American Art ( OT and long )

"America did have some advantages over Europe at the time, but Europe also had some advantages over the US. One in particular I can think of: prior to the late 19th century American culture (art and literature specifically) was largely insipid and uninspired compared to what was being produced in Europe at the time. American art didn't really become interesting (no real innovations) until Impressionism and luminism took hold here. Before that there was a lot of dull, stilted historical paintings and a ton of mediocre-to-bad portraits. The most interesting artists in America at the time were actually European-born anyway (e.g. Albert Bierstadt) or trained by Europeans."

Yes, strangely the art of the American nation didn't become interesting until the time that there was an American nation. Ie. that it was finally done building, and could now focus on being.

Art cannot be removed from its historical context. The art of the colony was that of a colony. It was understood that the children of the upper-classes who showed a talent for things appreciated in the heart of Empire would be sent back to the heart of Empire where these talents could flourish.

The reason to come to a colony were for its resources, and for growth opportunities which accompany social mobility. But as long as social mobility is relatively fluid and reflective of enterprise it lacks a settled patron-class of consumers of inherited wealth. And until better reproduction techniques in the late 19th century made it possible to appreciate art one couldn't own; those appreciating and consuming the fine arts were part of this patron-class which America lacked until the sons and daughters of industry could live lives removed from actual industry.

( The Anarcho-Capitalist in me speculates that America's ultra-rich couldn't live like European nobles until after the gains of semi-Laissez-Faire Capitalism could be consolidated and protected with the regulations and political protection of Crony-Capitalism. )

Additionally, the same reproduction techniques which brought art to the masses ( aside from their own art which is derided as mediocre "folk" art by the Eurocentric ) also allowed the pictorial arts ( in America and Europe ) to free themselves from representationalism. One reason for all those "bad portraits" was that oil painting had to do what would later be accomplished by some hack in a department store photo studio. ( Is your yearbook photo great art? Mine isn't. )

This time period ( late 19th century ) also coincides with a rise in Museum building; thus allowing art owned by the patron-class to be viewed by the public. This was going on in both Europe and America; and was reflective of the rise of Nationalism. ( Modern art education has almost always been about Civics and Citizenship and not about Aesthetics. )

But Eurocentrism was to be expected in a former foreign colony whose population growth was immigration-based and whose definitions of Art and Art History were Eurocentric. Heck, even the Europeans couldn't get away from it. The British were famous for going to Italy to appreciate or study Art since their definition of art in the 18th and 19th century was based on emulations of the Italian Renaissance ( of which they thought themselves better appreciators and heirs than those awful modern Italians. )

So in summation, as a Modern living within a nation-state whose tastes reflect what he's seen reproduced ( rather than commissioned or inherited ) and who likes the imaginative function of art which emerged after utilitarian painting had been rendered superfluous; I'm rather fond of the Art developed in the historical periods where all of these factors converged ( and after. ) And I'm not so appreciative of the Art produced before these factors emerged.

As for literature, I'll admit my ignorance of much American literature in the pre-Romantic era. But the entire category of the Novel was still emerging during these periods and didn't have antecedents the way that the pictorial arts did.

Things like authorial interjection ( "dear reader, from this we learn that....." ) was still an unsettled issue in the 18th century. And foreshadowing, which we find almost indispensable, wasn't a feature yet.

And again, its in the era where industrialization has taken hold that the spread of literature to the non-patron classes can flourish ( along with the decrying of the "mediocre" and "bad" in popular novels. )

I remember reading a magazine article about the history of "good taste" in which it was stated that taste was developed as a way of keeping the nouveau-riche in their place by making the customs and preferences the inherited-wealthy grew up with into an "objective" standard. So, again, until America had a large class of "trust fund babies," it couldn't join into this war of snobbery.

And the history of America's place in the Art World is inextricably linked to its supplanting of European nations as a military power. Its no surprise that American art didn't truly emerge until the Belle Epoch. And its even less of a surprise that the seat of Modernism didn't shift to America until after WWII.

Dante