299

So, reading through Paris (see post below), I keep finding references to the French king sending envoys to the Mongol king and vice versa asking for an alliance against the Saracens [Muslims].  Which is interesting, considering the mongols, to the europeans, were uncivilized, bloodthirsty barbarians who knew neither language nor religion.  There’s even a transcription of a letter which states that the king of the Tartars [mongols] has coverted to Christianity and in which he extolls all Christians to acknowledge that all the different sects are the same and everyone should get along (OR ELSE).

So, here we have three things:

1. The mongols are bloodthirsty savages who are out to kill us all
2. The mongols are now christian AND
3. we’re going to try to make an alliance with them

As evidenced from this, europeans at the time (1240’s) were incredibly ignorant of anything happening outside their own castles.  By this time there wasn’t really a Mongol “empire”- after Genghis Khan’s death in 1227 it didn’t take long for the empire to break up into several factions: the Ilkhanate in central Asia, the Golden Horde in Russia, the Yuan dynasty in China, and et cetera.  The europeans, however, were under the impression that there was ONE “king of the Tartars”, and herein lies the confusion. In reality there were several khans spread over a wide area, and each one claimed to be “THE” khan. (”khan” is just a mongol word denotinga leader, “great khan” would be the ruler of all the mongols, but there can be numerous lesser “khans”.)

So anyway, going back to the attempted alliance with France: I’m still trying to figure out which khan they’re talking about here.  basically, from around 1240 to maybe around 1260 France and one of the Khans were trying to from an alliance against the Muslims.  What we run into here is a difference in culture-  to the mongols, and alliance was just cooperating with someone you would conquer at a later date- there’s no illusions of cooperating for the grater good here- they just needed help fighting the Muslims.  Anyway, there’s disagreement as to what actually happened (if there was actually an alliance or not) but we do know for sure that the two entities were in friendly contact.

I know we’re discouraged from relying on Wikipedia for much of anything, but this article is an interesting read.   Here’s the good bits:

” There was also some confusion within Europe, as to the differences between the Mongols of the Ilkhanate in the Holy Land, and the Mongols of the Golden Horde, who were making attacks on Eastern Europe, in Hungary and Poland. Within the Mongol Empire, the Ilkhanids and the Golden Horde considered each other enemies, but it took some time for Western observers to be able to distinguish between the different parts of the Mongol Empire.

Historians note that in hindsight an alliance between the Mongols and the “Franks” (European Crusaders) often appears a logical choice.^[1][2][3] The Mongols were already very sympathetic to Christianity as many Mongols were Nestorian Christians. The Europeans were open to the idea of assistance coming from the East, due to the longrunning legend of a mythical Prester John, an Eastern king in a magical kingdom who many believed would arrive someday to help with the fight in the Holy Land. The Mongols and the Franks also shared a common enemy in the Muslims.

Jackson also points out that the court historians of Mongol Iran made no mention whatsoever of the communications between the Ilkhans and the Christian West, and barely mentioned the Franks at all. The communications were evidently not seen as important by the Mongols, and Jackson argues that the communications may have even been seen as embarrassing, especially when the Mongol leader Ghazan, a Muslim, could be seen as trying to gain the assistance of infidels, against his fellow Muslims in Egypt. Also, when the Mongol historians did make notes of foreign territories, they were usually categorized as either “enemies”, “conquered,” or “in rebellion.” The Franks, in that context, were listed in the same category as the Egyptians, in that they were enemies to be conquered. The idea of “ally” was foreign to the Mongols.”

Obviously, this complicates my research.  If I wanted to do this topic justice, I think i’d need a whole lot more than four pages in which to do it.  I guess I have more refining to do.

sooo… I realize I’ve neglected this thing completely since I made it, I suppose I should write something.

At this point my research is pretty much in its infancy, as I am an incurable procrastinator.  With that said, I’m pretty much depending on Jack Weatherford’s Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (2004) as a jumping off point for my own research.  It’s a great book- I bought it on a whim at Border’s a couple years ago, read it twice, and wrote a paper on it comparing with Harold Lamb’s biography of Genghis Khan for Great Lives last semsester.  I really like Weatherford because he’s so readable- the book may have been intended for a wide audience but the guy really knows what he’s talking about and has really done his research and is a phenominal writer. Anyway, I guess his bibliography is what interests me most for my purposes in this class.

I’m writing about European reactions to the Mongol conquests as they were happening (or shortly after they happened).  The interesting thing is that the Mongols never went farther than Eastern Germany (long story short, they realized that 13th century Europe had nothing to offer that was better than what they themselves had- an awesome reality check for all those eurocentric historians out there).  Since they were never a huge military presence in most of Europe, most of the Europeans writing about them had never even seen a mongol.  they had just heard about them from the thousands of terrified peasants fleeing west.

So, basically what we get here is monks and other educated people writing from third or fourthand accounts about the terrible barbarian hordes that were supposedly advancing West into Christendom, which is where Matthew Paris comes in.

Paris was a benedictine monk in England writing in the mid 13th century (the mongols conqured Russia around the 1240s). He basically has two reactions to the Mongol threat:

1. The mongols (he refers to them as Tartars) are a race of inhuman hellspawn barbarians who know neither civilization or law.

“…the Tartars, a barbarous race of people, who had invadaed the Christian countries and committed great slaughter, wandering here and there in Greater Hungary…” (vol. 1, p. 253)

“The men are inhuman and of the nature of beats, rather to be called monsters than men, thirsting after and drinking blood, and tearing and devouring the flesh of dogs and human beings…” (vol. 1 -. 313)

2. “OH MY GOD THEY”RE TERRIFYING AND THEIR COMING AFTER US!!! THIS IS GOD’S WRATH AGAINST SINFULNESS!!!” (paraphrased, of course.

“… thery are short in stature and compact in their bodies, and of great strength; invincible in battle, indefatigueable in labor…they have large and powerful horses…they have no human laws, know no mercy, and are more cruel than lions or bears…They have swords and daggers with one edge, they are excellent archers, and they spare neither sex, age, or rank… they came with the force of lightning into the territories of the Christians, laying waste the country, committing great slaughter, and striking inexpressible terror and alarm into everyone.” (ibid.)

One of the most interesting things about this project, I think, is reading about how Europeans rationalized who these mysterious invaders were. Paris again:

“These Saracens, the memory of whom is detestable, are believed to have been of the ten tribes, who abandoned the law of Moses…[and who were consequently shut up by God behind huge impassable mountains only to be released at the Last Judgement to slaughter everyone]… Indeed it appears doubtful whether these Tartars, who ar this time made their appearance, are the people mentioned; for they do not speak in the Hebrew tongue…But the reply to this is, that it nevertheless is probable that they are some of those were were inclosed in the mountains… their rebellious hearts were perverted to an evil way of thinking, so they they followed after strange gods and unknown customs… and their life changed to that of the cruel and irrational wild beast.” (vol. 1, p. 313-14)

Okay… I doubt anyone actually read all that, but basically Paris is saying that the Mongols are actually a lost tribe of rebellious Jews who have been perverted into the worship of evil gods and have been released from their mountain prison to exact revenge upon the Christian world.

Sensationalist language aside, Paris is essentially right in the second quote.  The mongols were bloodthirsty, spared no one who resisted, and were not even hesitant to kill the elites of the land they invaded.  And that is what made the mongols so inexpressibly terrifying to these people- they didn’t play by the rules. They had no use for “civilization” as the Christian, Islamic, and Chinsese empires knew it- they wised to continue their nomadic lifestyle but with the nice stuff they plundered from others.   they didn’t conduct warfare according to the “rules of war” at the time- because they simply didn’t give satisfactory results.  The mongols were not interested in war as a power play of naton against nation with an eventual return to the status quo- the mongols sought all out, bloody victory at any cost.  If a nation capitulated, then they were allowed to keep their religion, customs, and government provided they pay a hefty tribute.  If a nation resisted, however, then woe unto them.

I guess the reason I chose History as a major is the same reason I chose Art History (see post below).  I had a fantastic group of history teachers in High School.

History was always my best subject, but it wasn’t until I got to Hermitage HS that I really got into it.  Henrico County Schools has what is basically a magnate program for various areas of study at each high school.  there’s math and science, visual arts, foreign language, and etc.  The program at Hermitage is the Center for the Humanities.  Admission is on an application basis and students at the Center spend all four years of high school with at least three class periods with the other 30 or so students in their grade at the Center.  The three classes are basically taught as one and include English (more emphasis on literature), History, and a Humanities elective which is basically Art History.  For example, in learning about the history behind the French Revolution we would also be reading things like Diderot and Voltaire while looking at paintings by artists such as David.  Instead of learning about historical figures, we’d actually read what they wrote.

This emphasis on understanding and learning instead of dry memorization made all the difference to me.  It made history seem all the more real and important and I really don’t think I would have recieved this kind of intensive education in normal history and english classes.  I know I wouldn’t have learned nearly as much (or anything) about art.  At the Humanities Center we learned to make connections from the past to every day life, and we learned not to take everything we were told at face value.  One of my teachers, for example, would mark a test question correct if you could argue convincingly that your answer made sense.

We learned how to present effectively and argue our points according to the Socratic system- just about everything we said had to be able to be proven within the context of what we were reading. High school at large seems to be about being able to regurgitate whatever the instructor tells you.  Instead, we learned why something happened and what it meant.

Anyway, I’m getting a little long winded. I guess I like history so much because it offers explanations. And for every explanation it offers, it presents two more questions.  Thanks to my high school experience I feel prepared to answer those questions and to in turn question those explanations.

The story of Pygmalion and Galatea can be found in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, completed around 8 AD. It tells, basically, of a sculptor named Pygmalion who swore off women after witnessing their “wickedness”. He lived a lonely life as a bachelor. Pygmalion created a statue of a beautiful young girl. She was perfect to his eyes and he fell in love with it. He gave it gifts, dressed it in beautiful gowns, and spoke to it lovingly. The day of Venus’ festival came. Pygmalion made a sacrifice at her altar and said, If you can grant all things, you gods, I wish as a bride to have…one like my ivory girl.” Pygmalion then returned to his home. He knelt by his statue and kissed her on the lips. To his astonishment the lips were not cold like stone but warm and fleshy. Pygmalion looked and saw that his statue, Galatea, had come to life. Venus had granted his wish.

I have chosen to examine two very different paintings on this subject. The first painting was completed in 1750 by Francois Boucher:

Boucher was a prominent Rococo artist, and as such was fond of extravagance and elegance. Here we see Venus presenting the astonished Pygmalion with the girl of his dreams. The fleshy forms of Venus and Galatea are surrounded by playful, chubby cherubs and lengths of billowing fabric. Instead of an intimate, personal exchange between Pygmalion and Galatea we see a grand presentation full of pomp, which is in line with the courtly tastes of the day.

The second painting I will be examining was completed in 1890 by Gerome:

Gérôme was one of the last holdouts of Neoclassicism in the face of Impressionism. As such, he rejected most of what the rococo artists stood for an favored form, line, and bright color. The narrative here is different than Boucher’s interpretation: here there is no goddess and her retinue, instead there is only Pygmalion and his beloved, and here we see the very moment where stone becomes flesh. it is wonderfully intimate and personal. Neoclassicists are known for their stark interpretation of classical themes, but here we see the poetry of a dream finally realized.

Paul Mellon was born in 1907 to an already very rich family.   The Mellon family fortune was amassed by his grandfather Thomas, his father Andrew, and his uncle Richard.   The Mellons were named the wealthiest people in America in 1957 in Fortune Magazine’s first such list.  It is with this fortune that Paul was able to amass such a large art collection.

Paul’s father Andrew was the primary contributor to the building of the West Wing of the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C.  Andrew, unfortunately, died before its completion in 1937.  Paul carried on his father’s work and upon completion of the project presented the museum with 115 paintings from his father’s collection.  Mellon served on the National Gallery’s board for almost 40 years and commissioned the building of the museum’s East Wing where the modern and contemporary art is housed today.

Paul Mellon was also a significant contributor to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond.  The museum’s modern art gallery is named after him.   In 1968 the museum was able to purchase 150 pieces for its Indian and Himalayan  art collection through funds provided by Mellon.  VMFA is to this day known for its extensive Indian art collection.  In the 1980s Mellon also donated a large portion of his own personal collection of French Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, and British Sporting Art. After Mellon’s death in 1999 the museum recieved more from his collection, including more French and British works, including paintings by Stubbs and drawings by Degas and Cezanne.

The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts relies almost solely on private contributions in order to acquire new works for their collections.  Patrons such as Paul Mellon were indespensible in the founding and formation of such an outstanding gallery.  This is not to forget the immense impact Mr. Mellon had on the National Gallery of art, especially in the building of the outstanding East Wing.

Paul Mellon’s contributions to the art world have had a great impact on many people, including myself.  Field trips to the VMFA were a tradition while I was in high school, and were always something that my classmates and I always looked forward to.  Having a museum as outstanding as VMFA so close to home made a tremendous impact on myself and on countless other school children.

Reviews are important when considering any kind of scholarly work.  Since reviews are written by experts in the field, the researcher can be made aware of any fundamental flaws or errors contained within.  Also, reading a review can give you something to think about when reading the book, something that you may not have thought about reading on your own.

For example, my group considered four reviews of Mary Gerrard’s monograph on Artemesia Gentileschi- the first book of its kind written about this extraordinarily underappreciated artist.   Gerrard, as a feminist writer, no doubt examined feminist themes in her work.  This feminist focus was both appreciated and condemned by those who reviewed her book.  For example, Sheila Ffolliott, writing for the Women’s Art Journal, had nothing but praise for Gerrard’s book.  Elizabeth Cropper in Rennaisance Weekly also appreciated the book but expressed doubts on several points of Gerrard’s interpretation.  Griselda Pollock, writing in the Art Bulletin, also appreciated the book, but her review was definately the longest and hardest to read.  I realize that the Art Bulletin has a very scholarly focus, but Pollock’s review seemed more like a personal essay on feminist themes in art than a simple book review.   The most interesting review we considered, though, was Richard Spear’s review in the Times Literary Supplement.   Spear also appreciates that something has finally been written about Gentileschi, but calls into question Gerrard’s focus and interpretation.  For example, Spear doubts Gerrard’s view that Gentileschi’s work expresses what feminist views were present in Gentileschi’s day, especially when one considers her reaction to her rape by the tutor Augustino Tassi.  Spear points out that Gentileschi’s depiction of heroines such as Susanna and Lucretia are more overtly sexual and eroticized than contemporary depictions of the same subject by male artists.  It is for this reason that Spear posits that Gentileschi relentlessly played to male expectations in art.

Gerrard actually replies to his comments in the next issue of the Times Literary Supplement.  She counters this last argument by saying that it is erroneous to assume that when a woman is not wearing a multitude of clothing that the work is automatically for “male eyes.”  Gerrard challenges the patriarchal assumption that all art is for a male audience and that it can only be considered for a male audience.

Overall, reading different interpretations of the same book is very interesting and gives insight into the book itself.  Reading a review is a valuable addition to the reading of a book and should not be ignored whn conducting research.

What does art history mean to me?

I love art. I love looking at it. I love learning about it. I love thinking about what the artist thought as they made it. I love that it is both earnest and superficial and that it could mean everything or mean nothing at all. But I really like the way that consideration of what art IS and what it should mean differs so extraordinarily between peoples, cultures, and times. One could argue that there really is nothing absolute and that art is whatever the viewer wants it to be.

Why is this my major?

I really owe my love of art (and, quite frankly, everything worthwhile) to my time in High School. I realize high school is tough for a lot of people, but I genuinely enjoyed it. The school district I lived in (Henrico VA) had “specialty center” magnate programs at every high school- things like science, computers, foreign language, etc. Each high school had a different specialty center and enrollment was on an application basis. I went to the Center for the Humanities. In a nut shell, I had (at least) three class periods every year with the other 30 students in the center. One history class, one literature class, and a humanities elective where we studied art, theater, and dance, among other things. All three classes were taught as one and each student became aware of how each of these areas are intricately related.  Instead of reading about Aristotle, Erasmus, Hegel, or Nietzsche,  we actually read what they wrote.   All of my teachers were extraordinary, both as educators and as people. After having what was basically four years of art history education it’s hard not to love the subject.
The humanities center was all about humanism, and it was this about Panofsky’s article that intrigued me.  The idea that Art is what makes us human is what I liked most about it.  We are self-aware and self-obsessed and that is what separates us from the animal world.  I also like the way Orians posited that “history” should be about inquiry rather than simply gathering and repeating facts.  You can memorize years and facts and statistics about an art work all you want but until you actually sit down and look at the art and consider what it means, you haven’t really done anything worthwhile.

What do I want to do with Art History?

I really don’t know what I want to do career wise. Art education is, I think, of the utmost importance. I can’t imagine what I would be like had I not had the kind of education that I did. However I really do not want to be a teacher. Perhaps I’ll work at a museum or something. I love Richmond and I think living there and working at VMFA would be a great experience.