What's In A Picture?
Apparently not all the answers.
(Photo by Mary Cassatt,1891)
In my last post, I considered if it was possible for women of 100+ years ago to have viewed their infants differently and bond less with them due to the high prevalence of infant mortality. A comment by BHB intrigued me. He mentioned that someone had told him that medieval art had indeed shown a more distant depiction of mother and child so I researched further.
I am lucky to be close friends with a college art professor I’ll call Bob. He explained that most art up until the mid 1800’s was very much a reflection of the cultural values at the time. Art was very stylized, each period reflecting a style characteristic of that period with distinct approaches to anatomy, composition, lighting, form, etc. It reflected those aspects of the culture and how the culture saw itself. It was not necessarily an accurate portrayal of how people interacted with each other. This was true of medieval art as well. For a more detailed analysis of Medieval art and its ‘distant’ depiction of mother and child see here.
If we examine Isis holding her baby, Horus, it appears she is very distant while in reality the style of that time was to depict the deity or ruler in a very exact and perfect form while peasants exhibited more down to earth characteristics. The peasant might have a potbelly or more expression in his face.
An area where Mary is depicted more distant from Jesus was during the period of Mannerism. Mannerism, during the years 1525-1600, was a rebellion against the perfection of the high Renaissance. Yet the art of the Renaissance had very endearing depictions of mother and child (especially Mary with Jesus).
By the 1850, with the appearance of the Realists, there was a true break from style and all bets were off. A full range of expression emerged not constrained by the stylization of the current culture.
I am lucky to be close friends with a college art professor I’ll call Bob. He explained that most art up until the mid 1800’s was very much a reflection of the cultural values at the time. Art was very stylized, each period reflecting a style characteristic of that period with distinct approaches to anatomy, composition, lighting, form, etc. It reflected those aspects of the culture and how the culture saw itself. It was not necessarily an accurate portrayal of how people interacted with each other. This was true of medieval art as well. For a more detailed analysis of Medieval art and its ‘distant’ depiction of mother and child see here.
If we examine Isis holding her baby, Horus, it appears she is very distant while in reality the style of that time was to depict the deity or ruler in a very exact and perfect form while peasants exhibited more down to earth characteristics. The peasant might have a potbelly or more expression in his face.
An area where Mary is depicted more distant from Jesus was during the period of Mannerism. Mannerism, during the years 1525-1600, was a rebellion against the perfection of the high Renaissance. Yet the art of the Renaissance had very endearing depictions of mother and child (especially Mary with Jesus).
By the 1850, with the appearance of the Realists, there was a true break from style and all bets were off. A full range of expression emerged not constrained by the stylization of the current culture.
To use art to answer how mothers interacted, bonded, or viewed their babies or children, thus would not be useful and I still stand by my previous convictions in the last post. I do intend to speak to a psychology professor to see what his take is on the matter. So stay tuned.
Labels: Art, psychology
posted by smoo @ 9:47 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I have come to love Cassat even more now that I am a mother.
I am so glad that I live in this country during this time. I don't think I would be able to handle losing a child even if it were an everyday occurrence. Once you start to steel yourself from caring about a child how can you nurture him? And studies have shown that nurturing is integral in the healthy growth of any infant.
Thanks for the comment. I know I bonded instantaneously with my daughter at birth. You make a very valid point about relating bonding (caring about) a child and the resulting proper nurturing.
I think it was undoubtedly devastating for mothers to lose their babies in the 18th & 19th centuries. But life was harder in general for most people and social norms didn't allow for protracted mourning and the emotional self-indulgence of today. So mothers suffered in silence and went back on to the business of living. But I'm sure they did suffer nontheless.
Great work.
Post a Comment
<< Home