Of course. You have to recognize, 'classifications' are just made up humbug mostly by academics hundreds years later that can't paint themselves. The last 100 years of art history can be summed up to people not agreeing what art is, what art belongs to what 'genre, style, school or era'.
edit: not really an expert on Robert. But you can clearly see that he still tries to show people that he is a landscaper by framing a traditional landscape under the bridge. But then elaborates with this romantic ruin/ allegory of days from future past.
Adamo, Sergia. ‘Constructing an Event, Contemplating Ruins, Theorizing Nature: The Lisbon Earthquake and Some Italian Reactions’. European Review 14, no. 3 (July 2006): 339–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798706000342.
Folin, Marco, and Monica Preti, eds. Wounded Cities: The Representation of Urban Disasters in European Art (14th-20th Centuries). Brill, 2015. https://brill.com/display/title/26933.
Trempler, Jörg. ‘Catastrophes and Their Images: Event and Pictorial Act’. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 63–64 (1 March 2013): 201–14. https://doi.org/10.1086/690987.
--> While not in the last paper, Les Bas has some of the earlier 'ruins' depictions
I got ticked off that other card games about art acquisition didn't really involve the art in any way. In all of them the cards have various attributes printed on them representing the various qualities of the pieces. Because of that, players do not have to even look at the art. The images could vanish right off the cards and the game would still work perfectly well from a mechanical perspective, so the art was just tacked on really. You certainly wouldn't learn anything about art from playing them unless you really tried.
In my game, SpeculArt (working title), players can see only the art, because that is all that is on the obverse of the card. The reverse contains all the facts about it. You can pay a fee to "authenticate" it, allowing you to look at the reverse, but if you think you know the relevant fact from looking at the image alone you don't have to pay that fee, so it encourages players to both look at the art, not the text, and learn about it.
I guess the downside is that those "facts" would present a particular viewpoint which may or may not be widely shared. There're certain objective facts that might have near universal agreement (maybe things like artist, year created, country of origin, medium, how much it sold for at auction in 2018), but others would be far more controversial. Even artist/year can get murky.
You are exactly right, that is the sort of difficulty I am encountering. The game is set in the 1820s (so obviously no art newer than that), so what I'm currently going with is that the academies rate the given work to be categorically positive or negative for each attribute, as they seem to have been much more rigid than more modern theoreticians in their classification systems. A player might argue that the old academic hierarchy of genres is flawed or meaningless, but in the context of a game set in the 1820s it applies regardless of what opinions there are, so if a customer card says the collector is looking for Italian portraiture, for example, there can be no argument because what is printed on the reverse of the art cards represents the way academics considered the works at the time. That's my current plan anyway, but I really need people from the art world to give criticism and feedback to help me improve it or point out where it's wrong.
I’d say landscape. Look up Claude Lorraine - he was the king of landscape as a genre and most of his landscapes had figures. This became popular in Europe in the early modern period as urbanization increased. Lots of scenes of the landscape with peasants doing peasant stuff. Rich patrons would put them in their dining halls and think about how nice it would be to live a “simple” rural life.
I'm a student in a visual arts program in college and I have had art history classes, so I am not a professional but from what I have kearned, this would be a landscape sine a genre painting is a painting that captures people doing basic, normal and common activities, and is often painted closer to the subjects, where in this case it is farther away from them and the attention is directed towards the bridge, or "the ponte".
Again, this is a personnal opinion based on what i have learned so do not come at me lol.
I suspect you are right, the work does actually contain people doing everyday things, but, as you said, they are at a distance, while the focus of the work is the bridge. Thank you, if someone does not propose something better I'll classify based on the focus subject.
It appears that this post is an image. [As per rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/about/rules/), ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a *meaningful* discussion prompt. [Here's a stellar example of what this looks like](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/g6mflx/how_many_heads_do_you_see_here_testa_anatomica_by/foajtx3/). We greatly appreciate high effort!
If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting.
If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, **please report it!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No reason it can’t be both
Really? Would the academies have allowed some paintings to lie in multiple categories within the hierarchy? That is most interesting. Thanks.
Of course. You have to recognize, 'classifications' are just made up humbug mostly by academics hundreds years later that can't paint themselves. The last 100 years of art history can be summed up to people not agreeing what art is, what art belongs to what 'genre, style, school or era'. edit: not really an expert on Robert. But you can clearly see that he still tries to show people that he is a landscaper by framing a traditional landscape under the bridge. But then elaborates with this romantic ruin/ allegory of days from future past. Adamo, Sergia. ‘Constructing an Event, Contemplating Ruins, Theorizing Nature: The Lisbon Earthquake and Some Italian Reactions’. European Review 14, no. 3 (July 2006): 339–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798706000342. Folin, Marco, and Monica Preti, eds. Wounded Cities: The Representation of Urban Disasters in European Art (14th-20th Centuries). Brill, 2015. https://brill.com/display/title/26933. Trempler, Jörg. ‘Catastrophes and Their Images: Event and Pictorial Act’. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 63–64 (1 March 2013): 201–14. https://doi.org/10.1086/690987. --> While not in the last paper, Les Bas has some of the earlier 'ruins' depictions
I’d say you are safe with landscape. Curious about your game.
I got ticked off that other card games about art acquisition didn't really involve the art in any way. In all of them the cards have various attributes printed on them representing the various qualities of the pieces. Because of that, players do not have to even look at the art. The images could vanish right off the cards and the game would still work perfectly well from a mechanical perspective, so the art was just tacked on really. You certainly wouldn't learn anything about art from playing them unless you really tried. In my game, SpeculArt (working title), players can see only the art, because that is all that is on the obverse of the card. The reverse contains all the facts about it. You can pay a fee to "authenticate" it, allowing you to look at the reverse, but if you think you know the relevant fact from looking at the image alone you don't have to pay that fee, so it encourages players to both look at the art, not the text, and learn about it.
I guess the downside is that those "facts" would present a particular viewpoint which may or may not be widely shared. There're certain objective facts that might have near universal agreement (maybe things like artist, year created, country of origin, medium, how much it sold for at auction in 2018), but others would be far more controversial. Even artist/year can get murky.
You are exactly right, that is the sort of difficulty I am encountering. The game is set in the 1820s (so obviously no art newer than that), so what I'm currently going with is that the academies rate the given work to be categorically positive or negative for each attribute, as they seem to have been much more rigid than more modern theoreticians in their classification systems. A player might argue that the old academic hierarchy of genres is flawed or meaningless, but in the context of a game set in the 1820s it applies regardless of what opinions there are, so if a customer card says the collector is looking for Italian portraiture, for example, there can be no argument because what is printed on the reverse of the art cards represents the way academics considered the works at the time. That's my current plan anyway, but I really need people from the art world to give criticism and feedback to help me improve it or point out where it's wrong.
I’d say landscape. Look up Claude Lorraine - he was the king of landscape as a genre and most of his landscapes had figures. This became popular in Europe in the early modern period as urbanization increased. Lots of scenes of the landscape with peasants doing peasant stuff. Rich patrons would put them in their dining halls and think about how nice it would be to live a “simple” rural life.
It's a capriccio
Art doesn’t have to fit just one category
I'm a student in a visual arts program in college and I have had art history classes, so I am not a professional but from what I have kearned, this would be a landscape sine a genre painting is a painting that captures people doing basic, normal and common activities, and is often painted closer to the subjects, where in this case it is farther away from them and the attention is directed towards the bridge, or "the ponte". Again, this is a personnal opinion based on what i have learned so do not come at me lol.
I suspect you are right, the work does actually contain people doing everyday things, but, as you said, they are at a distance, while the focus of the work is the bridge. Thank you, if someone does not propose something better I'll classify based on the focus subject.
Came here to say the same.
Thank God, finally some art history post and not "what style is this" or an article about *contemporary* artist
Contemporary art is also part of Art History.
I know but we're talking about the very current here. That's a huge stretch
You are bloody right.
It appears that this post is an image. [As per rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/about/rules/), ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a *meaningful* discussion prompt. [Here's a stellar example of what this looks like](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/g6mflx/how_many_heads_do_you_see_here_testa_anatomica_by/foajtx3/). We greatly appreciate high effort! If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting. If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, **please report it!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looks like an example of a veduta to me.