Flying Blind in the Art Gallery: The Art of Classifying Art

One of the most intimidating things about art to the unfamiliar is its convoluted categories and classifications, some of which often seem completely arbitrary. What is the difference between Renaissance art and Mannerism? Was Manet a Realist or an Impressionist? Is Van Gogh considered Post-Impressionist or Expressionist? If you’re just stepping into the world of art, the most important question is, “who cares?”

When you first start visiting art museums and galleries, you’re likely to hear people say things about different periods or movements in art. Terms like “Neoclassicism,” “Romanticism,” “Abstract Expressionism,” etc. all sound very scholarly and can be a bit daunting to those who have not made a serious study of art. However, none of those terms ultimately matter, especially not at first.

The important thing to realize is that there aren't any hard and fast criteria for assigning a work of art to a particular school or movement. The paintings used to represent a certain school or movement will share certain characteristics, but there isn’t a checklist of criteria that a painting must meet in order to be included in a certain category. But I'll give you an example of the criteria that are used to separate works of art into categories. For my example, I'll use works from Neoclassicism and Romanticism simply because I'm more familiar with late 18th/early 19th century art.

Okay, let’s take a look at two paintings from the same country and roughly similar time periods.

First we have Oath of the Horatii by Jacques-Louis David (1784).

Next we have Liberty Leading the People by Eugene Delacroix (1830).

Take a look at both of these paintings. The first is often considered the prime example of Neoclassical painting, while the second is heralded as one of the greatest works of Romanticism. What similarities and differences do you notice? What jumps out at you?

Let's start with the similarities. They're both French. Both are politically charged and patriotic paintings (though that may not be obvious in the first one without some background knowledge). They both make use of dramatic gestures and lighting. Both hint at strife and battle (well, the Delacroix does more than hint).

Now let's look at the stylistic differences. Notice the orderly nature of David's composition. The brothers swearing to fight for Rome on the left, their mother and sisters showing restrained sorrow on the right, and the father holding the swords out to his sons separates to two sides. It's an illustration of the division of fear and sorrow from the dedication of duty to the state. You notice the brothers and the father more easily than the Horatii women. By using this calculated composition, David is showing that love of the state is more powerful than love of oneself or one's family. This was a powerful statement indeed in the days leading up to the French Revolution. Also pay attention David's clean and clear lines. The sharp focus of the painting makes it evident that everything on the canvas was carefully considered and meticulously executed. This is 18th century high definition.

Now let's look at Delacroix's work. There is no clear division in the composition. By comparison, Delacroix's composition is downright messy. You have the personification of Liberty waiving the French Tricolor with a rifle in her hand. She's stepping over the dead and dying as scores of ordinary Frenchmen follow her into battle. Whereas David's figures are stiff and stilted, Delacroix's are fluid and dynamic. The same can be said of the brush strokes in each work. David's highly calculated painting and Delacroix's more visceral one.

And therein lies the main difference between Neoclassicism and Romanticism -- it's the head verses the heart. Neoclassicism (like most things associated with the Enlightenment) is appealing to the intellect, to reason. Romanticism appeals to the gut. A lot of Neoclassical work assumes a certain familiarity with classical stories and themes. Romanticism assumes you're a living, emotional human being. That's the difference.

But that's not to say that there is always such a clear distinction between the two, or any other art movements for that matter. Art historians use periods and movements to separate artists and artworks just to make it a bit more orderly for academic purposes. And some of these movements and schools were en vogue at the same time, so there is often a lot of overlap. Art historians will even argue amongst themselves about how to classify this artist or that painting. So don't feel bad if you're totally lost. Most people are. You don't need to know all the subtleties right off the bat, or ever, for that matter. But learning how to spot them can be part of the fun. Make a game out of it, but remember that it's rarely a pure this-or-that sort of situation.

I've just given a brief primer on the differences between Neoclassical and Romantic paintings, but I'm not going to jump down anyone's throat for looking at these two paintings and thinking that they are both either Neoclassical or Romantic. But see if you can figure out which one is which (it should be easy by looking at the artists' names).