SECTION 1 - via - School of Visual Arts

FROM IDEALISM TO TOTALITARIANISM: THE HISTORY OF HISTORY PAINTING
Robert Hendrick
St. John’s University
In keeping with the theme of the conference, “Art Remembers: Remembering and Interpreting
Historic Moments,” I had initially planned to have my presentation trace the history of history
painting in Western art from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries. I had intended to show,
in some detail, how the concept of history painting changed from an eighteenth-century
idealism to a nineteenth-century focus on political advocacy and nationalistic partisanship to a
defense of twentieth-century totalitarian regimes. But my enthusiasm for the topic did not take
into account the constraints of time, so I’ve decided to devote my material to some key
paintings that initiated the decline of history painting from its original idealistic position.
Following the Renaissance, the idea developed that there existed a very specific hierarchy in
painting, a hierarchy in which history painting occupied the most exalted position, followed in
descending order by portraiture, landscape painting, still life, and genre. By the late eighteenth
century, history painting was viewed as the only form of painting capable of forming and
propagating concepts of civic virtue. The subjects of history painting were drawn not only from
historical events themselves, but also from literature, mythology, and the Bible. The paintings
were always rather large in size; what Diderot had called “grand machines” reflecting what he
referred to as “une grande idée.” 1 The essential characteristics of the history painting were the
presentation of heroic actions (either real or fictional) with both skill and imagination. The
purpose of all this was to influence the viewer and thus affect human conduct. The goal of the
classic history painting, then, was to present inspiring examples of human behavior in an effort
to elevate the viewer morally and hence promote public virtue, sometimes referred to as “civic
humanism.” The goal of civic humanism in art was “directed towards describing and
recommending those virtues which will preserve a civic state, a public, from corruption.” 2
It is important to note at the outset that “the history painting of civic humanism was intended
to serve the interests not of particular groups or individuals, but of virtuous society as a
whole.” 3 It was precisely when Jacques-Louis David and his followers switched from painting
examples of civic humanism to pictures extolling Napoleon and his exploits that history
painting began its decline. I might add parenthetically that another threat to the supremacy of
history painting was also developing after 1800. That was the growing popularity of genre
painting. As Mark Thistlethwaite has noted, history painting and genre painting both share “the
fundamental trait of being narrative modes in which success depends upon readability.” Of
course, genre painting is far smaller in size than history painting and the goal of genre is to
accurately present commonplace incidents of daily life rather than heroic, inspiring events in
which the artist aimed “to evoke exemplary and exalted nobility.” 4
The classic defense of history painting was presented between January 1769 and December
1790, when Joshua Reynolds delivered fifteen “discourses” on art to the students of the Royal
Academy in London. As the first president of the newly opened Academy, Reynolds sought to
establish in the minds of his students a lofty concept of the ultimate purpose of art. Each
discourse was published after its presentation and in 1797 a collected version appeared.
Numerous editions of the discourses followed, in French, German, and Italian as well as in
3