The Neo-Classic Creed

Neo-Classicism, which was a revival of interest in Roman and Greek classics and the theories of Aristotle, began in Italy, developed further in France during the reign of Louis XIV and then later spread to England. The Neo-classicists, particularly the French ones, wished to adhere strictly to the aesthetic rules formulated by the Sages of Antiquity, particularly Aristotle, but in reality misinterpreted the latter's writings and sometimes mistakenly even conferred on him things he had never written. Even so, Neo-Classic art and literature, in stark contrast to the Metaphysical madness before it, came across as well-ordered, balanced, and sane. It was exactly suited to the Seventeenth Century - an era that saw the emergence of the scientific and rational spirit, clear thinking and restrained expression. In England, writers like Sir Philip Sidney, Ben Jonson, and John Dryden were some of the noted Neo-Classicists, though, like the French, they bent the rules to suit them. As time went by, though, as with most things, the spirit of the movement was overwhelmed by the rules that increasingly became rigid and unwilling to accept any difference of opinion or change. And this, of course, let to a revolt against Neo-Classicism and led to the rise of Romanticism. Art History, no different from any other really, is a record of the rise and fall of different ideas and movements.

Let us have a look at the ideas behind the Neo-Classicist Creed :

1. The idea that was central to Neo-Classicism was that of following nature. However nature took on several different meanings here. First there was the obvious external reality to be imitated in order to produce realistic art. There was also the nature that maintained the balance and harmony in the world. Then there was the Universal reality - the general nature of human beings. Then the personal reality - the nature of the individual. Since the Ancient Greeks and Romans had already deeply pondered on the above mentioned aspects and incorporated them very successfully in their art and literature, the Neo-Classicists decided to save themselves unnecessary legwork and simply accept their work as the ultimate starting point. Any future work was to be done only after having taken into account these existing ideas.

2. Emphasis was laid on correctness, reason, and good sense. Moderation, as in life, was to be a key feature in art as well. It was understood that it perhaps would not be possible to do away entirely with artistic exuberance, license, and fancy flights, but these were to be kept strictly in check.

3. The art work had to deal only with universal truths and general ideas. Since this was not likely to engender much originality - as everyone more or less with the same idea is what makes a universal truth - the Neo-Classicists decided that, okay, if we can't create something absolutely new, let's polish into perfection what we can manage. This, I think, puts them curiously enough on more or less the same platform as the Metaphysical artists. These latter gave way to unbridled imagination and astonishing fancies and attempted to create sense from the chaos. The Neo-Classicists attempted to dress up sense with high-minded rhetoric and sometimes succeeded in creating chaos.

4. The art work had to instruct as well as delight. The Neo-Classicists were definitely not people who subscribed to the latter-day theory of Art for Art's sake. It's highly likely that they would have been horrified by most of the modern stuff, where artists are not hemmed in by any boundaries and sometimes can be found digging their own graves by attempting to prove the sheer banality of their work, their own existences, and any appreciation that comes their way. The Neo-Classicists had no interest in recording the meaninglessness of the Universe. As far as they were concerned there was a lot of meaning out there - already recorded by the Greeks and Romans, of course - and all they had to do was reinterpret it along the same lines and convey it to the general public. The public was to go home with not just a surfeit of beautiful images, but even some beautiful ideas to imagine and think over.

5. Decorum and Dignity was to be maintained. There was to be none of that artistic posturing and extravagance that we are accustomed to - this in itself can be construed as posturing, of course, especially as the Neo-Classicists didn't hold themselves back in using - over-using - noble, elevated, and verbose styles that don't - and probably shouldn't - come naturally to everyone.

There is no doubt that the Neo-classicists came up with some very interesting and beautiful works and the Art World is richer for them, but Salvador Dali and I would have both wilted in the atmosphere.

Reference :

The History of Art, Edited by Bernard Myers and Trewin Copplestone, Published by Hamlyn, 1990.