English Art

What would the effects on the arts be of a surviving duke of Gloucester (son of Queen Anne) and a Oldenburg-Gloucester dynasty? I ask because the Baroque in English art was cut short by Anne's death, and with the Hanoverian accession - baroque/rococo were stifled (viewed as too French, ergo too Catholic and too Stuart/Jacobite) in favor of Palladianism. Also, Händel was already in London, but many English composers of this period - Arne, Brookes, Sam Wesley, Linley and Shaw etc - were passed over in favor oc Händel, Herschel and JC Bach
 
A very interesting topic. And a welcome changes from wars and marriages.

I'm afraid I don't know a lot about it though (other than I rather like baroque architecture and music).

Wren didn't die until 1723 , and Vanbrough till 1726. They didn't really have any successors as far as I can see. The 18C was given over to Vitruvius and the Earl of Burlington.

I think that you are right , and that this was in part at least a reflection of the political hegemony of the Whigs. They had a deep and abiding love affair with Italy, and particularly classic Italy.Since they were the patrons of the 18C that is what was built, written etc.

A surviving descendant of Queen Anne would presumably favour the Tories,. Who favoured Baroque (or the tradition of the Jacobean / Carolean ). Given the worship of the country gentlemen for their ancestry, would there also have been an earlier revival of the Gothic ? Or, Gothick ?
 
Wow, this is like fishing - a whole lot of waiting for a whole lot of nothing (excluding Jedediah).

I realize that this is perhaps a better question for art history than what is usually dealt with on this board, but I believe that the effects on the arts/sciences is just as important as the politics/social/economics.
 
A pity there is so little interest. Buildings, painting, music are the enduring artifacts of history, through them the past can communicate directly with us. The are in fact, living history.
 
It's important to understand that the english even more than the french baroque style was always much more classicistic / palladian with a stronger emphasis on streight lines and strict symmetry compared to the italian or austrian and south german interpretations preferring organically styled, curved and to a certain extent even asymmetric designs.

That's after all why this style is called classicism in both countries and why the style fashionable from 1770 to 1840 has to be referred to as neoclassicism while the latter is just called classicism in central Europe and the term neoclassicism there refers to its' revival in the 20th century. (This sometimes leads to misunderstandings during discussions about architecture and art between participants from central and western Europe.)
 
Last edited:
Talman would still find himself without work given that he was a very difficult personality. AFAIK the duke of Devonshire struggled to handle.him working on Chatsworth, and the Lord Carlisle found him so distasteful he engaged a man who had never designed a building in his life to rather build Castle Howard (Sir John Vanbrugh).

This prompted the quip "Van's genius without thought or lecture, is now largely turned to architecture."

Though OTOH, Michelangelo and Beethoven were likewise difficult at the best of times and there was still place for "easier" personalities like Raphael and Haydn to have an equal place in the sun.

As to organ music, I thinkyou may be right. Bach and Händel developed organ/keyboard music independently, and that was the baseline Arne worked from in his music.
 
By the way, maybe it was because Vanbrugh was a novice in architecture that Castle Howard became the example of "Baroque baroque" and not "classicist baroque" like Chatsworth.

In short - as for music, no PoD here - domestic composers will still imitate what's fashionable, and fashionable organ music was in Germany, regardless whether it's German dynasty on the throne or not. I can't see any of those guys develop their own style.
 
Top