Vasily Vereshchagin "Indian poem"

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Vereshchagin's pictures reflected fascination of the 19th century Western artists with the "mysterious Orient": he was a Russian Gerome. Both painted Muslim soldiers carrying exotic weapons and dressed in exotic garb. In the absense of photography their paintings are our best source of iconographic information, although their complete veracity cannot be vouched for. Orientalism was heavily Romantic. Studio portraits and use of props were customary. One can only wonder how Central Asian nomads, Egyptian soldiers or Ottoman bashibouzuks managed all wear impeccably clean clothes of heavily saturated colors not faded by the unrelenting sunlight and not given to dirt, dust, wear and tear.

Vereshchagin was not an artist who paints in the studio. He was a direct participant in the events that depict. Of course, like any talented artist, he could embellish some type, which created on the canvas.

Originally Posted by estcrh

The Russian artist’s international legacy is that of a military painter. He had his first taste of war at the age of 26 when he accompanied the Russian Army, under General Konstantin Kaufman on an expedition to modern day Uzbekistan. He was decorated with the Cross of St George for bravery shown during the siege of Samarkand. His future paintings were greatly influenced by what he witnessed during the wars.

Despite Vereshchagin’s beautiful illustrations of India, his legacy remains that of a military artist, who witnessed and documented wars.

More than a century after his death, no single artist, photographer or journalist has come anywhere close to documenting wars and conflicts the way Vasily Vereshchagin did.

But if someone does not have enough dust, dirt and torn clothes, it is known that the Vereshchagin portrayed and this too (because he was trying to show the reality):

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Vereshchagin was not an artist who paints in the studio. He was a direct participant in the events that depict. :

Originally Posted by estcrh

Emir Seyyid Mir Mohammed Alim Khan, the Emir of Bukhara, seated holding a sword in Bukhara, (present-day Uzbekistan), ca. 1910, early original color photograph.:

Come on, guys!

This is art, let's not forget it.


The emir from the Prokudin-Gorski's photograph was posing for a color photo-portrait. Of course, he was asked to wear his most colorful khalat ( being rich did not hurt him, either)

And of course, Vereshchagin painted in the studio. Are we to believe that he set his easel right in front of the Turkomans cutting off human heads? Or that he stood behind the Turkoman horde about to annihilate a small band of Russian soldiers?

Or are we to believe that Ingres was given free access to the harem to paint sultan's naked concubines?

There is no doubt that Vereshchagin tried to be as close to the truth as possible, but so was Rembrandt , whose Samson was blinded with a... Balinese keris:-)

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Come on, guys!

This is art, let's not forget it.

The emir from the Prokudin-Gorski's photograph was posing for a color photo-portrait. Of course, he was asked to wear his most colorful khalat ( being rich did not hurt him, either)

And of course, Vereshchagin painted in the studio. Are we to believe that he set his easel right in front of the Turkomans cutting off human heads? Or that he stood behind the Turkoman horde about to annihilate a small band of Russian soldiers?

Or are we to believe that Ingres was given free access to the harem to paint sultan's naked concubines?

There is no doubt that Vereshchagin tried to be as close to the truth as possible, but so was Rembrandt , whose Samson was blinded with a... Balinese keris:-)

We know that Vereshchagin made sketches from nature. Of course, he did not paint during battles. At this time, it is as an ordinary soldier, fought in the ranks of his comrades. This is, in the memoirs of his contemporaries.

But he saw Russian soldiers, the inhabitants of Bukhara and battles. And show us the battles and other terrible pictures helped his memory.

Vereshchagin saw all that and then depict. He was at the center of these developments. And not in a quiet studio ... Therefore, his paintings so accurate in detail. Maybe you point out errors in the pictures Vereshchagin? Such like Balinese keris Rembrandt?

Thank you in advance.

[mahratt]

Bukhara Sarbaz.

[Jim McDougall]

Mahratt, these works you are posting are breathtaking! and the way you place corresponding photos reveal how amazingly close these portrayals are to the traditional styles and weaponry.
Naturally artists painted in studios, but most artists used what are known as 'studys', which are sketches drawn with notes from live and real time situations. From these they crafted their finished works.

Rembrandt, mentioned a number of times here, actually had a considerable and eclectic collection of arms and antiquities from which he drew many of his entries in his paintings. This is of course how the keris came into his Biblical theme painting, as artictic license prevailed.

In many cases, artists used their earlier works or sometimes the work of other artists as studies in varying degree for figures in their work. I have seen great discussions of this in references on 'historical detection' which is essentially forensic type art study.

Art itself is a valuable medium for the comprehensive study of arms (which despite controversial views are also forms of art) and whether the work contains actual weapons or not. Often there are nuanced clues in the figures or materials represented which are telling in many aspects of the motif, style and decoration .

Thank you gentlemen for continuing this most interesting discussion, and presenting the great perspectives helping us better appreciate the topic overall.

[mahratt]

Many thank for the right words, Jim!

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Come on, guys!

This is art, let's not forget it.


The emir from the Prokudin-Gorski's photograph was posing for a color photo-portrait. Of course, he was asked to wear his most colorful khalat ( being rich did not hurt him, either)

And of course, Vereshchagin painted in the studio. Are we to believe that he set his easel right in front of the Turkomans cutting off human heads? Or that he stood behind the Turkoman horde about to annihilate a small band of Russian soldiers?

Or are we to believe that Ingres was given free access to the harem to paint sultan's naked concubines?

There is no doubt that Vereshchagin tried to be as close to the truth as possible, but so was Rembrandt , whose Samson was blinded with a... Balinese keris:-)

Supposedly Eugene Delacroix was allowed access to an Algerian household during a 3 month North African journey, he was said to have actually been allowed to view the female household/harem, something most painters had to imagine or paint from discriptions told to them. He is said to have filled sketch books with drawings of what he saw during his travels.

Along with sketches made while visiting foreign countries some painters did in fact use photographs to capture the memories of what they saw.

Photography makes it possible to incorporate elements in a painting that would be impossible to do otherwise. Certain fleeting lighting conditions for example would long be gone before most artists had the opportunity to set one’s palette, let alone collect the visual data necessary to replicate a scene in the style of high realism.

To this end, the amazing 19th Century Academician, Jean Leon Gerome, used photographs extensively in his process. In fact, he traveled with a photographer on his numerous excursions to the Middle East, specifically for the purpose of gathering the degree of information necessary to execute his brilliant Orientalist paintings.

Would it have been possible for Gerome to create these paintings without using photography, by simply working from life? Personally, I don’t think so, because before Gerome, no artist had ever achieved anything near the same level of illusionistic atmospheric realism so effectively and prolifically.

Before photography was invented, artists used a vast array of devices and strategies to augment their ability to record the world around them. Once photography appeared on the scene, however, realism “coincidently” took a big leap forward.

[ariel]

Bulls-eye!

Their Photorealism mutated into more recent Hyperrealism, that puts even more emphasis on the painters' subtle emotional hints and sheer fantasy.
But very often the latter overcomes the reality and this is exactly what happened with your great example of Vereshchagin's very naturalistic image of Indian sepoys "blown from guns" , a practice he could not have seen. Such is art, and this is its difference from historical evidence.
BTW, I was unaware of his travels to Ladakh and Sikkim. Was he a part of the Russian clandestine intelligence gathering operations? ( Another Russian painter, Nicolas Roerich, was or tried to be, later on). If you are interested in that period and the rivalry between Britain and Russia in Central Asia, you absolutely must read Peter Hopkirk's " The Great Game"!

And if we are talking about India and Vereshchagin, we should not forget Edwin Lord Weeks, a superb American Orientalist painter who was his equal or better ( pure IMHO).

[mahratt]

Some mistakenly believe that Vereshchagin depict execution after the Sepoy rebellion 1857-1859. This is not true. The painting is called "The English penalty in India." She depict in 1884. In reality, the painting depicts the execution of a Sikh-namdhari 1872, which Vereshchagin learned during a visit to India in 1875. In the middle of January 1872 a few hundred namdhari, using the fact that the main forces of the Anglo-Indian troops were concentrated in Punjab maneuvers in Delhi, revolted against the British and attacked two fortified castle - Malodh and Maler Kotla to seize weapons are in them. The rebels were defeated. British troops responded with repression. From guns were firing squad of 65 people.

[ariel]

Perhaps. But he could witness events of 1872 no better than those of 1858: he wasn't there for either:-)

Nothing wrong with it artistically : Rembrandt never witnessed the return of the Prodigal Son, Moses did not have horns and Sistine Chapel is not a documentary account of the Creation of Adam and the Last Judgement.

Once and for all: works of art are not historical facts. In the best possible case they provide us with a glimpse of contemporaneous view of material objects, in the worst one they are malicious distortions of truth. The greatest majority of them are somewhere in between. But no court on Earth would accept them as evidence.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Perhaps. But he could witness events of 1872 no better than those of 1858: he wasn't there for either:-)

Simple question. Do you think from 1872 until 1875 (ie three years) that has changed dramatically: the shape of the British soldiers, the British guns or Sikhs-namdhari?
We all understand that the picture - this is not the photo report from the event. But valuable that Vereshchagin adhered even small details in his paintings.

[David]

Originally Posted by ariel

Perhaps. But he could witness events of 1872 no better than those of 1858: he wasn't there for either:-)

Nothing wrong with it artistically : Rembrandt never witnessed the return of the Prodigal Son, Moses did not have horns and Sistine Chapel is not a documentary account of the Creation of Adam and the Last Judgement.

Once and for all: works of art are not historical facts. In the best possible case they provide us with a glimpse of contemporaneous view of material objects, in the worst one they are malicious distortions of truth. The greatest majority of them are somewhere in between. But no court on Earth would accept them as evidence.

Ariel, i feel like you are being contrary just for the sake of it here. You are comparing works of classical artists such as Rembrandt that depict biblical themes from two millenniums past to these HISTORICAL paintings that are based, if not on the personal account and sketches of the artist, then upon direct accounts received by him within a few years of their occurrence. Certainly you can concede that the accuracy of Vereshchagin's work regarding the weapons, dress and even the details of the events depicted in his paintings carries more weight and historical correctness than, say, Rembrandt's depiction of the blinding of Samson with a keris blade.
Yes, painting is not documentary photography, we all know that. Many of these paintings might therefore have added drama of light and perhaps an over saturation of color. But what does that mean regarding our use of them in our study of the weapons and armor used in the conflicts that are depicted in Vereshchagin's paintings? What inaccuracies do you find there? If you can't be specific i think you are just nitpicking for no other purpose but to argue.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Perhaps. But he could witness events of 1872 no better than those of 1858: he wasn't there for either:-)

I believe that Vereshchagin responded to this by stating that British tactics (tying captives to cannon and executing them in this vicious manner) would have happened whether he actually saw it or not. In other words he was just using this particular painting as an way to bring attention to what he saw as the brutality of British justice in India, he did the same with his painting depicting the execution of members of the Nihilist movement in St Petersburg, political commentary is not always about realism, it is about making people think.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

And if we are talking about India and Vereshchagin, we should not forget Edwin Lord Weeks, a superb American Orientalist painter who was his equal or better ( pure IMHO).

Of course, because "Made in US - means excellent" (this is a pleasantry)

But seriously, I think, to all participants of the forum would be interesting if you have created the theme of the paintings Edwin Lord Weeks.