From: zatavu-AT-excite.com Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: PLC: Poetry, prose, fiction as meaningful On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:52:51 EDT, phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu wrote: > In a message dated 9/7/00 10:37:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hhasting-AT-osf1.gmu.edu writes: > > > > No, Romanticism was a reaction to the Enlightenment, and brought back a > > form > > > of classicism in order to do so, thinking that it was closer to the > > > emotional center they were trying to achieve through their Romanticism. > > > ROmanticism gave direct rise to Neo-Classicism. > > Well, the way it's usually taught in Art History, which I think is > essentially correct, is that neoclassicism developed after the French > Revolution, as a reaction to the Rococo art favored by the aristocracy, and > with political over tones as well--the French republic would recover the > rigor of early Rome, etc. Definitely a didactic art. Romanticism is a > reaction to the sermonising of the neoclassicists, because a steady diet of > moral uplift isn't necessarily to everyone's taste. > > On your conjecture that "Romanticism gave direct rise to Neo-Classicism," I > think you'll find, if you check out the dates, that some of the major > neoclassical works--say, David's Death of Socrates--were painted while the > French Revolution was still in progress, and were rallying points for the > revolutionaries. The earliest Romantic works come from a later period, and a > "cause" isn't usually said to follow after its own "effect." > > pat Sorry. You're right. I got the two backwards. Romanticism was indeed a reaction to Neo-Classicism, which, I believe, was an outbranch of the Enlightenment. Troy Camplin > > > --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005