Thread by @medievalpoc

#1800sWeek!
Okay! So! Works like these fall under the category of "Orientalism". They do not accurately represent any culture or people, and were created as sort of Western fantasies of "The Middle East" and/or "Asia". The history of the term and the concept are complicated.

In 1978, Edward Said redefined the term Orientalism to describe a pervasive academic & artistic Western tradition of prejudiced interpretations of the Eastern world, shaped by the cultural attitudes of European imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientali…

Additionally, the first chapter of "The Middle East: A Cultural Psychology" (the chapter title is "Misunderstandings"), gives a summarized overview of the history of Orientalism as this sort of invented foil to "The West": books.google.com/books?id=-uhBD…

Orientalism was pervasive but I'm going to sort of stick with how it functioned in visual art/culture. In the 19th century in Europe, Orientalism became very fashionable and the more weird and staged it got, the more some circles considered it "accurate". :|

Even artists who traveled to North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia often brought costumes and stuff with them and paid people to dress up to be painted. A lot of the scenes and even building are totally invented. Basically, they're fantasy paintings.

The description for this exhibit, "The Black Figure in the European Imaginary" can give an overview for Black representation specifically in these types of 19th C paintings and the ideas and stereotypes they were meant to convey: rollins.edu/cornell-fine-a…

Japonisme was another related type of issue having to do with a European fascination with Japanese art & export goods that became available again after 1853: metmuseum.org/toah/hd/jpon/h…

Another thing: almost anything written by museums on Orientalist art still cling to the idea that these artworks were somehow socially neutral, or imply that they were somewhat accurate. The reasons for that are also...complicated. and boring. and annoying.

So, anyways. Orientalist paintings. Gaining an understanding of the ways in which these works both created and reinforced harmful stereotypes about people and cultures is definitely a prerequisite to appreciating them for what they DO have to offer.

We can pause and consider the ways that art has changed, and the way we have changed, since these works were created. Fantasy, as a genre, has become almost unbearably white, and is seen as something to do with "European history", since then.

In that context, one way these works might be appreciated is as a connection to or a precedent towards people of color in fantasy art as a genre; as a source of aesthetic beauty rather than being seen as representative of any actual peoples or cultures.

However, because these works had so much of a role in forming our current concepts and worldviews, is it possible to appreciate them this way without still doing a kind of harm? I don't actually know. But they are entrenched & influential, and ignoring them definitely harms.

In other ways these works can end up almost subversive, their beauty or impact as sensitive portraits blasting out other (or Othering) intent. [Anders Zorn, An Algerian man and boy looking across Bay of Algiers; Sweden, 1887]

A few have asked, "but didn't the painters travel?" Not always. Example: the popularity of model Fanny Eaton in London. Mrs. Eaton was in high demand as a model anytime they needed someone vaguely ‘eastern’.

As you can see, she was so popular they used her for both male and female figures, or as you can see, multiple times in the same painting ^^

Fanny Eaton: The ‘Other’ Pre-Raphaelite Model by Roberto C. Ferrari:
academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:179…
Fanny Eaton, the Jamaican-born model in Millais’ Jephthah by Stephanie Roberts:
amgueddfa.cymru/blog/2014-10-2…

And of course, this leads towards the Pre-Raphaelites and their delve into medievalism, which is actually where most people's ideas of "medieval" come from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Rapha…
Especially Edward Burne-Jones, who was doing stained glass & tapestries: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bu…

You see, these ^^ aren't medieval. They're from the 1880s and 90s. As are these, all by Burne-Jones: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bu…

So basically, our modern ideas about what is and isn't "Medieval" was created at the same time and sometimes, by the same people, as "Orientalism". It's not a coincidence or an accident; these aesthetic ideas were used to justify and bolster what was happening in that time.

So, anyhow. This reiterates WHY I have such a thing as "1800s Week", not only to showcase the artworks from that time period, but also to illustrate how they retroactively influence everything we believe about medieval art & culture.