In the previous article we briefly shared the history of the main artists within the trend led by Leighton, which is why this time we will talk a little more about the characteristics of the movement and how it lost its vitality as time left behind the XIX century.

Despite not being considered a movement, Neo-Pompeyism underwent the natural life cycle that any other movement would go through. It emerges with a few enlightened for what they consider a noble cause, which begin to inspire more agents around them until a guild is created made up of members faithful to the trend, critics, rivals and admirers. It matures with the consolidation of its main representatives and creates a face with characteristics that separate it from the rest and make it so that anyone can identify it and just after that golden maturity, the sunset arrives. Few artistic manifestations wither with as much grace and nobility as Neo-Pompeyism did, which seemed to have a perfect link with the character of Frederic Leighton.

Leighton naturally – and possibly unintentionally – served as a standard bearer for all that Neo-Pompeyism was: solemn, virtuous, scholarly, and classical. His rivals were also the rivals of this trend, however, there was never any aggressiveness of any kind. In the Victorian England that upheld Neo-Pompeyism, there was a rivalry between those who believed that art should return to the medieval primitive, who found the innocent art of the masters before Raphael more noble and pure, and those who believed that true virtue and beauty in art would be found evoking the classical past buried between Athens, Pompeii and Herculaneum.

As such, Leighton and J. E. Millais were rivals espousing very different artistic expressions, yet that never stopped them from creating high regard for each other and having a cordial friendship. It was natural that these artists were esteemed not only by each other, but also by members of the academy. When Leighton became the president of this, the spirit of the institution changed, its members were strongly inclined towards the academic structures of the president and it is then that we can begin to understand why in the history of art the scandalous movements stand out more and with representatives with epic and dramatic lives.

The academy was filled with a self-indulgent feeling towards its art, what was known as official and academic art began to have a similar mold for everything and whoever looked more like the president, the better artist he was. Leighton as such, strove for the academy to overflow with virtuous men and its galleries to be filled with masterpieces, but without knowing it, he had become the limit and no one could see beyond it.

The curious panorama of art in the 19th century shows that the level of internationalization among artists from each country was different, and the best example is between England and France. In Paris, nonconformists raised their voices and they did so with their brushes, canvases and exhibitions, with the eyes of the continent in the flourishing capital of art, the works of the most famous fluctuated from country to country, as well as the tastes of the people. But in England it was different, one could believe that their artists were more closed than the Parisians and the reality is different, these artists traveled tirelessly and had an international spirit, only the routes of their art circuit did not. There was a relationship in which they knew what to produce because they knew what the English wanted.

As time passed, the age of the president and the Neo-Pompeyists increased, but their art did not change. The efficient dynamic in which that wealthy part of society bought the art of the most renowned artists within the academy became obsolete, but curiously, it was not affected either. After Leighton's death, the golden age of the neo-Pompeyist trend was officially over, but the twilight had been pronounced a decade earlier in 1880.

With the Impressionists making waves in France in that decade, the course of art in Europe was drifting further and further away from British art. At that time, the Neo-Pompeyists were experiencing a decline in their relevance within the art market, however, Olympus never fell as such. None of the leading artists of the trend suffered from poverty, Poynter and Leighton even managed to sell all their works and Alma-Tadema never ceased to be revered, as the sun set on their lands, the Olympians remained morose and stoic with their art. unalterable, as oblivious to the turbulent changes in the art of his time.

This was a situation that lasted decades, after Leighton's death in 1896, the rest of the neo-pompeyists continued to carry out their practice with the same style until the fall of the last one, practically until 1919. This is considered one of the reasons why that academic art is not relevant in the history of art, the noble resilience with which this practice was lowering its voice and disappearing is not compared to the episodes that gave rise to the art revolutions in France between the 19th and early 20th centuries, however, it is still the magnificent story of incredibly virtuous men who produced highly technical and demanding art, showered with titles and accolades.

The sunset came to Olympus and they just watched from their high mount how time left them behind. Time changed, with it the public and its interests changed, this affected art and with the passage of time, in the history of nineteenth-century art, those who shook the public since the scandal began to be relevant and not those who obtained importance in their moment through a rigorous application of the technique in classical themes. This feeling is explained very clearly by Gombrich in The History of Art “(…) in the 19th century” he mentions “the history of art can never consist of the most famous and best paid masters. It seems more like the story of a group of lonely men". It was to be expected since the resurgence of the classical spirit in art manifestations had occurred before and even repeated, although in each one this was manifested differently and Neopompeyism , was no exception.

Sources: The Victorian Olympus, William Gaunt. The History of Art, E. H. Gombrich.