English Rural Art

I am sure there are many Englishmen of an artistic bent here on T.W.C., and those who are know their names. In advocating this subject, I shall paraphrase the Prime Minister's words to Mister Sherlock Holmes: "I must make an appeal to your Patriotism, sir, in taking up this case"! You do not have to go so far as to shoot "V.R." into your apartment walls, but remember your love of country when replying here.

I use the word English for this subject entirely because I have no love of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish rural scenes. Some parts of Ireland are very beautiful, but those parts are (in my opinion) within the Separatists' realm. Welsh country scenes and Scottish pastoral depictions may be equally wondrous, but they are far too hilly and mountainous for my own liking. If sufficient interest is shown in this subject, however, I will acquiesce to make the title "British".

I use the word art precisely in the hopes that it will spur discussion of music, painting, literature, poetry, and (as far as it can represent nature) sculpture that is most English. Whether it is a bronze of a washerwoman bent double over the River Wye or a painting depicting Dedham Vale in summer, it is fitting. The artist need not be an Englishman, for Edward Elgar wrote no great pastoral music representing England, but the German Händel composed many cantatas which romp about in the downs of Kent and Middlesex. For the visitor to our great blood-soil Home Country, wherever we are scattered about the Earth, it must be a glorious thing.

The discussion and gallery begins with my favourite piece of English music, and my favourite English painting!

Ralph (pronounced "Raef") Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 3, "Pastoral", a memorial to the lost of the First World War. It was finished in 1922, and dedicated to the memory of his comrade George Butterworth, who was killed by a sniper in 1916, during the second month of the Battle of the Somme. It may sound like charming meadows and river vales, but it is a nostalgic remembrance of times lost forever.



John Constable's most famous "Salisbury Cathedral from the Bishop's Grounds" of 1823 is not particularly my favourite painting for its Cathedral, though that does stand out in my mind. The singular fact of this painting which draws me to it is its beloved combination of wet, grey English skies with an idealized shimmering countryside. Wiltshire isn't exactly my most beloved county, but there are no paintings of Buckinghamshire by Constable that I love so!



As any observant gentleman can see, I am a Romantic enthusiast through-and-through. I do believe that painting, as a genre of art, reached its climax in human history between 1810 and 1840. Constable, Turner, and so many others captured the lands of English so very realistically, and yet unrealistically, but always with a certain awe.

More by Constable, the greatest painter of all time (besides Friedrich, Schinkel, Turner, Cole, and Lorrain):

On the border between Suffolk and the southern counties, near Dedham:



Near the Malvern Hills in the West:



Do you have any scenes, sounds, or sights of English art which particularly stir your heart with images of the countryside?

Kitsch Kitsch Kitsch Kitsch Kitsch

England has changed so much

While artistic masterbation is fun you have to keep in mind the spilt seed that soaks in these canvases aren't the realities the artist percieved, they are the realities the artist was paid to artificially enhance for the vain enjoyment of an overpopulated/underworked aristocricy. The English work of this period is the most self indulgent and vacuous of all, similar to glamour photography or tourists post-cards: pretty but pointless. Particularily the late period.

Turner being one of the few obvious exception to the stagnation of this "Art" Period: the product of his imagination was not due to a prostitution of his skill to a bloated upper-class, but rather his unquenchable curiosity of the world he percieved. Graves (his good friend) tells that Turner would outline a scene, sit doing nothing for two or three days, then suddenly, 'perhaps on the third day he would exclaim 'there it is', and seizing his colours work rapidly till he had noted down the peculiar effect he wished to fix in his memory.'

Arch-, your replies have been very unhelpful and mean-spirited. What on Earth is the point of such insults? How can you call the beauty of Constable "vacuous"? Why is it pointless to portray the shimmering beauty of the world, with emphasis on nature and possibly God's role in making it so immense? The sweeping, humongous meadows filled with leaves that are blurred by the sunlight don't seem very unrealistic to me. Perhaps you've never actually been in the countryside, but the nostalgic feeling one receives when there is equal to the feelings I receive when I look at this very art.

To refer to these paintings "kitsch" is such a great insult to the talent and work it took to make them. These can't just be thrown down in a few minutes like a modernist "painting". There is a greater meaning in the tiny figures of men against the backdrop of an infinite landscape. It makes me so angry that you'd corrupt a nice little topic with your negative opinions.

You call it "pointless", but what is the point of throwing colours on a blank canvas, anyway? I believe the point in the actions of these very skilled men was to portray nature as they wanted it to be. You're just trying to be smart and contrary, as usual. At least give us a few paintings that you believe accurately depict England, or don't post at all.

Originally Posted by Monarchist

Arch-, your replies have been very unhelpful and mean-spirited. What on Earth is the point of such insults? How can you call the beauty of Constable "vacuous"? Why is it pointless to portray the shimmering beauty of the world, with emphasis on nature and possibly God's role in making it so immense? The sweeping, humongous meadows filled with leaves that are blurred by the sunlight don't seem very unrealistic to me. Perhaps you've never actually been in the countryside, but the nostalgic feeling one receives when there is equal to the feelings I receive when I look at this very art.

Would you call the seeping curve of Paris Hilton's vagina "vacuous"? Like the cameras used by populist photographer of today these artists are machines manufactured to copy details of of nature and censor that which an artist's owner deems inappropriate.

Nostalgia? That's the charged word I missed before. And yes I often paint in the countryside, but not to needlessly glorify and falsify reality to satisfy my wealthy-lazy masters.

Originally Posted by Monarchist

To refer to these paintings "kitsch" is such a great insult to the talent and work it took to make them. These can't just be thrown down in a few minutes like a modernist "painting". There is a greater meaning in the tiny figures of men against the backdrop of an infinite landscape. It makes me so angry that you'd corrupt a nice little topic with your negative opinions.

Sure the artists were talented, of course. Being paid to be restrained certainly lessens the potential of the result, so fair dues.

"Angry"? Dude calm down, art is just for fun. Not everybody has to agree with you or me. I don't understand why you're so upset

Originally Posted by Monarchist

You call it "pointless", but what is the point of throwing colours on a blank canvas, anyway? I believe the point in the actions of these very skilled men was to portray nature as they wanted it to be. You're just trying to be smart and contrary, as usual. At least give us a few paintings that you believe accurately depict England, or don't post at all.

Did I say pointless?
Anyway, the technical achievements are to be comended as I said "similar to glamour photography," which is a highly skilled craft. I was framing the period to compensate for an overly nostalgic introduction, now people reading the first page will have a balanced view of the contradictory nature of romantic painting.

Haha @Monarchist. Dude, I understand that you wanted this thread to be lovey-dovey about English Rural Scenes - which I daresay you have an inkling will only return images of the pre-modern era - however Arch-heretik is making a note also of the social backdrop of these paintings.

I do have to say that I do like images of this period, and I love byzantine and Western Medieval art, and I like modern. Closing your opinion to 'English' - lol, what is this word that you're using as some kind of geological boundary - rural scenes and the romantist era (as well as using words like gentlemen to pretend as if we haven't left that era) just makes you look pretentious.

I find Arch-heretick's assessment of "masturbatory" to be quite fair. Monarchist, your original post is nothing more than a series of name drops, fumbling descriptions and patriotic ejaculations. You are not praising the art so much as you are praising the scenery. That you are totally unaware of that is pathetic, and his calling you out on it was a necessity for the sake of your dignity. However, there is no reason why this thread has to descend into a debate over what qualifies as art.

I am curious to find out what your assessment of these artists' other works are. What about Turner's Fighting Temeraire or Rain, Steam and Speed? Are you a fan of RVW's more dissonant but no less accomplished compositions, such as his Sixth Symphony?

Absolutely breathtaking.
I watched a great BBC's show that deals with a similar subject -- "A Picture of Britain" and I highly recommend it, although I doubt you haven't seen it already.
Oh and Monarchist, chill out bro, it's not like you have to take someone whose judgment is clouded by Duchamp's misguided ideals seriously.

Originally Posted by sheba021

Absolutely breathtaking.
I watched a great BBC's show that deals with a similar subject -- "A Picture of Britain" and I highly recommend it, although I doubt you haven't seen it already.
Oh and Monarchist, chill out bro, it's not like you have to take someone whose judgment is clouded by Duchamp's misguided ideals seriously.

Lol, sure everyone gang up on the neo-dadaist. Duchamp's ideals can't cloud one's judgement, they allow for universal interpretation without pre-concieved or cultural bias.

Anyway, choosing Constable's very un-romantic "Haywain" is ironic while choosing to lecture me on Duchamp's ideals of absolute artistic honesty.

It's not what you see that is art, art is the gap.- Marcel Duchamp

I do somewhat agree with Arch-hereticK.
Its all too perfect, to the point of it feeling barren and unemotional. There's no expression coming from it, its just pretty and that's it. Not that its a bad thing, its more up to personal taste, to paint what they have requires incredible skill and they are amazing artists.

My only problem is it feels more like they painted from a post card, there's no imagination, no emotion. Of course, that's just a personal opinion.

One things for certain, all it take tremendous skill!

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

Lol, sure everyone gang up on the neo-dadaist. Duchamp's ideals can't cloud one's judgement, they allow for universal interpretation without pre-concieved or cultural bias.

Anyway, choosing Constable's very un-romantic "Haywain" is ironic while choosing to lecture me on Duchamp's ideals of absolute artistic honesty.

It's not what you see that is art, art is the gap.- Marcel Duchamp

Well, you ARE the snobby, pseudo non-conformist kid in school, so stop complaining.
Just kidding mate.
Funny how ideology of "absolute artistic honesty" showed a school for a bunch of largely talentless "artists" on how to make large sums of money with very little effort.

At least Romantic paintings actually look "like the things they look like", to quote the simpsons.

How someone can take a blank canvas, trace a red line through it and call it art is beyond me. Of course there is a middle ground here, but bottom line is that paintings should be difficult to create!

Why isn't there a Turner thread ? Or better, a Romantic ? In my eyes, the Romanticists like Turner, Spitzweg, Delacroix, Friedrich, Géricault (and the poets like Coleridge, Wordsworth and Goethe) and the Early Impressionists like Monet are the real artists....

Originally Posted by ivan_the_terrible

At least Romantic paintings actually look "like the things they look like", to quote the simpsons.

If they did that would be something, but the fact is many were "brushed up" (to use a modern phrase) to make them "prettier."

Originally Posted by ivan_the_terrible

How someone can take a blank canvas, trace a red line through it and call it art is beyond me. Of course there is a middle ground here, but bottom line is that paintings should be difficult to create!

Unfortunately it's beyond many people.




If art is not your thing, fine. But if you do want to learn about real art (which includes these paintings by the way) there are hundreds of books in your local library or subscribe to a good art magazine. You have to read art like anyother language, you have to learn the language before you may judge its merits and faults.

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

Unfortunately it's beyond many people.

Could it be because all arguments about such artworks being "true" art or "real" art aren't really that convincing?

Originally Posted by sheba021

Well, you ARE the snobby, pseudo non-conformist kid in school, so stop complaining.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by sheba021

Just kidding mate.
Funny how ideology of "absolute artistic honesty" showed a school for a bunch of largely talentless "artists" on how to make large sums of money with very little effort.

Are you talking about any particular school? Or any abstract movement?

Originally Posted by sheba021

Could it be because all arguments about such artworks being "true" art or "real" art aren't really that convincing?

That's a possibility, or maybe most people just don't care enough to read the more difficult and challenging art literature.

Arch makes good points...even though I believe it is not up to us to judge people's appreciation of art, we have to keep in mind that majority do not know the depths of art.(including me) And then we see thee shallow comments.
Like Arch pointed out, these pieces are pretty. But that is the only thing they have. Art today has more meaning than "looking pretty for people who pay for it"
Of course you might like that better(though I'd suggest people to try to learn and appreciate the modern schools before doing that) , but whne you claim that this is the best, you have to be open to harsh critics.

Originally Posted by dogukan

Arch makes good points...even though I believe it is not up to us to judge people's appreciation of art, we have to keep in mind that majority do not know the depths of art.(including me).

Well thank you, I appreciate your criticism.
I believe that taste is the enemy of art, wherever possible taste should be attacked.

I have forced myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own tastes - Marcel Duchamp

Originally Posted by dogukan

Of course you might like that better(though I'd suggest people to try to learn and appreciate the modern schools before doing that) , but whne you claim that this is the best, you have to be open to harsh critics.

Exactly.
But I don't think I was overly harsh, I do like pretty things just as much as the next guy.