A study of Maltese modern art as the reflection of change and its new aesthetic endeavours

Abstract

A clear difference between the artists of the nineteenth century and the pioneers of the twentieth century is noted in style and aesthetic priorities as well as in its attitudes towards tradition. The artistic contribution of artists such as Antonio Sciortino, Vincent Apap, George Preca, Carmelo Mangion, Antoine Camilleri and Josef Kalleya, to mention a few, is therefore studied with specific examples and placed within specific genres. Although some artists were reluctant to welcome the new tendencies, the artists mentioned above were more daring and readily accepted that the nineteenth century in Malta had been forged in the traditions of the Neoclassical and Romantic styles that did not reflect the spirit of the age, its conundrums or political changes that shook the pillars of society. Therefore in the first chapter, the social and political context that conditioned the development of modern art in Malta is surveyed. The break away from tradition is illustrated through iconic modern Maltese works of art that without a doubt forced a distinct re-evaluation of the priorities that should govern local artistic production. This chapter also focuses on the artist as the primary narrator of his own work and on how his life can be directly related to his work. This facet in modern art in Malta is important because of the political conditions that governed the twentieth century here, as well as for the strong individualistic traits that separate one artist from another. Maltese modern artists are difficult, if not impossible, to place in genre or movement due to their strong individual styles. There was no singular modern artistic movement in Malta during the early half the century, and even when artists gathered in collective exhibitions, it was not to express a singular philosophical idea through art, but to gather support and show the strength of their belief in the modern sensibilities they were infusing into their art. This study then progresses to a discussion of the areas or genres in which modern sensibilities are most strongly felt and the protagonists who dominated the respective areas of exploration. The second chapter deals with painting exclusively, while the third and final chapter deals with sculpture. A clear distinction between the two areas was necessary for a coherent argument, since the visual changes expressed in painting were not the same as those expressed in sculpture. Despite the technical formal training in both fields, clear breaks can be noted between the art produced at the school of art and the later developments that were introduced by the pioneering artists in the same fields: painting and sculpture. Most Maltese artists did not seek a rebellious bohemian status in society; on the contrary, they maintained good relations with their the school of art, the church and even sought employment as teachers, a position which provided a stable income and gave them enough time to pursue their individual interests in art. This desire for social acceptance is one of the primary reasons why modern sensibilities entered the local artistic scene at such a slow pace and at such fluctuating levels. As will be noted in chapter two, not all artists expressed their leaning towards modernity in the same way, despite the close ties between them and the fact that they all had the same standards of artistic training in Malta. This diversity created for me a beautiful opportunity to delve into various aspects, sometimes unrelated in nature, but which, when put together and seen as a whole, clearly reflect the Modern aesthetic being introduced to Maltese shores. Moreover, overlapping issues have been discussed in both chapters two and three, but with sensitivity to the different characteristic that differentiate painting from sculpture.