Early American Art: Difference between revisions
From WikiDemocracy
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 329: | Line 329: | ||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_art_of_the_United_States by WIKIPEDIA] | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_art_of_the_United_States by WIKIPEDIA] | ||
In colonial America, folk art grew out of artisanal craftsmanship in communities that allowed commonly trained people to individually express themselves, distinct from the high art tradition that dominated Europe, which was less accessible and generally less relevant to American settlers.[4] | In colonial America, folk art grew out of artisanal craftsmanship in communities that allowed commonly trained people to individually express themselves, distinct from the high art tradition that dominated Europe, which was less accessible and generally less relevant to American settlers.[4] | ||
=====Prints of the American Indian, 1670–1775===== | |||
[https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/781 by BRADFORD F. SWAN] | |||
PERHAPS not strangely, Americans, prior to the opening of the West, showed very little interest in depicting the Indian. So far as I know, only four portraits of Indians were painted in this country before the American Revolution: the portrait of Ninigret, sachem of the Niantics, by an unidentified artist, which descended in the Winthrop family and is now in the Rhode Island School of Design Museum Of Art; the portrait of the Rev. Samson Occom, Eleazar Wheelock’s Indian preacher, by Nathaniel Smibert, now in the Bowdoin College collection; and the portraits of Tishcohan and Lapowinsa, Delaware Indians who had taken part in the notorious “walking purchase” of Indian lands, painted by Gustavus Hesselius for John Penn in 1735 and now in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. | |||
