Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815

Americans in the 1790s and first decade of the 1800s were confident in their culture and opposed to the Buffon-inspired arguments that the Nee World was undesirable and harmful to societal and cultural development but by the 1810s Americans were becoming nervous with no great cultural work having been produced yet.

By the 1810s many cultural critics argued that the Revolutionary leaders were too imitative of Europe and too timid to set out and create a uniquely American culture.

This was intentional though because Revolutionary leaders never sought to cut themselves off from European culture.

They saw the new nation as being the inheritor of European culture and were followers of an Enlightenment that was very cosmopolitan.

The Revolutionary leaders saw the U.S. as part of a “republic of letters” that did not take into account national borders and the saw the U.S. as being the eventual leader within this republic of letters and inheriting “the torch of Western culture” (547).

While the Revolutionary leaders wouldn’t live to see their new nation become the inheritor of Western civilization their efforts did produce cultural changes.

Americans were involved in the neoclassical movement sweeping through Europe.

The neoclassical movement saw a transformation in the purpose of art with it no longer being exclusive to aristocrats and monarchs to an instrument that could educate the public on reformation as well as a transformation in patronage of arts with it no longer being patronized by just monarchs and the nobility but now by gentlemen.

To make sure that American art wasn’t associated with decadence the way European art was Americans attempted to make their art explicitly republican.

Americas focus on art through transnational neoclassicism was cosmopolitan but it also was nationalistic in that it was a way for Americans to distinguish themselves.

America’s efforts to use art to further their republican ideals may seem minor compared to France’s efforts to further their republican ideals during their revolution but considering American art was much less developed the accomplishments of American culture at the time are impressive.

Some evidence of this neoclassical era is still present in America today with town names (Athens, Rome, Syracuse, etc.), the public architecture of D.C. and state capitol buildings, and political symbols that are still used like the goddess Liberty.

American artists and intellectuals became quickly disillusioned with the neoclassical experiment.

Most of the plays in early America were British in origin leading to many critics to claim that the theatre was bad for republicanism.

In addition there was the problem that many saw the theatre as licentious and corrupting of good morals which took a lot of effort to persuade critics otherwise.

Americans largely agreed that the useful arts (that which served a moral purpose)had value but they were less convinced of the importance of fine arts.

Reformers wanted neoclassical art to serve republican ends and sought to refine the tastes of the public so they would be receptive to art but involving the public in this project had the effect of creating a popular culture not interested in the same art as the reformers.

While artists wanted to, as an example, paint great historical scenes, Americans were largely interested in only simple landscapes and portraits.

In literature themes if seduction were used to teach moral lessons, what not to do, but the readers often bought the books because of the seduction and valued the wrong characters and didn’t take to the values being preached to them in the text.

Institutions, or art societies, were created during this era but did not become established and often failed.

With explicit goals to spread certain moral lessons and republican themes the artists that made up these societies often had little autonomy.

Hamstrung by the goals of the reformers and art societies many artists would take matters into their own hands.

As these societies failed many artists worked outside of them and many people who weren’t trained took part in the arts outside of these societies.

To many of the elite and critics this type of democratization of the arts led to a more vulgar taste of the arts becoming prominent in America.