Vasily Vereshchagin "Indian poem"

[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.

[Jim McDougall]

As I noted, this discussion, which has been primarily the topic of the Russian artist Vereshchagin's work, has been most interesting.
Actually I agree heartily with Mahratt as well as David, that essentially works of art (and typically that often includes photographs) must be gauged carefully in their veracity as historical evidence.

It is well known that art itself, is intended to elicit temporal and emotional reaction from the viewer, which is why artists often employed varying degree of license in their portrayals of historical events and situations.
In the many references I have read through on the subject of 'historical detection', the best by far is "After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection". James Davidson and Mark Lytle, N.Y. 1982, and is remarkable.

In reviewing this book as I write this, I wanted to select a notable comment which addresses our subject of the use of art in studying history, but it is overwhelming as each page is full of compelling perspective on this.

While the methods of 'detection' apply outside art itself to narratives, records, and all manner of historic detail, the references to artists themselves are most telling.

I once did extensive research involving the identification of a Spanish 'cuera', the leather armor of the Spanish colonial soldiers in the frontiers of New Spain. In trying to locate an example of one of these, only two were found....however an unusual example which looked more like an early Roman armor was found in Arizona.
This was remarkable in that not only did two other cuera still exist, this one was of entirely different form than previously known.

The true identification of this curious anomaly in Spanish leather was found in paintings on hide, which incredibly had been discovered in Switzerland though painted in New Mexico in the 1720s. These had been sent there by a Jesuit priest to his family in about 1758. Through many efforts by local historians in New Mexico, these were finally returned there in the 1980s.

In this painting, which was painted by local Pueblos of a tragic battle in Nebraska involving the massacre of a Spanish contingent from Santa Fe, many of the allied Indian warriors accompanying the Spaniards were wearing this type leather armor. It was the only known depiction of such a form, and had been unknown and in Europe since 1758. Therefore, the only references on Spanish colonial weapons and armor did not include this type.
Further, this piece acquired in the late 19th century was only ever shown in a remote private museum in Arizona, whose owner died and the holdings were kept in storage until finally dispersed in an estate sale a number of years ago.
It was captioned, 'old conquistador leather armor' only and in deplorable condition, with little other note.

We used these paintings (known as the Segesser hides), along with considerable research into contemporary narratives and accounts, as well as examining the known corpus of material on Spanish colonial material culture to collect facts. We also confirmed the existence of the only other two cuera (one in the Smithsonian dated c.1820 and one in the Armeria Real dated c1770, both in storage).....and considered their forms as we examined the details of our example.

We were finally able to determine that our cuera was from the 1690s period and produced by Indian artisans with Spanish advisors using the cuir boulli method (contrary to rawhide in the other examples) and apparently used by these Pueblo Indians loyal to the Spaniards in those times and it would appear primarily in the Santa Fe regions.

In this way, with considerable corroboration, we were able to indeed use a work of art, contemporary to the events depicted, by Indian painters being directed by survivors and fashions and forms in use contemporarily there, to identify this rare item of leather armor, the only one of its kind.

This anecdotal case (I apologize for the length) is to emphasize that of course artwork is valuable in historical study, but any reasonable historian will advance with caution and engage in considerable supportive study in applying its place in any study.

Aside from those caveats, I thing it is quite possible to enjoy art for what it is, and greatly respect each artist for their talents and skills. In so many cases, the nuances and symbolism within these works can become history themselves!!! (look at "The DaVinci Code" !!).

[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.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by estcrh

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.

Well said Estcrh!! and a LOT less words than it took me

[mahratt]

Hints on political considerations seem strange, given that Vereshchagin showed the same and cruelty of the Russian justice system:

Originally Posted by estcrh

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.

Wikipedia seems to me, is not the most serious source. Maybe you can find a reliable source? It is interesting to know the facts proving that Blowing from guns (Devil wind) the British took over from Moghuls .

[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.