[KS] Kim and Washington

george katsiaficas katsiaficasg at wit.edu
Thu Oct 7 06:16:25 EDT 2010


Dear Frank,

The painting you posted, "Washington Crossing the Delaware," is by George
Caleb Bingham, not Sully, and belongs to the collection of the Chrysler
Museum in Norfolk, Virginia--not Boston's MFA.

Bingham's piece is quite different than Sully's ("The Passage of the
Delaware)". In the latter, the juxtaposition of the horse and rider against
the landscape below as well as the waving hand of the "father's" nearby
companion are salient aspects of its formal similarity to the Korean piece
and are not shared by Bingham's portrayal.

George 


> From: Frank Hoffmann <hoffmann at koreaweb.ws>
> Reply-To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 12:25:54 -0700
> To: <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Kim and Washington
> 
> Thanks George. In the first 'quick draft' of my
> last email to the list I had included a joking
> remark that Jane Portal could then hang Sully's
> Washington battle scene together with the Kim &
> Kim painting, just the way you presented them.
> (We met in Vienna last month.) *But* I then
> "corrected" myself as I thought what was the
> 'famous' Sully piece at the MFA was the one
> entitled "Washington Crossing the Delaware" --
> see here, about 2/3 down the page:
> http://www.artexpertswebsite.com/pages/artists/sully.php
> 
> ------ q u o t e (from above URL) ------
> Sully was commissioned to create a full length
> portrait of George Washington and instead,
> painted a massive historical scene of Washington
> crossing the Delaware. This is considered to be
> his most famous painting, though at the time, it
> cost Sully a great deal of frustration and
> expense. The patron that originally commissioned
> this piece from him found it too large and Sully
> was left with this massive composition and no one
> to buy it. This painting is now housed at the
> Museum of Fine arts in Boston.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Now, looking at the MFA website link you just
> provided, this above website obviously puts the
> wrong image for the text that goes with it! The
> more famous Sully painting was obviously "The
> Passage of the Delaware" (as mentioned in the
> description). I thus ended up thinking it must be
> one of the many Hicks paintings that you had
> posted. Furthermore, the small size of the posted
> image did not allow for much of an analysis --
> that's why I referred to the large online image
> (of another Hicks version) when talking about the
> treatment of colors and background.
> 
> Taken all together, this certainly devaluates my
> references to folk art all together (IN THAT
> COMPARISON). Yet, it does not put any weight onto
> the comparison of the two paintings (Sully's and
> the North Korean) in itself. From an art
> historical point of view these are stylistically
> far apart, and also far apart (as I tried to
> explain) from the point of historical development
> ... that is, how the North Korean painters ended
> up with that kind of image. It may well work for
> a popular magazine like the Economist to present
> such a comparison (but looking this up, the
> magazine did not do that), and I can understand
> that many people might "go for it" -- but it is
> not a serious approach, it is not an art
> historical analysis, just mockery. Was it meant
> that way? It only works *to some degree* by
> blending out many other facts and circumstances.
> However, some time in the 1990s, as I mentioned
> in another private email to you, I saw a similar
> piece in one of the South Korean art magazines
> (maybe Wôlgan misul or Kana at'û -- it would take
> me too long to locate that now), where the very
> same North Korean painting had also been compared
> to a historical battle scene painting, either one
> showing Napoleon or also Washington. Comparing
> paintings that are 170 years apart only goes so
> far ... that is, not very far. EVEN THOUGH we
> talk about North Korea, and everyone and their
> grandma seem to feel the urge to be more flashy
> than North Korean propaganda itself, this is not
> helpful in understanding North Korean art--and
> thereby understanding what kind of developments
> went on in North Korea, and how all the various
> pieces relate to each other. I personally would
> prefer to make the joke or ironic remark AFTER
> having tried to do a serious analysis, not to
> start an analysis. But this is just me. Yet, I
> hope at least those in Korean Studies would agree.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Frank
> 
> Post Scriptum:
> Photoshop always does the job to get the message
> out far more brilliant, no need to bother with
> art history then :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> --------------------------------------
> Frank Hoffmann
> http://koreaweb.ws





More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list