Reflections 18 - European painting, 1399-1800-

 November 5, 2025

 I look back at the signage in the introductory gallery of the revamped European painting galleries, including the assertion that the goal is to "draw out the inconsistencies and tattered edges of long-dominant storylines" and to question the assumption that there is a "Western tradition. " One can certainly question the assumption of European superiority - the holdings of the entire museum might lead one to question that assumption. 

But to me, it seems incontrovertible that there is a Western tradition, one shaped first by Christianity, then by changing political, economic, social and intellectual forces: the emergence of strong monarchies and wealthy aristocracies, the rise of the bourgeoisie, the rediscovery of classical antiquity, the Enlightenment, and so on. The Met has done visitors a service by reminding us that  much of the wealth that produced great art was itself the product of colonialism and exploitation  - is that one of the "tattered edges" to which the signage refers? - although I think it should be said that much art worldwide could not have been made without the riches acquired through conquest and exploitation.  But that doesn't make the art less great.

I have been thinking that it would be fun to develop a European history course for high school  or college students that uses painting and sculpture and architecture as vehicles for discussing historical developments.  But I wonder, too, how much of our sense of the importance  of various historical epochs is influenced by our awareness of the great art it produced. Would we value the Italian Renaissance so much if only its literary and philosophical works had been bequeathed to us? We crave visual evidence, not just the written word.

A European history course based on works in the Met would leave out a lot, however. The museum is rich in art from Western Europe - England, the Low Countries, Germany, France, Spain, Italy. But its holdings from Central and Eastern Europe and from Scandinavia, aside from armore and porcelains and maybe a few icons, strike me as quite slim. I learned hardly anything about the history of these countries, or their art, in the college history courses I took - and I was a history major.  All this isn't really a critique of the Met - I doubt the holdings of the National Gallery in London or of the Louvre in these areas are much richer.  And certainly the tsars from the 17th century on wanted to get their hands on the art of Western Europe. It's more a commentary on how much there is sto learn about art and the world.