,
49 tweets,
14 min read
Read on Twitter
I mean not that I wrote an entire 30,000 word MRes thesis on almost precisely this subject, but what I have to say about this is 
"Central Principle" - so are we talking 1st or 2nd wave Pre-Raphaelitism? Inasmuch as there even were central principle(s), they were an *aesthetic* return to medievalism, paired with liberal, socialist politics.
If you *want* to tie the PRB to political shifts, tie it to the 1848 European revolutions. The Pre-Raphaelites wanted to shake up the elitism and traditionalism of the Royal Academy system.
Honestly, Pre-Raphaelites could be pretty racist, but this explanation is a stretch.
Honestly, Pre-Raphaelites could be pretty racist, but this explanation is a stretch.
(PS - extremely ironic to argue this point using Found, D.G Rossetti's most famous contemporary social commentary painting, which has no medieval imagery)
*Why* they painted Myth and Legend - a short list:
- centuries of painting tradition
- the links between literature and painting which inspired the group
- the popularity of ancient myths amongst critics, patrons and the Victorian public
- centuries of painting tradition
- the links between literature and painting which inspired the group
- the popularity of ancient myths amongst critics, patrons and the Victorian public
There have also been some very successful YA books which rework classical myth - are we binning them along with the Pre-Raphaelites?
Hmm, yeah, except... The Pre-Raphaelites were strongly influenced by French and European art. Regularly made visits to Europe, particularly Paris and often further afield. Coming from a different school of painting does not guarantee insularity.
Welcome to the Victorian era, where historical cultures were regularly adapted, translated, reworked (whisper - much like we do in Neo-Victorianism today!)
Also, kiiiiiiiinda seems like you're making some big assumptions about medievalism here as well
Also, kiiiiiiiinda seems like you're making some big assumptions about medievalism here as well
I want to talk about "regressive gender norms." While it's true they don't stand up to scrutiny by today's standards, several of the Pre-Raphaelites held progressive views for the 19th century...
Chiefly that women should have the freedom to make art & be paid for it, be educated, and not be bound to the strictures of a marital role.
I can't argue with the idea of the mermaid as a dangerous sexual symbol. That's well established. But this thread is about the adaptation of Pre-Raphaelitism into modern culture. A century of reclamations led to women seeing this as an empowering symbol
Weirdly, this now misunderstands modern culture. As the resurgence of witch practices, and return of classical myths with female narrators both demonstrate, the danger and the threat of womanlike mythical creatures IS what draws and appeals to us
Nothing is ever "the whole point" or 100% one reason or narrative. This is projecting a lot of oversimplified assumptions about art, symbolism and Pre-Raphaelitism.
This is such a dismissive value judgment. If I was marking this, I would write, "source???"
Yes, these are archetypes of Pre-Raphaelitism (and Victorian culture. And... All literature?) But this is selective. Does not allow for the many intimate and psychologically revealing portraits of Pre-Raphaelite women (and men)
Get your trash bins ready lads, we are junking Shakespeare too!
And Arthurian legend!
This is where the failure to properly attribute paintings cuts this argument up. It's a criticism levelled at Burne-Jones (whose work is cited here), but that is not representative of the movement as a whole, which features a variety of bodies and types!
Wrong. Pre-Raphaelite women were very atypical beauties by the standards of the time (which were petite, plump, small featured). The monumentality and strength of Pre-Raphaelite women's bodies is one of their more empowered characteristics
(also, associated with free dress, liberation from corsetry and freedom to walk and move through city or country, more akin to the Flâneur)
(But yeah, neck pain)
(But yeah, neck pain)
*shouts into megaphone* IN SOME CASES. This painting though, of Nimue beguiling Merlin, for example, represents a woman taking back her sexual power, after her mentor has made an advance upon her. It's extremely psychologically complex!
Look at the rich emotion in both faces - the betrayal mingled with pride and defeat in Merlin, the simultaneous revulsion and achievement in the figure of Nimue. It was just a really weird choice to use this to evidence women being reduced to their sexuality.
There were PLENTY of nudes in Victorian art at this time. The painting of nudes was regulated pretty closely, because of the sexual connotations. Exploitation happened! But the PRB weren't choosing to drape their models cause of... Fabric fetish?
This painting, of Lady Lilith is far from passive. Accompanying Rossetti's sonnet "Body's Beauty", it depicts the mythical first wife of Adam, the world's ultimate seducer. This painting DOES have sexual undercurrents! Ding ding ding!
You could write a whole thesis on this painting and its accompanying text. Rossetti has a complicated relationship with sexual women. But it's not wholly censorious. It's often sympathetic. Certainly Rossetti's more sexual paintings aren't passive in the way described.
(Resisting urge to use SpongeBob meme) "The walled garden is her vagina." This painting was criticised when first displayed, for its Avant Garde excess of white paint, & for the ambivalence or horror of the Virgin Mary at the responsibility of motherhood
(Fun fact - Christina Rossetti, DG Rossetti's sister and SUCCESSFUL PRE-RAPHAELITE POET is the model for this painting, heightening the ambivalence of the young woman entering her sexuality, and the complexity of the gaze. *Her* gaze is inward - introspective - private.)
Please just take my word this isn't true.
This is fair analysis. But there are also many examples of high-minded women rejecting sexuality or seduction. It depends on the painting, the artist, the theme, what wave of Pre-Raphaelitism we're working with!
I would love to write more on Death and Pre-Raphaelitism (see MRes thesis Chapters 1-3).
There are also many, many Pre-Raphaelite paintings of men lolling and passive/ asleep/ dead/ oblivious. Burne-Jones's stylised men are often mistaken for women, again pointing more to his style than the homogeneity of Pre-Raphaelite womanhood
I'm just... They depict moments of dramatic tension because these are paintings of dramas?
"Although they didn't always"
Neo-classicism gets nuance, because reasons.
Neo-classicism gets nuance, because reasons.
Analysis of the movement as a whole does not work for this argument, because it takes 40-some years of development within the movement, and treats it as if it's on a level playing field. It isn't. Many of these paintings are apples and oranges.
Manet is great, but comes out of a different school of painting entirely. Weird considering earlier she was saying the Pre-Raphs had never heard of France
Manet's Olympia: an entirely unproblematic example of womanhood and 19th c sex work...
So, I actually agree with this. I talk about it in my thesis intro. "Brotherhood" is inherently patriarchal. That doesn't mean Pre-Raphaelitism wasn't influenced by women, included women. It definitely doesn't invalidate the women who were inspired by it
The irony of this is that she does the same thing she accuses the PRB of doing. This devaluation of Pre-Raphaelite women's work is only now beginning to be rectified. Criticism and fiction come together to recognise that contribution.
Supposing these female artists didn't struggle under patriarchy purely because they belonged to a different movement is, truly, batshit.
Guess what? I love the Symbolists. Guess what else? They were influenced by late Pre-Raphaelitism.
Again - I agree! The process of reclamation is problematic (see Neo-Victorian criticism 1990s- present). But women have identified with Pre-Raphaelite womanhood for a century. Squashing that affinity is another form of repressing women's creativity.
Reclamation, in this instance, can both critique the patriarchal aspects of Pre-Raphaelitism and uphold the real talent and creativity of women in the movement. They no longer have to be just ciphers for male genius!
It's absolutely not about having zero caveats. But make the caveats part of a thoughtful, critically engaged work of fiction, and everyone can learn something.
I notice not one of these examples was by a Pre-Raphaelite woman. Need to be more engaged with art history yourself, if you think these don't exist or aren't worthy of notice.
Where is Elizabeth Siddal? Where's May Morris? Where is Lucy Maddox Brown? Marie Spartali Stillman?
Where is Elizabeth Siddal? Where's May Morris? Where is Lucy Maddox Brown? Marie Spartali Stillman?
This is a joke, but the infinite meme potential of Pre-Raphaelite is one of the joys of studying it.
This thread makes me sad. It is a very surface level, uncritical view of Pre-Raphaelitism and Victorian culture as a whole. This author has followers and reach, and people will believe this critique. But it's very problematic.
This thread was A Lot. I would be very happy to draw up a little reading list on Pre-Raphaelite womanhood. Hell, I'd send Gwen Katz my own thesis, on Neo-Victorian depictions of Pre-Raphaelite womanhood, if she wants!
Personally, if YA is engaging with Pre-Raphaelitism in a meaningful way, I am SO EXCITED. I always wanted to put a YA chapter in my thesis, but there just wasn't the space.
Anyway, if you want these types of views debunked in a space that is not my twitter feed, come to #BAVS2019, where I will be delivering a paper titled "Neo-Victorian Pre-Raphaelitism: Temporal Disruptions and Aesthetic (Dis)Continuities"
