Romaine Brooks: Shades of Gray
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 лис 2024
- Romaine Brooks was a queer artist mostly active during the second half of the twentieth century. Her art can be provoking and confrontational, but what might shock you even more isn't related to her art...
Support us on Patreon: / thecanvas
I think you make an excellent point in holding her accountable for her political positions. Just because she was a very progressive and groundbreaking artist doesn't hold her at a higher moral standard
I disagree, I believe art should stand on its own merit. The knowledge she had politics you disagree with doesn't change the actual composition of the art, why should my opinion of that art change? I understand it's hard to separate art and artist, sometimes even impossible, but I feel that striving for it is the goal as a consumer.
@@freddiefackelmayer5267 nobody said anything about the art being invalidated by her political opinion.
What's the point of holding someone who died so long ago "accountable". I don't think her beliefs -or any other painter's from so long ago- matter more than as a footnote. It's fine to acknowledge them, but there is not much more to do than that.
Why do you care
There is something very ethereal, almost dream-like, about Brooks' portraiture; evident not only through her use of colour, but also through the backgrounds she places her subjects against. Whether it's the pastoral backdrop of 'Femme Avec des Fleurs' or the hollow facades of the crumbling buildings of her 'Self-portrait', she depicts these backgrounds with a decidedly hazy quality about them, as though they were the half-glimpsed recollections of a dream still lingering behind the far more vivid memory of the subject matter. Hers was a twilight vision, one which portrayed the individual's identity as an immutable constant capable of transcending the impermanence of the everyday world.
Phew. The conflict that ppl have with an artist’s work vs the artist as a person is always a slippery one. Picasso is a most obvious example. He is arguably one of the most important modern, western artists but he himself was a misogynist who used up women like you and I use Kleenex. I think the best approach is one of honesty and transparency. Artist do not make work in a vacuum, you cannot separate the work from the person. So I applaud you for not shying away from her controversial politics or views. In fact I think knowing this about her gives the viewer a clearer picture of her work. It takes on a different tone. knowing gives us a more complete understanding of it as an art object as well as a historical object.
You make a valid point. Picasso was an obnoxious man in his treatment of women, and this gives another layer to my dislike of most of his work. Hemingway was another. From the many biographies of him I've read, plus his own works he strikes me as a bullying, insecure man always portraying himself as a real macho man, to the point where it certainly affected him mentally. And Dickens - great writer, but not admirable in his private life. It's an intriguing question. Does an artist's great work excuse the less than admirable way they acted privately?
What you say about Picasso is pure BS invented by the far-right people who hate Picasso's art, nothing of what they say and you repeat stands when you study their calomnies on Picasso and women... For instance they say that Picasso would have "raped" Marie-Thérèse Walter every time she has been posing for him... and this is total BS 😀... it would mean that, after having been "raped" a first time by Picasso, Marie-Thérèse would have come back the following day 😀... and the day after 😀... and again the next day ... for more than 10 years ... and have a child with Picasso ? 😀 ... Come on, this is total BS, nobody can seriously believe these lies totally invented by the far-right... except ignorants. 😀
That quote from her biographer was so uncomfortable. It sounds like she's talking about a child who is parroting their parents' beliefs, not an adult woman. It feels like there are many people in the field of womens' history who so quickly revert to this sentiment of "Oh, she was just a silly little rich girl who didn't know any better," the instant a complicated topic like wealth disparity or bigotry comes up. It benefits no one to pretend an artist was a kinder or better person than they actually were. It's a disservice to women as a whole, a disservice to Brooks, and certainly a disservice to Rubinstein, Barney, and Gluck.
Agree 100% with this assessment.
I was aware of only two of her works, and not at all of Brooks as an artist; thank you for bringing her closer to us! I feel I need to do my homework on her life, upbringing and views. Annemarie Schwarzenbach comes to my mind as an example of the opposite perspective, but she was born much later, when the evils of fascism were much more visible.
Thank you for not just focusing on the beauty artists may produce, but also the nasty and cruel that lies behind them. I would've left this video looking up to another artist, not knowing the harm they have caused. I really appreciate that you tell us about everything.
I definitely agree with holding an artist accountable for their views if only so that I can be intellectually honest when it comes to criticizing or analyzing their art. Most artists do have political ideas that can inform their work, and as long as you’re not trying to get paintings ripped down from walls, I think considering that helps me to form more of a three dimensional image of the artist in my head.
Excellent. I used to have her most famous self portrait on my wall, with other postcards from museums I visited over the years. I appreciate knowing more about the artist in her complexity and like your argument about the double edge sword about early feminists.
Fascinating! Wonderful brief exposition of her art, and a useful context to provide on wider social and political events of the 20's. Her art, though, is treated with real care and thought. It made me think she is a real genius. That, too, is a talent in itself - analysis and interpretation. Thank you!
Just disovered your account. Big fan of Brooks' art. Oh & you have a great speaking voice which helps so much when watching these videos on utube. My opinion is that the art people create and its value transcends over time, the movitivations for the art and private views held by the artist covering a variety of areas, religeous, political, etc. Is it interesting from a historical perspective knowing who they were in a broader context? Sure. But ultimately, truly great art (in my opinion) tells its own story which may at time even contradict what an artist intended. That's one of the reasons its great art. The truth in the piece of art comes out. Loved your tieing up at the end about applying the same rules to all artists regardless of gender. As I get older, I shy away from people who are so morally sure of themselves, whether it comes from the left or the right. Anyway, I'm thinking I've found a great new utube account for me to explore. Appreciate your efforts in creating these videos. Much appreciated.
I truly love your in-depth conversation on art. Thank you
I have seen her work, but I was unaware of her political views. I really appreciate your commentary and pointing these things out.
I wish that you would had explained more about the Shades of Gray, as your title indicated, rather than her political beliefs. It's just more interesting to me.
Great artists are not immune from bad political ideas. Emile Nolde was a fantastic painter of the Expressionist movement, but also an early follower of Hitler. I love both artists' works, but deplore their politics. That being said; I can separate the 'art' from the 'artist'. I can admire one, while despising the other. Brooks was an amazing artist, and I love her courage in depicting her sexual preference, but I do recognize that her politics were loathsome.
Hypothetically, if Emile Noldedepicted Hitler in just two pieces of her work. Can we seperate the art from the artists?
And if yes how? By seperating those two pieces from the rest?
(I'm still struggling with such questions :D )
@@Balidor Well, Nolde didn't depict Hitler in any of his art - in fact, his art was displayed in Hitler's 'Entartete Kunst' exhibit (or, 'Degenerate Art'). Quite a lot of artists in all fields have been utter bastards, but at what point is there any art left? And do we have the right to demand that artists (particularly long dead ones) be 'good people'? But I do understand your struggle with this question. It's not like I just shrug this stuff off. :)
fascinating - i have not heard of her before. her paintings seem profound to me and i don’t know why, in particular. that self-portrait where she’s staring at us, really jumps out - she’s really looking at us, not us at her. i love her paintings. too bad she swayed towards fascism and didn’t like poor people, which shows that she lean far to the right.
the nude is incredible - it shows a sexy, loved woman, even though she was gone.
thanks so much for your videos, and your presentations. they are thoughtful and respectful. :) 🌷🌱
A nuanced take, this must have been an interesting video to research as you wrestled with the contradictions in this person. I have to stop my binge session now, I am tired from writing commects and I fear you will not read them all or consider them in your mind if I write any more. :) Thanks again.
Great video. Honestly, I only knew very little about Brooks in the past, I identified with her through the only characteristic of being bisexual. I am glad I learned this, as I am a communist. I am grateful for your political objectivity through the facts, as by definition to be against communism is being against the working class, against immigrants, people of color and anyone who has been oppressed under imperialism, including women and the LGBT community. Sometimes people fail to understand a person can have a characteristic of the oppressed but still be the bourgeoisie. If she had done something about her obvious privileged position in life and done something for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender I could have held some respect for her. Thank you for the video, and I am looking forward to more of these.
Lovely video! I've been a fan of Brooks's work for a while now and it's great to see people talking about her. It's a funny thing that so many people who talk about separating the art from the artist are so offended at you even mentioning the artist's sympathies, when you did not condemn her as an artist or a person. I am surprised that they would react this way since in your other videos you also bring up the political context of the artworks. Even a year later they are so mad about it! Good job!
Romaine Brooks Masterful Artist Masterpieces the paintings leave me spellbound and confused and spiritually grounded incredible Beautiful
Nice, man. Thank you!
I have no care for artist's beliefs to a certain degree. But what I do find interesting is people writing of dead peoples beliefs. She is dead and you have no idea her intentions or thoughts. I (We) can only go by direct quotes/actions from herself and cautiously from quotes founded by her peers and close circle of her. There should never be an attempt to, idk the word, justify history so to speak. People are just that, people. Subject to their environment and so forth. By that reason every individual is morally grey in the eyes of everyone who gets to know them. If it wasn't facism it might have been how she poured milk before cereal(not true btw, hell idk if that's true or false). Do not idolize artists to the point you are screwing their history, more often than not you wouldn't be this artist's friend even if you had the chance because you might find just that. They are too grey for you, or that greyness is not what you align with at all.
Love these videos
3:00 I immediately thought that the figure resembled Franz Liszt (who, I gather, was somewhat slender and androgynous in his own way).
Nicely handled
I didn't realize that this video's thumbnail said "brook" and not "book"
I didn't think I was THAT sleep deprived
I would mnemonic never learn this in art school is it true
We should hold her political beliefs accountable.
Neither should we cancel her from the art world. Her contribution to queer art should be noted and equally shared.
The female gaze
Possible clue to her political beliefs is that she certainly doesn't glorify Denunzio in the portrait. Instead, he's sympathetic; a vulnerable idealist subject to the tides of stormy history. And later in life she denied having fascist leanings. But who knows. I think you give a fair and important point of view.
I wonder if Berlin 1920's had any impact on her art. Gender norms were being challenged, and her work seems to mirror that coming out of the Weimer Republic.
I commend you for addressing the fascist views and associations of Romaine Brooks. It is perhaps surprising to us when we learn that seemingly progressive (especially queer) artists of that time did have fascist leanings. Radclyffe Hall must be added to that list; her primary partner, Una Troubridge, is the subject of one of the Brooks paintings in your video. I’m of the opinion that we should separate the art from the artist when analyzing their work; but I also believe they need to be held accountable for their problematic behavior and beliefs.
Eh... I dunno about the idea that saying Brooks didn't know what she was talking about is equivalent to the arguments used against women's rights activists. The latter had those arguments used against them as part of a broad strokes stereotype about women as a group, whereas saying Brooks specifically didn't understand what she was talking about seems like more of a personal criticism than anything. Also, I don't feel like saying that excuses any responsibility she might have for the things she supported, nor do I think that the same argument about ignorance of the consequences of their actions can't be used as a criticism against her male peers who held the same views.
I have one too many friends that fall into this horrible shade of gray. Of simultaneously very progressive and the most ignorance filled backwards views.
I don't care about her politics at all. The work is interesting and well done. Though not my taste.
My one reason for thinking the piano player is a male is simply the jawline.
How could you hold somebody accountable when they're dead? At this point it doesn't matter what she allegedly thought and did politically. Her works of art are what mattered; they were ambiguous, strong, a bit surreal, and quite elegant.
You can hold a dead person accountable by not idolizing them, but acknowledging their failings and learning how to avoid them yourself.
@@DemonKyle ; yeah but nobody's saying anything about idolizing this person. And we don't need a dead person's mistake to remind us how wrong bigotry and prejudice are. Avoiding it won't be solved by denial and avoidance; we should confront it so we won't be imprisoned by it.
She's not excused.
I find fascist art fascinating. That it exists at all is interesting in itself. Contradictions inside of contradictions. Proof that emotion rules when reason departs.
A brilliant way to put it! I'd never come across Brooks before. All that grey - in one or two paintings it looks majestic, but then painting after painting it starts to look disturbing. It made me stop and think about the world 100 years ago. It was probably the most colourful time the world had ever known (up to that point) with all the new man made paints and dyes and fabrics. And she was painting in shades of grey - which suggests a complete rejection of what her world considered normal. Add her political leanings and it suggests someone slightly disturbed who feels a need to control or crush that colorful norm - crush all the colourful peasants.
@@carihislop161 Fascist art is an art at war with itself. Humanity is colorfully chaotic and bursting with emotion. An art that leans toward fascism is all about achieving control. Chaos is the enemy and emotions are suspect. Brooks had an isolated and abusive childhood. Her mother's rejection of her led to her lesbianism. Her wealth allowed her to associate with aristocrats and to absorb their politics. Her admiration for Italian art led her into Italian high society and it's enthrallment with fascism. However, I don't believe she was a fascist. She was simply a damaged human being who retreated into a private world that her wealth allowed her to maintain. Any one of us might have done the same given her background and means.
@@starkr111 Her life sound very sad. I'm not surprised - it's all in her art.
We can't brush her nauseating politics under the rug and say she was immature and misunderstood fascism
Dragging someone's political viewpoints into their art adds nothing and can only serve to take away from the work.
Love the channel n work over all. Just noticed how after watching a handful of videos there is always some type of “WOKE” opinion or of that nature that instantly brings a thought that takes away from parts I enjoyed. Not hate, just a thing I’ve picked up on.
And don't forget that "La France Croisée" means "Crusader France", the title of this painting defintely has a stinking smell of fascism as the awful Crusades myth was a far-right topic in France at the end of 19th century and beginning of 20th century... Romaine Brooks reminds me of another very suspicious "feminist" of the same period called Valentine de Saint-Point who had, like Brooks, connections with the Italian Futurists and a great love for "elitism"... the difference is that Saint-Point moved from "feminism" and the aristic "avant-garde"... to her final conversion to Islam... and moved from France to Egypt... where she was banned from having any political activity. 😀
D'Annunzio was nowhere near being a Fascist lol
Really appreciate your leftie pov on art. Really refreshing
The man in the thumbnail lookin cute
I think it’s a little absurd to call her fascist or racist, here is a great vid about her bio which goes pretty deep on her as a person.
ua-cam.com/video/wKqXtKlNZ9I/v-deo.html
I don't like mixing sport and politics. I like mixing art and politics even less.
🎂Romaine Brooks 05-01-2022🖌️
I think it’s easy to pick the low hanging fruit of dead artists “problematic” beliefs. They cannot be held to the standard we have today. I really like your videos however it’s just boring to punctuate them with “they need to be held accountable”.
Dude, I enjoy your channel very much, but it is not your place to make moral judgements on artists. It makes you look very limited in your perceptions and this is not a useful trait in an educator. Trusting your audience to make those judgements for themselves on a personal level would help make you a much better educator. That aside, thank you very much for your otherwise excellent content, I very much appreciate your work.