The Real December…post.
I’m aiming to do two posts before the end of the year. Ambitious, I know. The following post will be a summing up so far. Not necessarily for the year because that’s a bit cliché. It’s more about my memory and the need to remind myself of what I’ve learned, and, more importantly, whether it has helped unveil my style. Drum roll, please.
Neoclassicism
Essentially, the neoclassical period drew upon classical antiquity. Think about ruins that were found along with their ancient art (oh, no, not cave art again). Okay, that’s going back too far. We’re not talking about prehistoric art, but about art from approximately 4000 B.C. to A.D. 400. Ancient art. Looking back we just left the playful and sensuous Rococo and are returning to:
- Harmony
- Simplicity
- Proportion
- Universality
- Restraint
If you’re like me, you may be asking, ‘We have the approximate ‘when’ neoclassicism drew upon, but what is Classical antiquity?’ Think about:
- The Archaic period (more naturalistic art)
- The Geometric style to the Orientalising style
Also, think about:
- Black and red-figure pottery – telling of epic tales
- Homer (not Simpson)
- Classical architecture (Parthenon) – elegance
- Statues (Zeus) – in general, sculptures became more dynamic
- Wars, treaties, – okay, nothing new there
- The downfall of Classical antiquity – when the Western Roman Empire fell
So, according to my purple Britannica books and the online Britannica talk about:
- Austere linear design
- Classical themes
- Classical subject matters
- Neoclassicism invoking harmony, clarity, restraint, universality and idealism
Grinding to a halt…how can art present both austere and naturalistic? Perhaps I don’t understand what those two terms mean. Sidetrack to AI:
Austere art – simplistic, harsh and focused on the realities of life
Naturalistic – subjects as they appear in the natural world, realistic and accurate.
Okay, I get it now. ‘Get real, or mythologically real’ probably sums them both up.
Not me
I don’t find neoclassical art simple, nor harmonious, nor necessarily transcending cultural or geographical boundaries. Despite wanting to return to more wholesome times, unfortunately, just as the Rococo and even Baroque art movements do, they leave out a relatively large portion of the population.
My takeaway
Neoclassical art is art based on the Classical art period. So say the sources, but it doesn’t seem to have grown or adapted since classical times. What does ‘neo’ mean anyway? It basically means ‘new’ or ‘young’. So neoclassicism is simply a newer version of classicism. Why? Trying to gain control after the ‘wildness’ of Rococo?
In summing up, maybe I’m just jealous I can’t paint those vivid and busy scenes of mostly rich people in luxurious settings or people draped in those wonderful folds of cloth… Hang on, though, in all my studies, I’m seeing a lot of Baroque (dramatic lighting) and Rococo (playful figures) in the reemergence of the classics…maybe they did innovate artistically. Or they were trying to soften the last two movements to facilitate evolution.
There are some fancy thoughts and words in this post.
Sources
Irwin, D. (2025, December 10). Neoclassical art. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/art/Neoclassicism
Encyclopaedia Britannica (2005). Britannica Encyclopedia of Art. Volume 4. Purple-bound hard covers. The Brown Reference Group plc.
Wikipedia contributors. (2025, December 10). Neoclassicism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:58, December 29, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neoclassicism&oldid=1326735426
Featured image
- Media TitleBarry, James: The Education of Achilles
- Media TypeImage
- Website NameEncyclopædia Britannica
- PublisherEncyclopædia Britannica
- URLhttps://www.britannica.com/art/Neoclassicism#/media/1/408739/210030
- Access Date29 December 2025
