Art in the 19th Century

Two elementally different art styles bookended the 19th century. The Romantic era in the first half of the 19th century that celebrated emotional, imagined, and subjective expression was beginning to be replaced at the end of the 19th century by the forthcoming Realism, which tossed imagination to the wind in favor of a raw approach to the dreary human realities and sufferings. However, despite the two styles' differing approaches, the forms can relate in both the influence current political and social dealings had as well as the influence the art styles in turn imposed on these issues. 

Romanticism developed as a rejection of many of the Enlightenment values that had inspired Europe in the past century. While the Enlightenment stressed that all individuals in a society and the governments that govern them should be driven by reason, Romanticism insisted that reason was a limited value and that instead people should be guided by the boundless possibilities provided by emotions and imagination. Romanticism also grew to act as a response to the quickly developing industrialization of the Western European landscape. Romanticism protested industrialization's mechanism and societal corruptions by exploring the power of nature, emphasizing its gentle simplicity and emotional power. Romanticism also became important nearing the mid-19th century as revolutions and causes for nationalism began to spark across Europe. The Romantic emphasis on individuality worked nicely with the uniqueness of cultures that nationalism drove to value and celebrate.

Realism began to emerge following the revolutions of 1848. Realism took a different approach to the revolutionary and nationalistic spirit from Romanticism, celebrating the common people by making them the focus of their work. Never before had middle and lower class individuals been given central artistic representation in a movement. Realism also critiqued the brutalities of war. The Crimean War in the later half of the 19th century marked one of the first appearances for photojournalists, and their capturing of honest, but brutal images of war horrified people on the home front, who could have never before imagined with such rawness the realities of war. Additionally, the artists of Realism critiqued contemporary society by illustrating the unglamorous lives of common men and women.

The 19th century was a century of changing politics, revolution, and the growing power of nationalism. The Romantic and Realist art styles are not only important in providing artistic interpretations of the political and social matters surrounding the artists, but they represent an emotional view that adds a dimension to the impact issues had on the common people. Additionally, the way artists interpreted issues influenced the way people regarded them. Paintings bolstering nationalistic fervor could excite a nation while a harsh portrayal of the lower middle-class life could incite protest against injustices this population faced. Especially during a time when common people revolted for better representation in their governments, it is interesting to see the impact and emotional insight art styles had on the century.

The Congress of Vienna’s staunch motives for securing a peace-driven Europe with a balance of powers indeed prevented a major European war for sometime, but the shifting balance of powers in the 19^th century that gave way as some countries grew stronger as others began to fall created undeniable tensions that ultimately fashioned the Congress of Vienna’s hope for a neutral Europe as an ideal that would never be reached as long as power and self-interest remained desirable motives for the European countries. 

It was in Russia more so than anywhere else during the 19^th century where the country’s growing strength caught the attention of Western countries and motivated them to curb Russia’s influence in order to protect their own interests in Eastern Europe. Russia’s conquest of the Ottoman-governed territories of Moldavia and Walachia in 1853 unsettled leaders in Britain and France, who saw Russia’s expansion as an imposition to the countries’ economic interest in the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean. In what would later be known as the Crimean War (1854-1856), France and Britain, along with support from the Ottomans and Piedmont-Sardinia, fought Russia in a gruesome war, which ended favorably on the western nations’ side. Russia was forced to give up its newly won territories and the country’s influence in the Balkans was greatly curbed.

From studying the 19^th century, the idea of a “balance of powers” seems too idealistic to ever function successfully in a constantly shifting world. Countries’ self-interested and power-driven impulses cannot be avoided as they represent universal human compulsions. At the first signs of Russia’s growing power, France and Britain stepped in not to reaffirm their belief in the abstract “balance of powers” but to protect their interests and power standings. We cannot look at the “balance of powers” as a straightforward initiative, but maybe the idea works in a frame that suggests it is a naturally occurring system. As we have seen, once one country begins to assert dominating strength, the impulse of other countries is to inhibit that growing power through warfare. The other countries act to preserve their own strength, and as a result, a “balance of powers” is maintained by inhibiting the growth of one nation. But this “balance of powers” is ever shifting and is at its base unstable. Perhaps this form of a “balance of powers” is just one element of the dynamic power play that is constantly shifting, but as a political initiative, a “balance of powers” is unreachable, as one country will always try to hunt for power when conditions are favorable. 

Nationalism's failure in Austria

I think the most interesting part nationalism played in the 19th century was in countries where a singular cultural identity could never be achieved. Austria stands as the most obvious portrayal of this statement. The empire was internally severed by its culmination of states that housed different languages, religions, and cultures. As nationalism spread across Europe during the mid-19th century, the subject nationalities expressed their dissatisfaction through protests focusing on their virtually silenced voice in the empire. The Dual Monarchy Austria-Hungary created in 1866 pleased the Austrian empire’s biggest minority population, the Hungarians. The Dual Monarchy created a common system of taxation, army, and foreign and military policies between Austria and Hungary, but other subject nationalities continued to feel excluded in the political workings. The Dual Monarchy was Austria’s best attempt at uniting and nationalizing its empire, but the vital fact that the empire was composed of diversified states greatly prevented nationalism’s infiltration into the empire.

Reading, Pages 732-742: France's Revolutions

As can be expected, Napoleon Bonaparte's legacy was rooted most strongly in France. The French nationality and unity that Napoleon inspired would prove to be founding principles and means of resilience for the French revolutions of the 19th century. The Congress of Vienna's reinstatement of a bourbon monarch, King Louis XVIII, left the French public worried of a possible return to an absolutist rule. And because France had already experienced the liberation from an absolutist government during the French Revolution, it would take much more resilience from the government to crush the 19th century revolts. However, the persistence of the French people to reject an absolutist government and the lasting heroism of Napoleon in France eventually led France in roundabout politics in the 19th century, beginning with the downfall of Napoleon's empire and ending with Napoleon's nephew, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte's Second Empire. 

The 1830 Revolution in France developed from Charles X's ascension to the French throne. Charles X ruled with absolutist values, consolidating his power and favoring the nobility. The French people publicly displayed their discontentment, but Charles X's practical overthrow of the parliament regiment when elections showed favor against the monarchy proved to be the last straw. Three days of street battles ensued, and Charles X's eventual abdication of the throne won the French the instatement of a constitutional monarchy. 

However, the constitutional monarchy under King Louis Philippe, did not differ drastically from the preceding absolutist monarchy. The government, in an attempt to stabilize the country, prohibited the continuation of radical political organizations in 1834. Political narrowness led to revolt, and following Louis Philippe's abdication of the throne, the provisional government seemed to be bright, creating a politically diverse atmosphere and opening up National Workshops for the unemployed. In 1948, the government abruptly ended the program, and the public's abhorrence materialized in the form of a four-day street battle. The end result this time was national elections that easily won Louis Napoleon Bonaparte the head position. In 1852, Louis Napoleon declared the Second Empire.

Following the French Revolution, the French public garnered an unwavering sense of nationality and liberty that they were determined not to lose sight of. The revolutions of 1830 and 1848 reveal the French public's outspokenness and rejection of any ideals that challenged the people's liberties. And although it can be said that Napoleon's imperial role was less of the independence France had fought for in the French Revolution, Napoleon maintained a likable image in France for unifying the country. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte's landslide election reveals the French people's decisiveness in what they wanted and their unfaltering determination to get what they wanted.

Response to "Response to 'Token Self-Indulgent Post'"

In response to Grace’s post, I am not sure “simplistic” is the best way to describe the Romantic period. Following the reason and harmony-driven Enlightenment and Classicism periods, Romanticism stressed emotional and imaginative artistic interpretations. Artistic conventions upheld during Classicism were challenged and reinvented. I do not think the Romantic period can be considered “simple” because of this transformation of ideals. Rather, what I believe distinguishes Romanticism from preceding periods is Romanticism’s focus on the individual. Romantic artists explored their own interpretations of nature and culture. Artists developed their own distinguished styles, based on their emotional responses to nature. Meanwhile, the Enlightenment explored universal characteristics of humanity and society. I differ with Grace in the Enlightenment’s inaccessibility. Europe witnessed increased literacy and heightened interest in political and societal dealings during the Enlightenment as middle-class people worked to both understand and debate about the philosophical conjectures of the time. But I do see Grace’s point in Romanticism’ accessibility. While Enlightenment philosophy could be pretty abstract, Romanticism’s encouragement of individuality and emotional expression allowed people to relate to the emotions articulated by Romantic artists.

Response to "Back to the Future"

As Laura explained in her entry, Coffin conveys Metternich's role as a sort of peacemaker in the Congress of Vienna. While I too found this emphasis of peace refreshing following what seemed to be a continuous parade of crusades for expansion and power, I was wary of the depiction of Metternich’s foreign policy as wholly peaceful. Laura's post inspired me to take a second look at the reading. The sometimes indeterminate nature of Coffin's narrative constructs a blurry representation of Metternich's politics, but what I found the second time around I believe provides another side to Metternich's beliefs that works with his advocacy of peace as well as a sad realization that Metternich was probably not as much a removal from the brutal and power-play politics that could have been grasped from the reading. Yes, Metternich was an influential representative in the Congress of Vienna in helping to inspire peace across Europe, but his advocacy of peace did not grow out of a will to fundamentally change the European scenery. In fact, as a hardcore conservative, Metternich argued against political and social change. While Laura pointed out that with the aid of Metternich and the Congress of Vienna, major war in Europe did not materialize again until the first world war, the common human instincts and desires that inspired past wars continued to be at play in this new encouragement for peace. Generally one could say that major instigators of European wars could be both the desire for expansion and power as well as the logic that greater power for one nation or empire in turn meant that another state had been weakened. It could be said that Metternich, while trying to stabilize Europe following the tumultuous times of Napoleon with a call for peace, had not abandoned this human quality. Coffin mentions that at the Congress of Vienna, Metternich "attempted at every term to arrange international affairs...to suit his own diplomatic designs." Metternich's "diplomatic designs"? One major one was working to keep Russia's growing strength in check. While one could argue that this is a necessary factor in trying to preserve the Congress' idea of a "balance of powers," I think it is safe to say that Metternich's allegiance to Austria and Austria's proximity to Russia influenced this focus. Although Metternich's first impulse was not to grab guns and an army to fight against Russia's growing status, Metternich used the means of foreign policy to monitor Russia’s power. This competitive and fundamentally mercantilist mindset inspired both inter-European wars as well as peacemaking strategies. Metternich and the Congress of Vienna represented a new phase in European history in which maintaining European stability and a balance of powers became major focuses. However, the principles to monitor the countries’ powers and statuses transcended Europe’s progression from the Napoleon to the reconstruction era. 

Reading: Pages 709-717

Napoleon's imperialist reign and agile conquests of European territory left a significant impression on Europe's functionality. Europe felt Napoleon's enduring legacy and it challenged nations to both restore Europe and to strengthen European nations' defiance towards imperialism in the future. The Congress of Vienna convened major European powers in order to take progressive steps in Europe's post-Napoleon reconstruction and in the creation of a system that would revolve around maintaining European stability. The Congress imposed on France various repercussions for its central role in Napoleon's reign, such as a fine of 700 million francs and the agreement to an allied army of occupation for five years. The Congress additionally disassembled Napoleon's Confederation of the Rhine, reducing the unified 300 German states to 39 states that became the German Confederation. These actions emphasized the Congress of Vienna's role in strengthening the ideal of a balance of powers; the impositions on France aimed to prevent another imperialist figure from rising as Napoleon's successor while the restructuring of the German states worked to impede on Russia's growing influence. Maintaining a balance of powers between European nations became the centralizing means of restoring and strengthening Europe, and the Congress as well as various alliances such as the Concert of Europe and the Troppau memorandum worked to  keep nations in check and to suppress revolutions that could upset Europe's balance of powers. Following Napoleon's centralized and dominating presence in Europe, European nations worked to restructure and strengthen Europe through its maintenance of a balance of powers that helped Europe avoid any major wars until World War I in 1914.