The End of Innocence: the Effects of the Civil War on Children in the Paintings of Eastman Johnson
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ELIZABETH RICHARDS-Rivenbark The End of Innocence: The Effects of the Civil War on Children in the Paintings of Eastman Johnson ainting images of war, even as the consequences of the conflict are bearing out, is a difficult prospect for an artist to undertake. Yet, during the Civil War, hardly any artist was able to avoid representation or reference to the Pwar as it invaded every aspect of life in America. With the American penchant for honesty in art as in all things and the 19th century Romantic trend of patriotism, Civil War era artists struggled to deal with the war in a way that would be appealing to a populace burdened with anxiety and loss. It is not surprising to find that some of the more successful artists turned to veiled symbolism and sentimental subjects in their work. One such artist, Eastman Johnson, found that through genre images of children and family life, he was able to depict the harsh realities of the war in a way that captivated American viewers. Johnson was no stranger to broaching political commentary in his art. He is best known today for his images of African-American slaves, as in the painting, Negro Life in the South (or Old Kentucky Home, 1859, Figure 1) in which his antislavery sentiments make a timely appearance on the eve of the Civil War. Although Negro Life in the South left Johnson’s political stance ambiguous to many viewers, Johnson’s other antislavery images, The Freedom Ring (1860) and The Ride for Liberty (or The Fugitive Slaves, 1862) depicted African Americans as courageous Figure 1. Eastman Johnson, Negro Life in the South (Old Kentucky Home), 1859. Oil on canvas. 36 x 45 ¼ in. (R. L. Stuart Collection, Collection of the New York Historical Society; accession #S-225) and deserving sympathy, leaving no question about the artist’s position.1 Despite Johnson’s pronounced political imagery, or perhaps because of it, the artist became a popular portraitist around Washington, even briefly granted a temporary studio inside the Capital building to do portraits of Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams. Yet Johnson favored genre painting, going so far as to produce many of his group portraits in arrangements of everyday life as conversation pieces. Johnson received much of his training in Düsseldorf, where he studied from 1849-1851. His style was heavily influenced by the European art he was exposed to there as well as in Paris, where he briefly studied in the studio of Thomas Couture. The influence of the Dutch 17th century genre painting is clearly found in Johnson’s subject matter and painting style with its warm coloration, reduced hues, and vistas into adjoining rooms. Dutch genre scenes favored the domestic with allegorical context making them educational tools more than pure scenes of beauty. These virtues were also highly appealing to an American audience who had a preference for art that displayed moral values and an honest naturalism. The America Romantic era is known for its nationalistic landscape paintings, which reflected the beauty of 2 War, Literature & the Arts America but also included moralistic anecdotes. European Romanticism also took on nationalistic tendencies but mainly used historic events from its mythic past to rally behind while American painters emphasized the present and the future and took many of their themes from literature. It was also in the 1840s that John Ruskin first published his Modern Painters (1843), which outlined how art could be used as an instrument for cultivating ideal moral values. With its storytelling possibilities, it is not surprising that genre scenes gained prevalence in the American art world by the 1840s. Whether Johnson’s subject was an antislavery pronouncement, portraiture, or genre, his politics, specifically his interest in the Civil War, were never far from his mind. Some subjects lent themselves naturally to a political discourse, certainly Negro Life in the South was fodder for controversial discussions about slavery when it was painted, but viewers might be surprised to find the number of veiled and not so veiled references to politics during and after the Civil War that can be found in Johnson’s portraits and genre scenes, references that are couched in seemingly innocent images of families and children. Johnson had picked up the Dutch love of painting children that was perfectly suited to the current cultural trend of the cult of domesticity then in favor in America and used them to stage his political leanings. Much has been written about the Victorian cult of domesticity in 19th century America. The lauding of motherhood and family life were a direct response to the social situations in America at the time. As Suzaan Boettger pointed out in her article, “Eastman Johnson’s “Blodgett Family” and Domestic Values during the Civil War Era,” the cult of domesticity was an opposing reaction to the external strife of the Civil War. Where social and political upheaval was tearing apart the country, the tendency toward a stabilizing social force within the home became stronger.2 In this atmosphere the wife and mother took a central role as the bond of the family unit; it was her duty to inspire through her words and actions the civilizing of her husband and the teaching of her children.3 Children were important symbols in the cult of domesticity. The value of children was stressed due to several forces in the 19th century. Socially, the preciousness of children was called under question with the rise in the number of orphans seen during and after the Civil War. According to Boettger, orphans made up five percent of the population of New York City at the end of the 19th century and were reliant on the state, a situation that lead many city dwellers to have a feeling of animosity towards these children. In response, writers took up the cause of children, emphasizing the Christian worth of every living soul as well An International Journal of the Humanities 3 as the therapeutic nature of being around children whose contagious happiness was considered beneficial.4 The sentimentality often shown in the arts of the time also reflected the nostalgia for childhood then in vogue and is apparent in both portraiture and genre paintings. Figure 2. Eastman Johnson, The Blodgett Family, 1864. Oil on canvas, 30 x 25 in. (Image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without express written permission in advance from The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 4 War, Literature & the Arts Johnson’s The Blodgett Family (1864, Figure 2) is a clear example of how the artist was able to tie portraiture together with social commentary regarding the Civil War. The Blodgett family (husband, wife, and three children) are arranged in the composition around the hearth in the sitting room of the their fine townhouse in New York City. As a portrait, Johnson has created a successful group composition that is akin to the conversation pieces popular in 17th century Netherlands and 18th century England, and which Johnson would have seen while studying in Düsseldorf from 1849-51. As David Simon identified in his study of Johnson, the artist was heavily influenced by Dutch painting in his style and subjects such as domestic scenes complete with moral anecdotes.5 Traditional conversation pieces give the likeness of the portrayed individuals but the arrangement and the space in which they are portrayed also relays information about the group. The domestic scene in The Blodgett Family reflects the cult of domesticity with the family gathered around the hearth, the heart of the home. According to Jan Seidler Ramirez’s paper, “The Victorian Household: Stronghold, Sanctuary, or Straightjacket?,” the fireplace symbolized the security and closeness of the family because it provided warmth and was the gathering place for the household who would have to be in close proximity in order to receive its radiating heat. Ramirez also points out the particular importance of the parlor as the site of social intercourse in the Victorian home, not just for its good cheer, but as befits the cult of domesticity, the parlor provided a desirable alternative for men seeking social entertainment.6 In The Blodgett Family, William Tilden Blodgett appears to be pleasantly entertained by the company of his three children and his wife. The scene, however, is not merely one of domestic bliss; it is also a clear reference to the social and politic upheaval of the country with the simple addition of the toy minstrel, a carved-wood kinetic doll of a black minstrel. Boettger’s article outlines the argument for the black dancing toy as a symbol of the Blodgett family’s ties to the Union and as anti-slavery supporters. The American flag posed on the mantle identifies Blodgett’s support of the Union, but it has also been recorded that Blodgett belonged to the US Sanitary Commission, a committee created to promote the health and sanitation in the Union army camps. Although his age placed him outside the bounds of conscription, Blodgett actively supported the Union cause. He also chose an artist known for his antislavery images, such as Johnson’s popular Negro Life in the South and Ride for Liberty and the lesser-known The Freedom Ring.7 Blodgett’s political actions, and the inclusion of the American flag displayed in the parlor make the position of the family as Union and anti-slavery supporters clear. However, the doll broaches complicated controversies of southern black stereotypes. The minstrel character was originally An International Journal of the Humanities 5 intended to appease northern white male apprehension about African Americans by demeaning them with thick dialects, wild, supposedly “Ethiopian” dances, and childlike antics.8 Paradoxically Boettger identifies Johnson’s depiction of the minstrel as “distinctly complimentary,” because of his “smart dress and dignified composure.”9 Blodgett’s position is unmistakable, that Johnson has represented the toy minstrel in the best possible light, though the stereotype of the dancing minstrel may not simply be the “positive image of a race” reasoned by Boettger, but a nod to the contemporaneous evolution of the minstrel show from comedic entertainment to one that was more somber in tone.