The Deceptive Thomas Eakins
Thomas Eakins is one of the most important figures in 19th century American art, due in large part to the attention he paid to scientific and technical details that imbued his paintings with a near-unmatched realism. According to art historian Michael Leja, “He is credited with reinventing (or destroying) academic realism by filling its shell with scientific knowledge.
Combining close attention to visual appearance with systematic knowledge of structures, functions, and spatial relations, he generated likenesses of extraordinary intensity” (Looking Askance 59). Eakins was known for his mathematical and scientific exactness, and often made his students engage in anatomical dissection to better understand the human form. As a result of these vigorous techniques, Eakins is considered a Realist to the highest degree. But as Leja points out, closer examination of some of Eakins’ most famous paintings reveals technical inconsistencies that give his art a much more illusory, even deceptive quality than one would expect from a paragon of the Realist tradition.
The Socio-Historical Context
What is Realism?
In art, realism can mean two things. Thematically, “Realism” describes the depiction of common, everyday subjects in works of art, as opposed to the more Romantic tendency to focus on exaggerated or lofty topics. In the second sense of the word, “Realism” also describes the actual technique of exact imitation, or mimesis, of the real-life subject of the paintings (also called Naturalism or Illusionism in the arts). Eakins was a Realist, then, in both senses of the term: his portrayal of middle-class life, popular sports, and other contemporary themes fits the first definition, while his intense attention to scientific and mathematical detail ensures the finished piece mimics nature.
The Pair-Oared Shell, 1872.
This is an example of Eakins' realism: a common, everyday subject portrayed as accurately as possible.
These two sketches show Eakins' intense mathematical and scientific approach to painting realistic figures. He believed that scientific observation held the key to accurate artistic representation.
According to Leja, most critics view Eakin’s technique as “an interaction between seeing and knowing,” and that “the scientific and the artistic merge in Eakins’ work in the integration of graphic and painterly modes” (60). In other words, Eakins believed that knowledge was directly related to observation, and that truthful depiction is solely the result of natural and scientific observation. But Leja was the first to notice discrepancies in Eakins’ work that mark his paintings with illusory—and not just realist—elements.
The Nature of the Deception
These internal conflicts of Eakins’ paintings come from two aspects of his artistic technique: from “the multiple systems of knowledge Eakins attempted to mobilize,” and from “a growing rift between knowing and seeing” (Looking Askance 61). Ultimately, “His paintings try to remake realism for a world of illusions and deceptions” (61). As a result, the “realism” of Eakins actually includes very deceptive images to achieve a realist look. This tendency is most noticeable in Eakins’ The Champion Single Sculls (Max Schmitt in a Single Scull), 1871.
This painting, which depicts the contemporary rowing champion Max Schmitt in the foreground and the painter himself in the background, demonstrates Eakins’ keen attention to anatomy, reflection, and “linear perspective” (Leja 62). The sharp definition of Schmitt’s muscles, the exactness of the tree and boat reflections, and the perfect position of the objects in space “convey a narrative of movement through the picture space” (62). However, to achieve this clear depiction of form and motion,
Eakins must compromise the realism of other parts of the painting. Leja sees “temporal disruption” in the wake of Eakins’ boat and in the ripples where the rowers’ oars touched the water. Rather than expanding and eventually dissolving on the surface of the water like ripples do in reality, Eakins’ earliest water rings “remain as integral and discrete as the most recent” (62). The rings must remain intact for the painter to emphasize the perfection of the rowers’ technique. They do not dissipate, but remain perfectly intact without regard to time; as Leja notes, “the river arrests time by stilling and preserving on its surface the marks of the oars’ contact” (62). Likewise, the wake of Eakins’ boat at the left side of the painting elicits this “temporal disruption” by being far too choppy and vigorous than it should be at such a great distance from the boat. Both these instances serve to emphasize the narrative of motion, but they do so at the expense of the realism for which Eakins is so widely known. To truthfully depict motion and the act of rowing, Eakins must simultaneously use some untruthful and unnatural depictions of time and the behavior of water molecules on the river’s surface.
Another example of deception in Eakins’ paintings which Leja cites is A May Morning in the Park (The Fairman Rogers Four-in-Hand), 1879.
In this painting, Eakins paints the horses’ legs as they appear in Eadweard Muybridge’s photography of horses in motion. Trying to perfectly imitate this motion as it exists in reality, Eakins “was attempting to embed in a realist painting information beyond the reach of the naked eye” (67). However, there is a discrepancy between the motion depicted in the horses’ legs and the motion depicted in the wheels of the carriage. While the legs reflect the motion depicted in Muybridge’s images (i.e. seemingly static, frozen in the middle of their motions like they’ve been photographed), the spokes of the wheels are blurred and have a sheen of light to portray motion. As Leja notes, “Perhaps because he believed that the unfamiliar configuration of the horses’ legs might compromise the painting’s power to suggest motion, Eakins attempted to make the wheels of the carriage do that signifying work” (67). Thus, Eakins combines scientific observation and new technological advancements with more traditional methods of mimesis, a technique that produces more conflict than congruency. According to Leja, “the scientific research Eakins conducted was proving more an obstacle to realist painting than an armature for it” (70).
Other Examples of Deception
An example of deception in Eakins’ work that Leja overlooks is The Swimming Hole, 1885.
Another water scene, this painting demonstrates the human form in motion as well as the interplay of water, light, and reflection, similar to The Champion Single Sculls. Eakins masterfully renders the male nude form here, but like his other paintings, his supreme attention to detail of one aspect of the painting detracts from the illusionistic quality of other details. In this case, the environment surrounding the swimmers—the swimming hole itself—lacks the clarity and consistency of the nude forms. The water surrounding the figures appears motionless, or at least undisturbed by their moving bodies. No ripples extend behind the swimmer in the bottom right foreground, nor do they extend behind the dog in the center.
--Will Hasenbein
Works Cited
Leja, Michael. Looking Askance. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Print.