|
|
Any given place in time can be marked by the artworks of the time. By understanding the cultural and social practices we can better understand the artworks, but with a better insight into the artwork, we gain more insight into the era. So, before we can look at Seurat’s painting or Wilde’s play, we must first examine the Victorian Age. The Victorian Age (or Era) was named after the ruling monarch of England, Queen Victoria, whose reign was from 1837 until her death in 1901. This period of approximately seventy years was a major transitory phase for England as well as the rest of the ‘civilized’ world. The Industrial Revolution was taking off at full steam and the Victorian Age provided a transition into the Twentieth Century and the rapid change that would fly in with it (literally, since the airplane was invented in 1902). This transition was the stage for a necessity to change lifestyles, politics, and economics (among other things) and they can be examined by the cultural and social practices of the time (Abrams 1833).
Cultural practices are the inventions of humans. These practices are the actions that results from a culture’ beliefs, ideals, and the other components that constitute culture, another invention of humans. The social practices (or influences upon the artwork) are spawned from cultural practices. These practices would include characteristics such as class system, economic influences, governmental system, etc (Murray 48). These practices are illustrated in Seurat’s painting and Wilde’s play.
By examining the cultural and social practices of the Victorian Age, we can look at the works in their context. Much of what we know and what we will learn is applicable in today’s society- after all, the Victorian Age greatly influenced what we have today. The Industrial Revolution brought with it a social revolution in Europe and the United States. Rapidly developing technologies and advances in science were changing they way people lived and what they did with their time. Out of a strong manufacturing economy grew a more powerful and influential middle class, which became the largest advocates of social and political reform. Among the most outstanding changes which occurred in this time was the development of a new concept- leisure. Those who were not the lowest of the classes on the totem pole suddenly found themselves with free time. Their wives in terms of ‘house work’ supported men. Wealthy women had servants to do their work for them (some had women that would breast-feed their babies for them, they were called wet nurses). So what would these people do?
The wealthy families had the most to do. Wealthy men would take up sports such as hunting, crew and yachting. These sports were considered for gentlemen only. Therefore, other forms of entertainment grew such as concerts, free museum days, and a new concept at the time- the public park. A person in the 1780’s could hardly imagine that a hundred years later there would exist something called a public park. The parks were the result of the expansion of cities and suburbs and an attempt to mix social classes. The concept of leisure spawned two other important factors into the social world of the Victorian Age and today as well. The first of which was an important characteristic of the "leisure class." This class of people was supported by the intense labors of the poor and therefore could afford the time and money to venture into leisurely activities. With a growing middle class however, inventive businessmen began to commercialize leisure and make big bucks. This leads to an interesting turn to conspicuous consumption, where those who could afford such activities such as yachting did it because they could afford it and flaunted it in front of the common man on the shore. Enter the parks (Murray 50).
The trend of segregating leisure according to social class continued well into the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, but there was one movement that challenged the status quo. The Rational Recreation Movement is responsible for setting up the first public parks. The general idea was to offer the working man an ordered, educational, self improving alternative to the gaming house and tavern. This shift in attitude is important because it was beginning to make leisure a public concern instead of a strictly commercial affair (Murray 50).
Parks became
an important place for leisurely activities for all classes. Thus, the
scene of the public park is what Seurat used to make his commentary of
the idea of parks and the social practices of his time. Lets take a look
at the painting and see what Seurat is telling the viewer about the scene.
The figures reveal the meaning behind the painting. Every aspect matters,
what the person is wearing, their gender, who they are with or not with,
and what they are doing. In general, the figures ‘appear’ civilized, but
in actuality, they are not. To begin with, lets examine what the main figures
are wearing. The clothes a person wears hints to their role and their class
standing. We see men with top hats and canes in nice suits (Sunday best,
perhaps?). There is but one exception to this, the young man in the lower
left with the pipe. 
His
clothing suggests that he is a member of a lower class. Perhaps this man
is a factory worker. Notice that there are only three men onshore. Contrary
to the men, there are a number of women in the painting. Notice that the
women have parasols and bustles. They all are well dressed and seem to
be staring out at the shore.
Judging by the clothing, we can conclude that this may not entirely be a bourgeoisie scene, there are several working people there, the factory worker and the wet nurse.
The placement of the figures continues on with the story. Notice where each person is placed, which direction they are facing, and most importantly, whom they appear to be with. The most striking feature about the placement of the figures is that none of the people are interacting with each other. This indicates an important change- public leisure ceased to be local, class bound, and familiar, and communal. In the process, it became very impersonal (Murray 52).
The figures being isolated amongst them indicate another light in the attic concerning the social context of the painting. The painting in itself depicts a leisurely scene; as did many of the salon paintings of the time, however, the people in the painting (along with its style of pointillism) make the difference notable. There are members of the bourgeoisie in the painting but also the demimonde, lower middle class people who dressed up and pretended to be members of the upper class. Although this practice was common, it certainly was not admirable.
The painting also represents gender
roles. Let us take a close look at some of the women in the painting. Lets
begin with the woman seated next to the two men in the lower left. 
It is slightly ambiguous as to which of the two men she is with, but she
must not be seen alone. It was considered very improper and unfashionable
for a woman to be seen alone in public. The belief was that unaccompanied
women were of loose morals or prostitutes. Note that all women in the painting
are paired with someone, be it a man, a child, or another woman. Clearly,
being seen alone in public during the Victorian Age signaled some sort
of deficiency or deviancy (Murray 53).
Of all the social
roles depicted in the painting—soldiers, shop girls, factory worker- there
is one role which is the most telling. That is the role of the prostitute.
Seurat has given clues as to the identity of two of the women in the painting.
The first is the woman in the foreground to the right. She is the woman
with the dog and the monkey on a leash. The use of the monkey and the leash
signals the woman at the other end as a "tart." 
But another woman
is identified through a visual pun. This is the woman, dressed in red,
standing on the band with a fishing pole. It plays on the French words
pecher (to fish)[circumflex over the e] and pecher (to sin)
[accent grave over the e) (Murray 54). 
Finally, let
us examine the representations of conspicuous consumption within the painting.
As discussed previously, studying the fashions worn by the figures can
make an accurate "social reading". The clothing in the picture was typical
to what was worn in France of 1886. The part of this painting that is unique
is the portrayal of the division between the demimonde/bourgeoisie and
the affluent upper class, the class represented solely through the boaters
offshore. All the activity off shore (except for the ferryboat) is associated
with the upper class. The sailboats represent yachting and there is the
group of rowers near the shoreline. 
Notice
that many of the figures do appear to be gazing out upon the water watching
the boats. Note the two little girls NOT facing the shore.
The Rational Recreation Movement was an attempt to bring the social classes together, at least in the form of casual contact. Is that what Seurat says is happening on the Island of Grande Jatte? No. On the surface, Seurat certainly acknowledges the idea that this movement is working and the painting is an example of its success. A closer look reveals that this is certainly not the case. We can avoid such a happy and ideallic interpretation with careful examination. Seurat is covertly signaling to the viewer that, even if several classes share the same public space, the classes still maintain their separateness, still serving their relative social functions (Murray 55). Obviously, as long as there are classes, there will be classism!
What does Georges Seurat’s Sunday Afternoon on the Island of Grande Jatte have to do with Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest? Wilde’s comedy may not involve parks, but it certainly augments the social commentary found in Seurat’s painting with a sense of personalities and a developing situation. Between the two we (as Twentieth Century scholars) get an accurate glimpse of the Victorian age. Some common themes between the two involve classism, the leisure class, people pretending to be something they are not, moral and social reform that exists only as a surface element and deceptions as a whole. You can basically think of Seurat’s painting a deception when viewing it as a salon painting. It comments on the society of origin in the manner that Wilde does through his characters.
While Seurat is deceiving your eyes and mind, Wilde has created a world so artificial- it’s a moral vacuum. Granted, it’s an exaggeration of Victorian society, but it touches reality more than it does fiction. The world created in The Importance of Being Earnest was designed specifically to show the difference between what people showed on the surface and what transpired in reality. It happens to be a very stark contrast. The Victorians were concerned with looks and style; it was a shallow world. What people believed deep down was not to be expressed, especially if it conflicted with the norms of Victorian society and its "ideals." We mentioned the cultural and social practices of the time, which help reflect the ideals held by Victorian society.
The basic ideals of Victorian society were fronts for callousness and indifference. People pretended to have a sincere interest in helping others, especially those less fortunate, and in reality only cared about themselves. One might claim to contribute to a charity (probably for tax purposes if they really did!) and then buy the most expensive magazines and catalogs and read them while drinking fine champagne. Love (and subsequently, marriage) was idealized as romantic and full of happiness, when in reality, husbands and wives took to lovers or prostitutes on the side and married only for money. Many marriages were pre-arranged to settle a land deal or an inheritance. Family was not a strong virtue in practice, in theory it was an important role in a civilized country like England. Basically, the Victorians were concerned with their image- nothing else.
Certainly, the Victorians did not practice what they preached. The social scene was dominated by the wealthy, which did not participate in hard labor and wanted to keep the poor stupid. To the wealthy, education had little effect, was boring, and they generally avoided deep thoughts. However knowledge can be power, so it was best kept away from the lower, working classes. Love and marriage was a game of money and lineage, not of family, trust and loyalty. Once again, style and looks- no depth. From Wilde’s eyes, it was a life of nothingness, and so there are two options: laugh it off or look at the void and fall into despair. Luckily for us, he chose to laugh at it.
Let’s examine some specific examples from the text of The Importance of Being Earnest. The basic plot of the play revolves around a fictional (fictional in a fictional world!) character named Ernest, who turns out to exist in the end. Two ‘friends’ take turns pretending to be Ernest because each one is in love with the other's cousin. The cousins, Gwendolen and Cicily, are both in love with Ernest. As the plot unfolds, his creator, Jack, only to be resurrected simultaneously by his friend, Algernon, kills Ernest. We finally learn however, that Jack was abandoned as a child and was originally named Ernest. So, Virginia, there really is an Ernest!
Since the entire plot of the play is driven by romantic endeavors, there exist a number of lines to reveal the Victorian attitude towards love and marriage. Basically, it's all about money and your name. The name portion has two aspects in the play, the first being the concern as to a man's surname and secondly, the absurd concept of what a man's first name should be. Both of the two main female characters are in love with Ernest. In this passage, Gwendolen states that she was destined to marry a man named Ernest.
"The fact is constantly mentioned in the more expensive monthly magazines, and now has reached the provincial pulpits, I am told; and my ideal has always been to love someone by the name of Ernest (Wilde 330)."
"You don't seem to realize, that in married life three is company and two is none (Wilde 327)."
And in a passage connected to the subject of marriage, a nice little expression of the upper class’ low regard of those beneath them.
"Lane's views on marriage seem somewhat lax. Really, if the lower orders don't set us a good example, what on Earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have absolutely no sense of moral responsibility (Wilde 322)."
This brings us right into the Victorian view of morality. According to Wilde, they just didn't have a sense of it, and if they did, it certainly wasn't conventional. The simple fact that Jack and Algernon both have taken up hobbies as "Bunburyists"- going around assuming a false identity to cheat, and mislead people for your own amusement; reveals that these characters had little sense of morality and certainly honesty wasn't a major virtue. Algernon makes an interesting (and somewhat true, although absurd) statement about Bunburying and truthfulness.
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious if it were either and, modern literature a complete impossibility! (Wilde 326)."
One almost could get a sense of some sort of honesty at times but it is shot down because they are talking about living up to a reputation. Of course this is a reputation of lying.
"If you are not, then you have certainly been deceiving us all in a very inexcusable manner—pretending to be wicked and really being good all the time. That would be hypocrisy. (Wilde 343)."
Wilde presents views of other values such as the value of intellect, family, and death. These virtues just plain do not exist. The idea of death paints death and life as a burden and a choice. Family is a pain and a chore and not a bond among people. Education is not for those who don’t think they need to know things, and besides, it's a waste of time.
Algernon thinks that having to spend time with relations is troublesome and a waste of time. He finds that dining with his Aunt once a week is enough and he doesn't like to be treated as a member of the family. Besides, they are just there to provide an inheritance (Wilde 326).
The view of death is incredibly lax. To these people it is no big deal. Anyone can come or go on the planet anytime and living people disrupt what you want to do, then they are simply an inconvenience. For example, if Jack can marry Gwen, he shall kill his alias of Ernest.
"If Gwendolen accepts me, I'm going to kill my brother (Ernest), indeed I think I'll kill him in any case—I strongly advise you to do the same with your Mr…. With your invalid friend who has the absurd name (Wilde 326)."
"I think it is high time that Mr. Bunbury made up his mind whether he was going to live or die. This shilly-shallying with the question is absurd (Wilde 329)."
In terms of intellect, there are passages of discussions mentioning intellect and education, but the characters themselves shy away from using their intellect or pursuing any deep thoughts. Gwendolen, in one instance refuses to think about what Ernest may be like if his name was not Ernest. She did not want to delve into any metaphysics. Cicily, of course, was more interested in her diary than her studies. Women need not be educated. They only need to know what is necessary to be able to please their men. Men won’t like a woman who is too scholarly. Appearance is everything.
"I don't like German. It isn't a becoming language. I know perfectly well I look quite plain after my German lesson (Wilde 340)."
The following is a great passage from Lady Bracknell that sums up the Victorian view of education.
"I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like an exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound, Fortunately, in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did, it would prove a serious disaster to the upper classes, and probably lead to acts of violence in Governor's Square (Wilde 332)."
Oscar Wilde makes it quite clear that there was something wrong with Victorian society and its absurdities. Life may often time reveal mysteries and ask more questions than it answers. Many times it seems like a waste of time, but the way his characters chose to deal with life shows just how pointless it all is when you lose touch of they few basic ideals that keep humans and modern society coherent. Loves, marriage, family, trust, loyalty, education are all incredibly important. If one is missing these virtues, they have a shallow sense of morality, and a shallow sense of morality leads to a lonely, foolish, and unfulfilled life. The Victorian Age posed many challenges to society and began the preparations for the hubbub and rapid change of the Twentieth Century. We can look back and laugh at Victorian society because we long past that era, but it would be hard to do if Oscar Wilde wasn’t speaking up with criticisms during the Victorian Age.
It is now firmly established that Seurat and Wilde have brought out strong social criticisms in their works. Seurat, through design elements and visual puns, and Wilde through humor and absurdity, brings out important criticisms of Victorian society. Although both works create a sarcastic if not blatant (though not to the Victorian audience) view of society, neither one proposes any solutions. With this idea in mind, there is one component of Seurat’s painting to be observed.
Notice that the
figures in the painting are stationary and facing the shore, except for
two little girls. The first girl is dressed in white and is in the exact
center of the painting. She is also the only one wearing white. 
Part
of the mystery of this figure can be explained by the simple fact that
as a design element, she defines a central point and helps lead your eye
around the painting. She also serves as a convenient focal point. Whether
or not she represents anything is wide open to interpretation, but she
certainly stands out. Maybe she represents a need for people who are freethinkers
and independent in a time when rules and regulations were strict and people
questioned little.
Take notice of
the fact that the boats on the lake are in motion but the people remain
still, except for one person. The little girl (the second one) running
off into the background is the only person captured in motion. 
What is she running from? Why is she running? Seurat gives no indication
within the painting, so it is up to the viewer to decide. Perhaps, it is
she, who sees the light. She could be the nonconformist who sees the absurdities
of Victorian society and the failed concept of bringing classes together.
Maybe she represents Seurat, standing out against the norm and viewing
the world from the outside. Whatever she represents, if she represents
anything at all, we will never know.
What do you see when you gaze upon
George Seurat’s Sunday Afternoon on the Island of Grande Jatte?
Do you still see a simple leisurely Sunday afternoon depicted in a Victorian
salon painting? Or do you see a commentary on the leisure class in France
circa 1886? The painting, with a little in-depth analysis, is revealed
to be much more than a simple painting. Likewise, Oscar Wilde’s The
Importance of Being Earnest is much more than a funny play. Both of
these works, in their own art form, medium, and style reveal a very artificial
society of artificial ideals that covered up taboos, social injustice,
and claims. The Victorian Age has been revealed to be exactly what Seurat
and Wilde said it was.
Nick McCormick April, 1999
Works Cited
Abrams, M.H. et al.,
eds. The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Major
Authors.
6th ed. New York;
W.W. 1996
Murray, Kris. Art, Metaphor, and Life.
Seurat, Georges. Sunday
Afternoon on the Island of Grande Jatte.
1884-1886. Oil on
canvas. h202x320cm. h81xw120.5in.
Art Institute of Chicago
Chicago, IL
Wilde, Oscar. The Importance of Being Earnest.
