By Dr. Tami Johnston, Art History Faculty
“There are no rules in Painting, and that the oppression, or servile obligation of making all study or follow the same path, is a great impediment for the Young…” Francisco de Goya (1746-1828)
Vicente López y Portaña. Portrait of Francisco de Goya (1826).
In a post published earlier in this blog, I explored ideas about the functions of art schools. Primarily, I contrasted the traditional view, as espoused by Anton Mengs versus ideas that are more modern in nature.
In this entry, I will pay homage to perhaps the first Modernist: Francisco Goya. The idea that Goya, whose life straddled the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, might be considered “Modern” might be challenging to some. However, I think that there is plenty of evidence to support this claim. Take, for instance, that opening quote that boldly states that when it comes to painting, there are no rules! That was certainly a radical proposal, when he wrote it to the Royal Academy of San Fernando in Madrid in 1792.
Dr. David Rubí, professor of Spanish and Humanities here at PVCC, first generated the idea for this post in a conversation I had with him. I have found his arguments very compelling. Dr. Rubí points out that Goya deserves the definition of “Modern” due to his breaking new ground in using religious imagery in depicting a secular massacre in his “Third of May, 1808.” He also explored modernist concepts such as despair and alienation in his so-called Black Paintings toward the end of his life. Although he worked for the Spanish royal family, he also criticized many aspects of Spanish policy and culture through his Caprichos.
His recognition that a “one size fits all” educational model was actually harmful to student learning was almost 200 years in advance of current educational practice.
All of these arguments are sound, and I agree that Goya, while generally classified as a Romantic painter, can also be designated as a Modernist. (The problematic practice of slotting artists into stylistic categories at all is an argument for another day!) Here, I would also like to make the case that he was a Modernist in his thinking about the Academy. His recognition that a “one size fits all” educational model was actually harmful to student learning was almost 200 years in advance of current educational practice. He was writing those words a mere 25 years after Mengs insistence that there were RULES that must be followed!
Goya was not only concerned for the students, but also the harm done to the arts themselves by this straitjacket approach. He writes: “I do not see any other means of advancing the Arts, nor do I believe there is one, than to reward and protect he who excels in them; to hold in esteem the true Artist, to allow free reign to the genius of students who wish to learn them, without oppression, nor imposition of methods that twist the inclination they show to this or that style, of Painting.”
I find Goya to be an incredibly sympathetic character. Like Beethoven, he straddled the turbulent age of revolution, and saw idealism give way to despotism. They also shared a fierce independence and thirst for innovation. Perhaps most oddly, they also both went deaf in adulthood, but neither let the disability defeat them.
Goya’s example shows that there are always rebels against fixed systems.
Goya was actually given the Directorship of the Royal Academy in 1795, however, his near-constant ill-health during that period of his life kept him from being much involved with the running of the school. I find it interesting to compare the views of Mengs vs Goya. They had two very different philosophies of art, and how it ought to be taught. Although Goya’s views would eventually win out, Mengs’ triumphed during Goya’s lifetime. However, Goya’s example shows that there are always rebels against fixed systems. On a personal level, I derive great satisfaction to teach at a school where student learning is prioritized over the institution.
Gracias, señor Goya, por su ejemplo.