Gustave Courbet: Political and Artistic Radicalism

In the nineteenth century, the oppression of the lower class by the bourgeois caused a great deal of political and artistic radicalism. Thus, began the socialist revolution in 1848. One of the avant-guarde painters of this century whose subject matter was based on this oppression of the poor was Gustave Courbet.

          For example, Courbet’s painting The Stone Breakers, completed just one year after Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” in 1848, demonstrates the conditions and lifestyle of the proletariats, or lower working class. This painting shows a young boy struggling to carry a heavy basket of rocks as the gentleman to the right is in an uncomfortable back breaking position hammering away at rocks. It is apparent that the man on the left is older because of the wrinkles on his hands and the highlighted wrinkles on his cheeks where the sun hits his face. This man is trying to survive while working, and he is working in order to survive. Coubet exposes political radicalism by glorifying the working class and recognizing its oppressed state.

          Like few other artists, Courbet wanted to paint exactly what he saw in front of him; this led to a movement called realism, which was the painting of modern life. The rise of realism was inspired by the invention of the camera. Artists were suddenly challenged to keep up with new technology in order to produce images similar to what could be captured by a camera. Some artists intentionally cropped their compositions as if cutting off a section that the camera couldn’t see. However, artists still rejected the standards of the Academy simply because their subject matter was not of mythological or religious narratives; rather they painted what was directly in front of them. This is artistic radicalism. The Stone Breakers is a rather large painting, about five feet by eight and a half feet. Looking at this painting as a bourgeois member would be extremely intimidating and quite offensive. Firstly, it was untraditional for large scale works to be dedicated to “lowly” subject matter. Not to mention that these figures take up most of the painting. The wealthy must have been appalled to see this. Another aspect of artistic radicalism is expressed by Courbet with his rough paint application; he did not leave a smooth glossy finished surface like artists of the Academy would have done. Also, his figures are pushed to the foreground, forcing the viewer to acknowledge them and recognize what they do on an average day. This was happening right in front of him, and that is the very point Courbet was trying to make. The faces and the gazes of the figures are not visible, which gives them an anonymous identity, representing the oppressed class as a whole. Although their faces are not attracting attention, the simplicity and darkness of the background brings the figures into focus that much more. Courbet expresses some disinterest in creating depth and the illusion of perspective with this piece, which is also a sign of artistic radicalism.          

Introduction to Avant-Guarde: Manet

Art created in the nineteenth century created a new category of art called the Avant-Guarde. This is a term first associated with art by Saint Simon, who encouraged artists to create works that motivated society to do things for the greater good. The term Avant-Guarde was originally used to describe the soldiers in the French military who were ahead of the troops. After its association with art, it was coined to identify artists who went beyond others and challenged the artistic standards governed by the Academy. Avant-Guarde is connected with art that is seen as revolutionary, or innovative. Artists considered to be part of this were those who challenged traditional conventions such as realism and illusionism, which is what the Academy holds in high regards.

            Manet is a great example of Avant-Guarde painting. In fact, in 1960 Clement Greenberg, author of the “Modernist Painting” essay, claimed that Manet’s work began the Modernist movement. Greenberg argued that nineteenth century painting started to “purify” itself and get rid of the more traditional elements of art such as illusionism; it simply becomes nothing more than paint on a canvas. One of Manet’s most controversial paintings is Le Dejeuner sur L’herbe. First of all, it is obvious that Manet has broken away from traditional conventions with his technique. Paintings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, for example, were smooth and the paint was well blended and varnished several times. Manet, on the other hand, left his brush strokes visible because he wanted his painting to look flat, to diminish perspective. Manet has given the viewer a reference to the art world with his incorporation of a nude woman. However, alongside the woman are two modern clothed men. This sparks a bit of confusion in the viewer. The men’s style of clothing suggests that this scene takes place in modern day, and that this is a representation of an everyday occurrence. What is so strange is that these characteristics of the naked woman and the men are casually combined into one painting. What is interesting about the naked woman is that she is facing the two men as if engaging in conversation, but she is turned gazing at the viewer as if to include them in the scene. Another element of the Academy’s tradition that Manet ruins is the illusionism of depth. For example, the woman in the water behind the picnic does not appear as far away as the artist is suggesting. In order for the image to make sense spatially, she would have to be much smaller in proportion to the three people in the foreground. In conclusion, Manet’s painting Le Dejeuner sur L’herbe is a perfect example of an Avant-Guarde painting because of his modern approach to subject matter and technique that goes against traditional conventions established by the Academy.       

My Favorite Style within Renaissance Art

I have studied art from the Renaissance period in previous courses. However one aspect of European art that intrigued me in this class was Mannerism. I had never heard the term before taking this class and it was a pleasure to learn about something new and interesting!

                I am an oil painter and I am so fascinated with the Mannerist style because I feel that I have a connection with the strangeness of some works. I completed my first oil painting in high school and most of my inspiration was drawn from Renaissance artists. Though, as an artist, I’ve evolved into more of a surrealist which explains why I enjoy mannerism so much because that seemed to be the ‘Surrealism’ period of the Renaissance.  I love looking at a piece of work and being forced to ask questions. For example, when I first saw the painting Madonna with the Long Neck by Parmigianino, I had several questions going through my head. I wondered why the artist made the child’s body so large and why the Madonna’s head was so tiny, not to mention the un-functional pillar in the background. I couldn’t take my eyes off of this piece because it was so interesting to me. Parmigianino made his figures so realistic in terms of texture and color, which is why the proportions in this composition are so bothersome to look at. For example, if the baby’s head, hands and feet were covered, he would look normal because of the musculature and subtleties that the artist captured. One of my favorite parts of the piece, though, is the set of pillars lined up in the background. Parmigianino has completely de-functionalized classically derived architectural form which is shocking at first glance and makes the piece that much more unpredictable.   

                Another work that held my attention was Allegory with Venus and Cupid by Bronzino. This painting appears to be completely bizarre to most of its viewers and to me it seems a bit overwhelming. However, I am so attracted to this piece because of its strange ability to hypnotize the viewer into believing that the imagery is acceptable. The situation depicted in this painting is disturbing and uncomfortable but is redeemed by its unique characteristics and different taste that makes the viewer want to analyze every part of it. I am obsessed with the awkward poses that Bronzino has trapped the figures in. I even find a bit of humor looking at this painting simply because the inappropriate behavior between Cupid and Venus is unsettling as it is, but then to the right of them, a young child is running up about the throw flower petals at them as if celebrating their relationship. It is so absurd, I love it!

                In my own work, I tend to exaggerate details and color. I am attracted to vibrant and unnatural color while utilizing true-to-life characteristics. As did the mannerist artists, I am inspired by naturalistic and classical artistic styles, but I exaggerate them while keeping the imagery believable. 

Francois Boucher in Rococo Art

               Of all of the eighteenth century artists noted in our textbook, I was most intrigued by the French artist, Francois Boucher. He lived from 1703 to 1730 during the Rococo period, when Parisian artists began to reject some of the strict Baroque elements of art after the French court was moved from Versaille to Paris. The Rococo style consisted of fanciful decorative arts of gold and painting combined curves and pastel colors for a more graceful and flowingly asymmetrical composition. Boucher took these ideas and incorporated them into his paintings of romanticized pastorals, which were landscapes with shepherds and shepherdesses.  Not only did he paint, but he was one of the most well-known artists of the decorative arts in Europe because of his exquisite tapestries and porcelain. Boucher was talented with several mediums and because of his popularity, had many prints distributed on an international level. During this time, artists were not simply creating works for a single patron; rather the artwork was sold to those of the higher middle class established by the industrial revolution.

                Although Francois Boucher was one of the most famous artists of the eighteenth century, he still had critics. Denis Diderot, for example, was a writer who grew tired of Boucher’s pastorals and repetitive color palette, but praised him for having the talent of having such a magical quality to his work.  One painting called Diana Leaving her Bath has such a quality. I find the subject matter of this piece very interesting because of the way he depicted Diana’s story. She is obviously a skilled huntress roaming around in this vast landscape of eerie and dark woods, yet she is so beautiful and idealized. Her glowing skin and luminous presence makes this painting seem to be a snapshot of a real event that was captured in an instant before anyone could see.  I am attracted to the elegance and subtle variations of warm and cool colors (mostly blues and pinks), for which he was notorious for. Typically, I find softer color palettes boring, but I love the way Boucher exaggerates the blues in his shadows and lightens up women’s flesh as if she’s a miracle.

Boucher worked in Italy in 1728 where he was fascinated by Italian Baroque painters.  His return to Paris in 1730 was when he began working with large scale paintings of mythological scenes, one of which he completed in 1742: Diana Leaving her Bath. This piece describes the goddess Diana relaxing after a day’s hunt. The dead birds and rabbit piled adjacent to her bow suggest that she shot them herself. A nymph waits at the goddess’s side to aid her bathing; this shows that Diana was a superior figure. Boucher’s influence by baroque art is evident with his depiction of the dog on the left side of the work. The position of the dog does not give the viewer a pleasant view, in fact it is a little unexpected and indiscrete. Another element of baroque art in this piece is shown with the blue drapery behind Diana. It swoops down underneath her and the viewer’s eye travels down her crossed legs in a rhythmic diagonal. This blue drapery also seems to act as a “curtain” to represent a figure of importance, also seen in baroque art. The work of Francois Boucher is the epitome of Rococo art, however towards the end of the eighteenth century, Neoclassicism cut him out of the picture with  the renewing style of simplicity and harmony.

               

Bibliography:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/bouc/hd_bouc.htm

http://www.jstor.org/pss/25159852

Michelangelo V Bernini

            Artistic style has evolved over time while trends carried on through generations of creativity. The high Renaissance, for example, explored classicism in art and embraced human anatomy beginning a style called humanism. This carried over into a later period known as the Southern Baroque style. Two works of art that have the same subject matter but were created by different artists from each time period are the sculptures of David by Michelangelo of the Renaissance and Bernini of the Baroque time.   

            Firstly, Michelangelo’s David was executed in a time of perfection. Artists like him living in the high renaissance celebrated the human body and idealized figures portrayed in art. With this version of David, the viewer gets a real sense of naturalism by Michelangelo’s use of “contraposto”. This exaggerated shift of weight was popular during this time to create a more naturalistic feel in the work. Despite this true to life image, David was idealized and his body type makes the piece seem less realistic. On the other hand, David was a heroic biblical figure and is therefore being celebrated and praised as an ideal man. His body looks hard to the touch not because of the marble that it was carved from, but from the muscles that Michelangelo sculpted; his veins are even visible in his arms. This depiction of David is completely nude and shows no embarrassment or attempt to hide himself from the viewer. His hair is stylized into little perfect locks of hair. His stance gives the impression that defeating Goliath was an easy task and now he is simply soaking up the glory. All of this is evidence of idealism being paired with naturalism to create a more harmonious composition.    

            Bernini’s David on the other hand, expresses something a bit more dramatic. Like Bernini, artists of the Southern Baroque period drew attention to movement and drama in their works. He still kept the classical idealism and mythological background; however he captured these styles and images at the height of the action. Rather than standing tall, his David is depicted in the action of hurling his weapon over his shoulder to destroy Goliath. There is so much movement emphasized in this sculpture and is evident by the diagonals created by David’s arms, legs and the rope between his hands. Bernini has drawn the viewer into David’s environment by establishing the curiosity of wanting to look at the sculpture from all angles. One of the biggest differences in Bernini’s David as opposed to Michelangelo’s is that Bernini placed a piece of drapery over David’s genitals. This is important because during this time of the catholic counter-reformation, it was necessary to conceal nudity in art to encourage decency. Most art created at this time served the sole purposes of instructing the faithful and realigning those with the Catholic Church by stirring an emotional response from the work. Bernini made this sculpture of David for the nephew of Pope Paul V which was appropriate because David was a heroic and influential biblical figure. Although this depiction of David is also stylized in terms of his figure and hair, his facial expression is something that really contrasts that of Michelangelo’s version. It is said that Bernini used himself as a reference for this sculpture, which gives it a more dramatic feel because of the expression he used. Instead of the serene, lost-in-thought expression that the former David wore, the latter is portraying his aggression and fear through his facial expression, making it all the more dramatic.

            These are two fantastic sculptures by two very talented artists and it is interesting to see how the same figure can be translated two different ways in different art movements.

Sixteenth Century Art in Northern Europe

Whilst southern Europe was emerging with the new Mannerist art movement, northern Europe began rebelling Protestantism with its own unique styles. However, one of the most famous artists of this time was a man from Germany named Albrecht Dürer and he was inspired by Italian painting and incorporated some of the southern ideas into his work. Unlike other Northern European countries, Germany did not hold a guild system for artists. Because of this, Dürer was able to work independently to gain fame of his marvelous talent.    

            In his engraving Adam and Eve, Dürer promotes several artistic techniques that were popular in northern and southern Europe. For example, one of the characteristics of this work that is a trademark of Italian art is the idealism of the human form. Typically, northern art during this time moved away from the perfect, stylized bodies that were seen more in the south. In this piece, however, Dürer utilizes this ideal form with Adam and Eve although instead of elongating them as seen in Italian mannerist art, he used correct and exact human proportions. This is a sign that humanism was still a big part of art in the south, especially with the contraposto stance that he uses. Another characteristic that shows Italian influence is the stylized hair of Adam and Eve. Eve’s hair appears to be blown back in the wind in perfectly detailed wavy locks. Another distinction that I noticed about this work is that the two figures are shown in profile (at least their heads are) which is a similar style used during the fifteenth century in Italy when portraiture became popular. With his own self-portraits, Düer used the three quarter view and the frontal view, so I am curious as to why he chose to portray Adam and Eve in profile.       

            Dürer integrated this southern style into more northern features. In Adam and Eve, he displays northern ideas with careful attention to detail and texture. The way he created the soft flesh of the two figures as opposed to the rough tree bark is a perfect example of what was popular in northern art. Also, northerners tended to keep similar ideas used in medieval times to capture biblical events in a more contemporary environment. This is portrayed with the animals depicted in the foreground of this work. Four of the animals represent the four medieval temperaments: phlegm, yellow bile, black bile and blood. These animals together are also a sign of balance, which is something that southern artists avoided. Another aspect that represents northern art is the use of symbols. Besides the four temperaments, there are various other symbols such as the parrot which represents the Virgin Mary. It is an implication that Mary is going to bring Christ into the world and reverse the effects of sin that Eve has brought on Earth. Another symbol here is the goat standing on the very top of the mountain in the background. The goat is carefully balancing, looking as if it is about to fall off. This is a representation of the fall of Adam and Eve. They are about to give into temptation and take the fruit of the tree, and therefore become unholy.        

            Along with many other works by Dürer, this piece is a classic example of European art and he is still praised to this day for his astounding work. Some even said that he was immortal. He was a well-educated artist who was aware of his talent and assumed the divine power as an artist. The earlier invention of the printing press is one reason why Dürer became so popular. His work was duplicated and copied, making it more affordable for people all over the world to buy.   

Mannerism During the Late Renaissance

Mannerism arose during the late Renaissance, first started in Italy and then traveled into Northern Europe. This period was mainly influenced by the Italians’ reaction of insecurity about Protestantism. They felt threatened while the northern Catholics were not as affected. Mannerism was a move away from harmony and balance which turned into uncomfortable, awkward and unbalanced compositions.  For my comparative analysis, I will discuss two mannerist paintings Parmigianino’s Madonna with the Long Neck and Bronzino’s Allegory with Venus and Cupid.

The painting Madonna with the Long Neck by Parmigianino is a great example of some mannerist art. One of the biggest signs of mannerism is that both the Madonna and the child are extremely elongated. The Madonna’s legs, her arms, her neck, nose, and even fingers are all longer than the normal human. The child is also laying on her in a strange position. It almost seems as if he is going to fall right onto the floor. The way the Madonna is just barely holding him by the neck and shoulders looks very unpleasing. Even the figure on the left is twisting in an uncomfortable way, and their leg is elongated as well. The single pillar in the background isn’t supporting anything. The viewer has no sense of there being a roof or ceiling; the pillar doesn’t meet up with anything. It doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps this painting is meant to create discomfort in looking upon protestant figures.

Similarly, Allegory with Venus and Cupid by Bronzino is full of mannerist characteristics and is perhaps the most extreme of them all. First of all, the image itself is a bit unsettling. This explicit incest relationship between mother and son is a bit disturbing. Cupid touches the Venus’s breast while her tongue slips out as he kisses her. The fact that both of their eyes are open makes the image all the more inappropriate. Another characteristic is the positions that both Venus and Cupid are posed in. Cupid seems to be a little elongated and is bending down and oddly twisting and embracing Venus. His farthest leg (his left) is still visible and appears to be resting on the pink pillow, but not all of his weight is on that left leg so that cannot be. The same goes for Venus. We cannot tell whether her legs are resting or if she is holding herself up by her knees. Her torso is angled and twisted in a painful looking way and her left arm hangs down holding the golden apple of discord. The child to the right is leading them on running up to throw rose petals at them. This character is known as Folly, or jest. The two masks down at the bottom right corner reinforce the deception portrayed in this image while the dove on the left takes form of the bottom of Cupid’s foot without even touching it. The background is just as un-peaceful. On the right, behind Folly, is a serpent-like creature with the head of a little girl staring blankly with a slight smile. She is twisting her right arm back behind her to push her tail with a stinger back. She had been referred to as Fraud and Pleasure. During the Renaissance, paintings were covered by curtains to temporarily conceal them. We see the same things repeated here where Time (on the right) and Truth (on the left) pull back the curtain to reveal such a horrid and unsettling moment.

Both of these works are of different subject matter but still give off a sense of awkwardness and hold unrealistic characteristics. Because these paintings are the outcome of mannerism, they do not make any sense and are difficult to understand. It was like a form of surrealism during the late renaissance.