Prompt 3

The 1840 painting by Edward Hicks, “Penn’s Treaty with the Indians” and the painting of nearly 70 years earlier, painted by Benjamin West and entitled “Treaty of Penn with Indians” are remarkably similar pieces of artworks. There is no doubt that Edward Hicks, an American limner painter, copied the image crafted by West almost directly, only flipping the image and changing minute details. The styles of the two paintings are remarkably different, and it could be the case that Hicks was attempting to apply his own folksy style to the more ‘academic’ or perhaps romantic looking West piece (It is interesting to note, however, neither of these men received formal training in art for most of their lives). As a Studio Art major, I personally believe that while West might have originally had an argument for the piece, one can only infer and use one’s own judgment to decide what this argument was. In fact, I believe that it is even possible to apply meanings to a piece that the artist did not intend at all. This does not make the arguments less valid, as long as it is noted that the artist’s intentions or arguments may have been completely different than what the viewer infers from it, and that the viewer most definitely interprets a piece depending upon their own filter, values, and environment. Thus, drawing arguments from pieces, especially ones of a different time period than which the viewer lives, is a precarious business and it is probably not a good idea to say the artist of any piece felt any particular way. I personally believe that one can, however, draw vague ideas out of a piece, and make educated guesses about what the artist was probably trying to express when he or she made the piece, especially if we have other evidence such as the time period in which the artist lived, other pieces created by the artist, or writings by the artist or other primary source. I suppose if I were to generalize my point here, I would say that think visual rhetoric is not so reliable as written rhetoric, as visual art is generally more open to interpretation than writing (though written rhetoric can also be a bit hazy, if we consider different things like different translations of language or vague meanings of words).

Well, the point of this prompt was to explain the arguments of these two pieces, and I don't believe I have done that up to this point. However, I felt like I needed to make a distinction between the artists and the art that they made. Sometimes, artists don't make pieces with arguments in mind, consciously at least; arguments are applied to their pieces later by viewers. We talked a lot in class about these pieces as well, so I figured I'd say something different. Also, helpful to note neither of these artists saw the actual event they're depicting. Onto the analysis.

Left to right bias: Does it indicate importance, or establishment? By putting the natives or white men on either side, it may change how an individual interprets the piece. Either way, the natives and the white men are separate. This may indicate them being separate entities, not -too- good friends, just different parties partaking in this contract. Focal point: I believe it is kneeling vest man and sitting Indian across from him in both paintings. I don't think this indicates much, but it may be that this treaty is taking a while so they wanted to sit down. Maybe they're getting more comfortable with each other. It would different if every one was standing up. More guarded. The artists may have made this decision of focal point consciously, maybe not. The tree provides a frame for the piece and the sky/sea region provides open space so the eye can rest. The native with the baby is in the light in the West painting; while she is in darkness in the Hicks. I believe this may be interpreted to make the natives seem more personal and friendly (also in closeness to viewer) while the Hicks, they look more distant, mysterious. I emphasize again I don't believe Hicks intended this, West may have just been a little more talented in portraying light.

I could go on for ages about different things I see in these two paintings, but I feel like those major points are sufficient.