Dogs in Art: Animals and Owner Identity in Early Modern Europe
- Natasha
- Aug 17, 2021
- 4 min read
Updated: Aug 26, 2021
It probably comes as no surprise that the way dogs have been depicted in art is intrinsically connected to cultural conceptions of dogs, as well as generative sources of cultural thinking. The way we see dogs - the way we look at them - is laid bare in art. What we choose to depict and the style in which we do it is deeply significant. A picture says a thousand words, right?
With this in mind, I suggest that by looking at different pieces of art through history one can gain insight into the different, complex understandings of dogs as status symbols, the self, property, family members, anthropomorphised 'fur babies', and perhaps even as dogs in their own right. I am interested, does the changing role of the dog as artistic muse signal a shift in dominant cultural thinking about animals, and hence humans? Can art be an important tool to convey a more nuanced conception of the dog and change the collective way we have been taught to think? This is obviously a huge topic of discussion and so for now I will suffice to focus on the portraits of gentry with their dogs in early modern Europe.
Early modern Europe spans from roughly from the start of the fifteenth century through to the late eighteenth century and was a time of profound change. Some significant events included the Reformation, colonisation of the Americas, the scientific revolution, rise of the nation state, and the enlightenment. This period also ushered in complex thinking about animals. Scholars like Rene Descartes viewed animals as automata, or robots - denying them any feeling or consciousness – and the functional approach to animals as commodities was still popular. However, at the same time there was a rise of widespread pet-keeping and outcry against animal cruelty, and it was common for royalty and upper classes to have their portraits painted with companion animals:
'James Stuart (1612–1655), Duke of Richmond and Lennox' by Anthony van Dyck (ca. 1633–35) (Left)
'Sir Edward Hales, Baronet, of Hales Place, Hackington, Kent with his dog' by Philippe Mercier (1744) (Right)
'Portrait of Lady Mary Fox' by Pompeo Batoni (1767)
'The Five Eldest Children of Charles I' by Anthony Van Dyck (1637)
_-_The_Five_Eldest_Children_of_Charles_I_-_267_-_Royal_Collection.jpg)
Paintings like these do signify a growing affection for and closeness to dogs as loyal and loving companions - you can see it in the casual hand on the dog’s head and in the affectionate canine gaze - but I would suggest it is a little more complicated than this. The style and subject of these representations also speaks to the relationship between dogs and human identity as status symbols. In the early modern period, a lack of respect for animal bodies was increasingly seen as connected to violence towards fellow humans (see William Hogarth’s ‘The Four Stages of Cruelty’ (1751)). Animals became symbols through which the civility of upper-class members of society could be displayed – a signifier of the well-bred. Moreover, dogs were perceived differently and served different uses when in the company of men and women. Large hunting dogs were markers of masculine power whilst smaller dogs were feminine fashion statements and symbols of loyalty and fidelity.
The symbolic power of the dog leads me to question whether dogs were loved as dogs or whether this was a more superficial love, a love for dogs as ornaments or accessories. Perhaps love was - and still is - both, and is ultimately always a complex mixture of many different understandings (love is a messy one). There are works of art from this period that show the unrestrained, mischievous, and more ‘animal’ side of the dog, embracing and valuing authentic canine agency and character to a greater extent (see 'Dash with Princess Victoria' below, where the dog has stolen one of her gloves). 'Self Portrait with a pug' by William Hogarth (below) with a pug also centres the dog in a unique way, and not an impressive hunting dog at that either. The pug is made almost more real than the artist himself as he sits in the foreground before a portrait of his master (who is really the master here ? Is Hogarth the accessory to the pug?).
'Dash with Princess Victoria', by Sir George Hayter, 1833 (Left)
'Self Portrait with a Pug" by William Hogarth, 1745 (Right)
I would guess at these kinds of representations being few and far between due to the fear of boundary crossing. Cooperative, docile animals are safe to use as status symbols to display certain traits, but proximate animal agency in the form of rebellion is problematic for civility, blurring and thinning ‘human’ and ‘animal’ categories. People don’t want to become animals. This negotiation between valuing the dog as an animal and as a status symbol is hence a tension that sheds some light on the ambiguous feelings surrounding dogs and other animals in this time.
The way artists choose to represent dogs, with whom, and in what manner reveals a great deal about attitudes towards dogs but at the same time much about people, their identity, and the human relationship with nature. This is a simplified discussion and there is obviously much more to talk about when it comes to representations - and early modern dog representations at that matter - but I do hope it sparks some newfound interest in the significance of representation when it comes to cultural attitudes towards animals.
References and further reading:
Comments