 2008)

Bermingham A. and Brewer J. (ed. )The consumption of culture, 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text. (Routledge, 1995)

Blanning, T. The Power of Culture and the Culture of Power: Old Regime Europe, 1660-1789 (Oxford, 2002)

Craske, M. Art in Europe 1700-1830 (Oxford, 1997)

Giorgi, R. European Art of the Seventeenth Century (The J. Paul Getty Museum, 2008)

Habermas, J. The Structural transformation of the Public Sphere (Polity Press, 1989)

Solkin, D. Painting for money. The Visual Arts and the Public Sphere in Eighteen-Century England (Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1993)

Strong, R. Splendour at court. Renaissance spectacle and illusion. (Weinfeld and Nicolson, 1973)

Vaughan, W. British Painting, the golden age. (Thames and Hudson, 1999)

Paintings

Peter Paul Rubens, Minerva protects Pax from Mars (‘Peace and War’) 1629-30. Oil on canvas, 203,5 x 298 cm. National Gallery, London.

John Francis Rigaud, Sir William Chambers; Joseph Wilton: Sir Joshua Reynolds 1782. Oil on canvas, 118,1 x 143,5 cm. National Portrait Gallery, London.

-----------------------
[1] Habermas, J. (1989)
[2] Habermas even questions the existence of culture itself before this period, mentioning its ‘invention’ as one more of the processes of change in the eighteenth century
[3] Blanning, T. (2002) p.9

[4] Giorgi, R. (2008) p.217
[5] Strong, R. (1973) p.7

[6] Blanning, T. (2002)
[7] Solkin, (1993) p. 3
[8] Ogée, F. in Bindman (ed.) (2008) p. 160
[9] Vaughan, W. (1999) p. 12
[10] Ibid. p. 126
[11] Ogée, F. in Bindman (ed.) (2008) p. 154