What are your thoughts on the following statement by arguably the first true “artist” born and raised in what we call America or The United States?
“It is a pleasing reflection that I shall stand amongst the first of the artists that shall have led the country (America) to the knowledge and cultivation of fine arts, happy in the pleasing reflection that they will one day shine with lustre nor inferior to what they have done in Greece or Rome in my native country.” (John Singleton Copley, letter to Henry Pelham (late 18th or early 19th century)
Copley saw himself as the first native-born artist in the colonies. And yet, Copley knew without hesitation that for him to fulfill his destiny as an artist, he would have to go to Europe and observe first hand the great work by his predecessors. Just before the American Revolution, Copley made the career move and left the colonies (Boston) and resided for the rest of his life in London. True, Copley traveled through Europe to view the great masters, but he settled in London as an ex-patriot.
I think it is important to understand true diversity in art and in any subject you must travel to understand the complexities around the subject. I think american artists (especially the “first” american artist) at that time period in history was one of the only record of visual interpretation. It not only shows creative vision but also a representation of how the world was in terms of culture, impression and imagination. I think it would have been very intimidating to be the first in a foreign area but also exciting to be exposed to something different. It is a beautiful thing to be inspired and exposed to something that changes our very existence and perspective and makes us different than we were before.
My first thought is that nothing is holistically original and we can’t really take full credit for the ideas we come up with and the actions that we make. Our ideas most always come from some kind of precedent – we take inspiration from those precedents and cultivate ideas that have connections to those precedents. In art and architecture those precedents become the basis of our design processes – we ask what can we learn from this and how can we represent it or abstract it in our final deliverable.
Copley may have been able to say that he was one of the “first true artists” in the colonies that led the country to the cultivation of the arts. He may have been one of the first “artists” to jump start the cultivation of the arts but he can’t say that the ideas were all his, especially because he knew he had to revisit work by his European predecessors. 17th century colonies put more importance on their survival than going beyond that and having luxuries and cultivating art – Copley could have just been the first to see something he could take credit for and bring it into the colonies.
Copley’s thoughts in regards to “leading” the first American artists is very interesting, considering art has been on the American soil for so much longer. It reflects to the colonialism that was eagerly spreading to the Americas that all life and civilization before their arrival didn’t exist. They don’t acknowledge the Native Americans and their arts and culture in any way. It is also interesting in how he choses to state that one day the artists of America will also rival those from Greece and Rome, which is infamous for its art and culture. I wonder if he is referencing to the quality of works that come from those regions or the length of their art presence?
I find it interesting on the life of Copley that even after leaving the colonies to live in London, Copley saw himself as an ex-patriot. It seems that the reason he left is to avoid war, rather than a want to abandon the colonies–a reasonable decision in my opinion.
Respectfully, it sounds like Copley had a sort of superiority complex about him. Like it’s his duty to single-handedly bring the greatness that were the Greek and Roman arts to the New World
Respectfully, it sounds like Copley had a sort of superiority complex about him. Like it’s his duty to single-handedly bring the greatness that were the Greek and Roman arts to the New World.
Copley takes notice that as time passes on, people one day will look back at his artwork as a cultivation of a moment in time, a significant period for fine art. Just as he views the work of the great masters of Greece and Rome as a significant body work. As an artist, he has learned from his predecessors/the masters. As new generations of artists come, they will look back at Copley’s work and learn as well. As art students, we engage in this culture. This is why we take art history classes. We look back at the masters, we look back at artists like Copley and learn from them.
It’s a nice sentiment that Copley thought that he would be among those who would bring America to the esteemed ranks of Greece and Rome in terms of art (disregard for Native Americans notwithstanding), but I find it ironic that after he made his assertion he departed the United States altogether. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, that this comment was made in confidence to a friend, as it was written in a letter, but that letter was to the Prime Minister of Britain, so I can only imagine that he believed the claim he was making. Although, who’s to say why he didn’t return to America in the end? Better work in Europe? Started a family? Hopefully it was for a good reason, since he clearly didn’t end up returning to America to “[lead] the country.”
Hi everyone,
I have seen a few comments saying that Copley had a superiority complex or that he was in some way fraudulent because of him becoming an ex-pat but truly when you think about it, America as a new country had nothing. There is no basis of what American art should be during this time, and it seems that Copley was a young man about college age, so why would he not pursue a higher education in a place where it matters when again, America had nothing. The only way that this could arguably be achieved is if someone had brought their European mentor to the states and had them teach on American soil, which is not what Copley did.
If the argument is whether Copley was the first American artist I would say yes, since he was born on American soil. But was he invalidated by the fact that he had to travel to Europe to truly learn how to create art? I don’t think so.
I believe it’s a great idea that Copley introduced the general idea of fine arts from different countries and have them introduced into America. Especially bringing in the diversity in arts for others to come to admire and learn from than being close-minded into just one country of its arts. If we only knew what American art was, who knows how art would of developed differently without broadening our knowledge learning from other countries and taking inspiration from. Maybe inspiration, or even same ideas but different approaches into the work of art.
It’s interesting to know that he first saw himself as a true patriot to share the knowledge of art from Europe but soon became an ex-patriot. He might of had a whole change of heart for the arts there that he decided to settle in. I probably wouldn’t blame him either being introduced to new knowledge and fascination which can help me better my interest in art.
I thought that Copley’s quote was interesting because he seemed very confident within his words and that is something you should always feel. It seems as if he just knew that his own work was so good that, he knew people would come back and look at the artwork for inspiration and new studies.
I think it’s great that Copley decided to travel Europe to admire and study the artwork of the great masters. It is a great way to gain inspiration by observing other’s artwork and studying their techniques. When I lived in France, I had the opportunity to visit the Louvre and I am so lucky to have had that experience to view the artwork of the masters up close.
Ironically enough, I think Copley’s statement says a lot about Americans in the way that we often tend to think very highly of ourselves without acknowledging that we did not get to where we are without help. It’s odd that he would claim to be among the first of the great fine artists of America, when this is just not true. We have to recognize the fact that there were people creating art on the land way before it became known as “America” by the rest of the world. I also find it quite funny that someone who would claim to want to lead America in the world of art would find himself living out the rest of his life elsewhere, as opposed to staying here and truly helping cultivate and grow the art of his native country.
In reading what seems to be a short excerpt from Copley’s letter there is a lot to uncover and think about. Firstly, the way in which he considers himself of the first artist; I wonder what led him to that conclusion. Secondly, I appreciate his decision to travel and experience art and his predecessors; there is always more that can be learned in any field and there are some things that can only be learned through first hand experience.
Lizbeth Ramirez | Art 474
My initial reaction to reading the statement is that I wasn’t sure how to respond. Apart of me wants to think about the “arguably the first true ‘artist’,” of the Americas part because it really is a bit of a controversy. Considering that before Copley resided Native Americans and their art. I guess it’s just a matter of what they believed and considered fine art at the time. It’s also interesting to note that he went to Europe to observe and learn from the artistic culture there. I think it would have been interesting to see how art would’ve looked if he had not gone back to Europe. What kind of influence would they have instead?
I think Copley understood that just because he was a “first of his kind” he still needed to learn from the past in order to improve and refine his own craft. Any artists knows that while they’re skill may been seen as good by their peers one’s personal growth is something to always strive to improve upon. Often times an artist will being to improve when surrounded by other great artists and artwork that they can learn and gain inspiration from. I also believe that all of the great works and artists in England are doing the same, and are also learning from master’s of the past as well.
I think that Copley’s thoughts are ironic when he is considered an ex-patriot. I also think that his views of being one of the “first native-born artist of the colonies “stays true to the ideals of colonialism. The ideals that colonizers are superior or that they are the founders of a civil people. I think he is reflecting what some colonists felt their duty was as they went “exploring” the lands that were foreign to them. I think that they sought to take their culture and to somehow make it known. I think that his statement reflects a lot of this pride in one’s origins. Although, what Copley is doing is no different from what other artists have done, which is to look at past great artists.
It is a pretty bold claim for someone from Colonial America to assume that they are the first to do something when there have been people living in the territory for far longer. Was Copley the first artist from an American colony? It would be very hard to confirm or deny this fact, but he certainly isn’t the first artist from the land. There has been art created by Native Americans and even cave paintings from the dawn of man found here. It is good to feel a sense of motivation, but he put himself on a pedestal as a consequence for it.
I find it interesting that Copely claims to be the first artist born in the colonies when art has existed in the colonies far before he or any other colonizer called America their home. His statement reflects what larger society valued at that time, art that followed the style and values of the places he wanted to visit. He and those who regarded him as one of the first true American artists did not find value or significance in the artworks of other cultures, such as Native Americans. Instead, they misunderstood their art, attributing their artistic styles and culture to a lack of intelligence and technical capabilities. It seems that he viewed himself as a catalyst for the art movement in the colonies. With him wishing to educate himself on the great artworks of his predecessors in order to shape and define American artistic values and practices within the same light as those in Europe.
I agree with classmates who pointed out Copley’s egoism toward art. Although undoubtedly talented, he seems to be arguing that only endeavors of a certain aesthetic amounted to true art, and that it was he alone – or among few – who were responsible for introducing this fine thing to America. I disagree that only one aesthetic or medium defines “fine” art, but taking the time period and context of Copley’s quote into regard, many movements revolutionary artists were yet to be created. Without modernism, dada, cubism, etc – which amounts to our context for “fine art” – we could also be viewing the art world as this narrow thing consisting of only classical, lifelike representations. Either way, taken by this quote alone, the guy sounds kind of like a jerk.
I think this statement by Copley is, ironically enough, very representative of us as Americans. We tend to try to lay claim to something that does not always belong to us. In this case, Copley is claiming to be one of the first to lead the country in the world of art, but this is just not true. By saying this, he minimizes—if not gets rid of altogether—the role of Native Americans and their history of art before this land became known as “America.” It is somewhat admirable that he wanted to equate the art from America to that of the Greeks and Romans, but it’s also kind of funny that he would feel the need to leave America all together to do so.
Copley’s experiences in historical painting were the more successful to obtain great resemblances of personages and right accessories of their periods. He traveled much in England to make investigations of old representations and genuine territories and, at the end, he decided to stay in London because he felt he has changed a lot. In my opinion, it is something delightful to be presented to something that changes our actual viewpoint and makes us not the same as we were previously.
Copley’s statement about leading America to the cultivation of fine arts is an interesting statement that initially seems a bit self-focused. However, American being the new country it was, did not have any fine arts education, culture, or even possibly showings for the general public. Copley’s quote gives a sense of determination. He wanted to bring America’s new civilization into the era of luxury faster than other countries or civilizations did. Fine arts does not develop overnight; it takes many generations of appreciation before it truly starts reflecting the socioeconomics, morals, ideals, way of life of those who painted them. As it says in the Powerpoint, Colonial Architecture was more focused on function than style, just as the first buildings in Rome were not column-based with statues or marble. The city of Rome developed into the beautiful art it is through religion, economics, preferences, and enlightenment. Those of Colonial America where resettles from France, Spain, Britain, Russa, etc., it would make sense that America would develop a collective fin arts quicker than other countries did, and I think Copley possibly saw this and wanted to cultivate it.
Copley’s goal of furthering his own understanding and knowledge of art is pretty well meaning considering that inspiration can come from so many places including works of that are in a different place or that were made before he even existed. With that in mind, I would question a little the application of it and how his idea of “fine art” to learn is only very focused on European countries when there could also be works to look at that are actually native to America made by people who have first lived there. It was good to look outside and try to bring it in the country but the whole process could have been a conversation that introduced newer, different works to America and American/native could have been introduced to the world.
Test
My initial thoughts are that at the Colonial times, America was still a new country the country was in process of building, many European immigrants were coming with the ships. Copley made a selfish decision to immigrate to London, because at the time, London, and West Europe were civilized place with lots of intellectual potentials, and compare to the United States, where everything was in process of creation. Copley is an ex-patriot, because he decided not to fight and build the Colonial American society, and he had looked only at his own life.
What I find the most interesting about this post is the fact that Copley saw himself and acknowledged being one of the first artists born and raised in the United States and yet chose to go to Europe to further his artistic career. He took such pride in claiming that title, but at the same time it feels as though he knew there wasn’t that much weight to it when there were greater works he could learn from elsewhere. I think it’s easy to consider Copley full of himself when you take the statement at face value, but when considering the bigger picture being “the first American artist” was simply another aspect of who Copley was as an artist.
I believe it was both wise and honorable for John Copley to share his knowledge of fine arts among Americans. By doing so, the American society should be able to expand its culture, education, creativity in fine arts. Also, by learning about fine arts from both Greece and Rome, the American society would achieve both a greater cultural and historical understanding of both different countries and civilizations. In addition, I believe it was wise for Copley to travel to different countries to learn their own unique art styles. By learning about different types of art from different countries, Copley could both experiment, improve, and develop his own unique art style. Also, it allowed Copley to both learn and understand the cultural perspectives of each country. Finally, I believe Copley’s pursuit of both art and knowledge could be inspirational to both Americans and artists. Copley showed both a strong passion and dedication towards learning about different types of art. His efforts could motivate artists to learn more about art history, movements, and styles from different civilizations. John Copley left America to both learn and share about different types of art in the world. Both his actions and efforts proved to be influential in America’s development.
I believe it was honorable for John Copley to share his knowledge of fine arts among Americans. By doing so, the American society should be able to expand its culture, education, creativity in fine arts. Also, by learning about fine arts from both Greece and Rome, the American society would achieve both a greater cultural and historical understanding of both different countries and civilizations. In addition, I believe it was wise for Copley to travel to different countries to learn their own unique art styles. By learning about different types of art from different countries, Copley could both experiment, improve, and develop his own unique art style. Also, it allowed Copley to both learn and understand the cultural perspectives of each country. Finally, I believe Copley’s pursuit of both art and knowledge could be inspirational to both Americans and artists. Copley showed both a strong passion and dedication towards learning about different types of art. His efforts could motivate artists to learn more about art history, movements, and styles from different civilizations. John Copley left America to both learn and share about different types of art in the world. Both his actions and efforts proved to be influential in America’s development.
I feel like it is a bit unusual to call yourself the first “American” Fine artist but spend the majority of your life in Europe. The whole part about him needing to go to Europe to see the work of his predecessors is not really that mind-blowing as that was happening all the time. People (especially artists) tens to look at Rome and Greece when it comes to almost every facet in society, even the things that the Greeks and the Romans failed at. But it seem more like he wanted the title of being the first American Fine Artist but his statement does feel more self-centered which takes away some of the value for me.
Copley’s comment was self-center and narrowed minded to me at first. Yet, if I applied historical background I can understand his passion. Like how other master goes to Greece or Rome for inspiration, Copley thinks that he should learn from the European. The history of art is developed based on previous ideologies, and it keeps evolving. Looking back, the history of America is only around two hundred years, it’s history of art is not any longer. Yet, we’ve already seem how fast art has been changing in the last decades. We can barely recognized the influence from traditional art. I consider that the history are still waiting to be made, and there are another kind of art movement that are lead by artist like Copley. They too, consider themselves as one of the first who would make new history.
I thought the intent was good in bringing in art from different places into a new country but it probably could have been executed a little bit better. It’s a missed opportunity of maybe not only introducing new and unfamiliar art works to America but also introducing the then American art works to the world. There are so much works of art by Native people who lived in the country first and they also deserve to be looked at and studied.
I think Copley’s quote is pretty interesting, but also boastful. I can also see why he worded it that way though because, at the time, America was a new country that didn’t really have anything to it. Though he is also ignoring the Native Americans and their culture and arts, which is something I would have considered before making a quote like this. I think the only reason for this was that he had a specific view of art, being from a different country, and not used to seeing other forms of it. It’s also interesting how he says how art will thrive in America because he was one of the cultivators of it, but he says, “inferior to what they have done in Greece or Rome in my native country.” It makes me think that he didn’t like the direction art was going, so he doesn’t consider it “true” art like he thinks that art is objective rather than subjective.
After reading this statement, my first impression was that Copley was set on introducing America to the cultivation of fine arts. It’s interesting to say that he was the first real native-born artist in this colony. He may have been the first, of course, but I can’t agree that the ideas brought to this new land were initially his. To understand how fine arts evolved over time, one will have to learn about the past, and then bring that information into a new place. Usually, much of the inspiration comes from older works, which is why Copley traveled to Europe to understand the masters of fine arts. I agree with Danielle Thompson’s response that the statement offers a sense of determination. America was only in its early stages, and things were not happening overnight. So, instead of being self-centered, I think his intention was to bring something that could last for a long time.
After reading Copley’s statement I find it interesting to look back at everyone’s comments about how Copley comes off a tooting his own horn. Which no matter what way you look at it that is what he is doing in a sense. Understanding the time period Copley lived in gives an interesting outlook on what people considered as fine art during his era. Copley says that he stands as one of few who brought knowledge about fine art to America which he compares to European. It highlights the way people would undermine Native American culture which has developed its own form of arts well before the settlement of the colonies. Bringing focus and “fame” to the popular majority.
I think Copley’s statement puts himself on a higher pedestal than American history would have given him. Although, I think hid ultimate move to move to London and travel Europe in hope to better himself as an artist is a bold one any American-born artist should love the privilege to have. Inevitably, to study art is to study the masters, it is to study other culture, and it is study on your own terms. Copley happened to do that early on in American history. I think, especially in the colonial period, American art was less art itself and instead architecture to focus on their survival in a new nation. The only art that existed was that of the Native Americans living at the time, within their own culture, so the colonists would have barely been learning about their own culture from what interactions they would have had. At the time, the American interior of their homes were so bare-boned from what little could be carried by men across the ocean, art didn’t have a super significant aspect in the culture yet. It is interesting, though, to get an idea of the mental perception Copley would have for being one of the first “true American artists.”
Copley seemed to enjoy the fact that he was one of the first “American” artists, however after reading the information given through the powerpoint slides, it seems as though the early colonist leaned heavily on the influence of European culture. While it would have been a daring task to return to Europe at the time he did, I think Copley identified more with his European ancestry than his American birthplace. It would be very difficult to separate yourself from this culture and start a new style of “American” art, so in no way do I blame him, but I am not sure I would consider him an “American” artist as his style rested heavily on European culture.
Although Copley was of the first American artists, he could not have been that impactful. He moved back to London to get some inspiration and never returned. I wasn’t there but his goal to be on the frontier and shine as hard as the classics couldn’t have been met. He left America just before one of its most significant historical events happened and never returned because of it. Copley didn’t use European art as mere inspiration to further American art, he merely just switched over to European art.
I think it’s interesting that he saw himself as the first native-born artist considering the history of colonial America. America was rapidly developing and changing during this time and I can see how he might think that at the time as it does fit in with the colonial bias and mindset that is a big part of western art history. It is also interesting that he lived the rest of his life in Europe although he considered himself one of the first artists that will lead America in fine arts. It’s definitely important to branch out, observe, and study artworks of other cultures and countries, especially in this case considering Europe’s history and influence on colonial America, but I can see how people might question his view of being one of the first and leading American artists after settling as an ex-patriot. Ultimately, I think at the time this view and statement would fit, but America was constantly and rapidly changing socially and culturally so I can see why people might look into it more.
I value and appreciate Copley’s awareness of what it took to expand hi knowledge as an artist by traveling back to Europe. Travel is essential for an artist to expand their knowledge on artistic styles, trends, and history. With the development of Colonial American, the focus was more on survival than the arts. Other than nature (which is also great inspiration for an artist), Europe was had more resources for Copley to grow as an artist.
I feel as though Copley may have been a bit full of himself based on what was said, though at the same time I kind of get it. After all, the colonialization of America was still recent at the time and to put so much pride on himself, considering the circumstances, seems to add up. However it also comes off extremely ignorant. After all, he wasn’t the first artist in the territory. I would consider any number of Native Americans to be more deserving of the title of “first American artist.” There is also the fact that his style didn’t even deviate much from Europe’s from what I understand. I will say, his works were still impressive. Some are very creative and intriguing, and much of his works are synonymous with what many may perceive as modern American art (the kinds like that one painting of Washington crossing the Delaware). I just feel as though the title he argues for is a bit muddied in the dark roots of America’s history.
I feel as though Copley had made a bold claim in stating that he was the first true American artist. Copley wasn’t creating new waves in the art world by influencing his American art. Honestly, Copley seems like he was a scared man who didn’t want to pave the way for revolution; he played it safe. Most artist would have travelled the world to improve their skills, but Copley stayed in London. He was no longer considered a patriot, yet he acted like the hero that America needed. There was not ONE single first American artist; art in America was created just like the colonies: with one unified force. If art was the only way to keep America alive, Copley most definitely would not have left an impact.
I think that even though Copley was one of the very first American artists, he was a bit too full of himself for what he believed he was doing. The quote of what he wrote in his letter made it sound like he was at the forefront of the fine arts movement in America in the 18th and 19th centuries, but in the end, he ended up leaving for London and staying there for the rest of his life. In a way, I think that he was just putting himself up on a pedestal and feeding his artistic ego. Looking at his work, one could see the influence European art had on him as an artist. Art tends to take inspiration from previous cultures, so seeing how his work was in a way connected to his European ancestors makes sense. Regarding his style and influences, I do not think I would consider Copley an “American” artist. Seeing as how there is a large influence of European styles and how he eventually moved to Europe to continue doing art, he is just an artist that was born in America, rather than an “American” artist that was leading the fine arts movement in the States.