Jacques Louis David's painting "The Oath of the Horatii" is a turning point in history European painting. Stylistically, it still belongs to classicism; This is a style oriented toward Antiquity, and at first glance, David retains this orientation. "The Oath of the Horatii" is based on the story of how the Roman patriots three brothers Horace were chosen to fight the representatives of the hostile city of Alba Longa, the Curiatii brothers. Titus Livy and Diodorus Siculus have this story; Pierre Corneille wrote a tragedy based on its plot.
“But it is the Horatian oath that is missing from these classical texts.<...>It is David who turns the oath into the central episode of the tragedy. The old man holds three swords. He stands in the center, he represents the axis of the picture. To his left are three sons merging into one figure, to his right are three women. This picture is stunningly simple. Before David, classicism, with all its orientation towards Raphael and Greece, could not find such a harsh, simple male tongue to express civic values. David seemed to hear what Diderot said, who did not have time to see this canvas: “You need to paint as they said in Sparta.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
In the time of David, Antiquity first became tangible through the archaeological discovery of Pompeii. Before him, Antiquity was the sum of the texts of ancient authors - Homer, Virgil and others - and several dozen or hundreds of imperfectly preserved sculptures. Now it has become tangible, right down to the furniture and beads.
“But there is none of this in David’s picture. In it, Antiquity is amazingly reduced not so much to the surroundings (helmets, irregular swords, togas, columns), but to the spirit of primitive, furious simplicity.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
David carefully orchestrated the appearance of his masterpiece. He painted and exhibited it in Rome, receiving enthusiastic criticism there, and then sent a letter to his French patron. In it, the artist reported that at some point he stopped painting a picture for the king and began to paint it for himself, and, in particular, decided to make it not square, as required for the Paris Salon, but rectangular. As the artist had hoped, the rumors and letter fueled the public excitement, and the painting was booked a prime spot at the already opened Salon.
“And so, belatedly, the picture is put back in place and stands out as the only one. If it had been square, it would have been hung in line with the others. And by changing the size, David turned it into a unique one. It was a very powerful artistic gesture. On the one hand, he declared himself to be the main one in creating the canvas. On the other hand, he attracted everyone’s attention to this picture.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
The painting has another important meaning, which makes it a masterpiece for all time:
“This painting does not address the individual—it addresses the person standing in line. This is a team. And this is a command to a person who first acts and then thinks. David very correctly showed two non-overlapping, absolutely tragically separated worlds - the world of active men and the world of suffering women. And this juxtaposition - very energetic and beautiful - shows the horror that actually lies behind the story of the Horatii and behind this picture. And since this horror is universal, then “The Oath of the Horatii” will not leave us anywhere.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Abstract
In 1816, the French frigate Medusa was wrecked off the coast of Senegal. 140 passengers left the brig on a raft, but only 15 were saved; to survive the 12-day wandering on the waves, they had to resort to cannibalism. A scandal broke out in French society; The incompetent captain, a royalist by conviction, was found guilty of the disaster.
“For liberal French society, the disaster of the frigate “Medusa”, the death of the ship, which for a Christian person symbolizes the community (first the church, and now the nation), became a symbol, a very bad sign of the emerging new regime of the Restoration.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
In 1818, the young artist Theodore Gericault, looking for a worthy subject, read the book of survivors and began working on his painting. In 1819, the painting was exhibited at the Paris Salon and became a hit, a symbol of romanticism in painting. Géricault quickly abandoned his intention to depict the most seductive thing - a scene of cannibalism; he did not show the stabbing, despair or the moment of salvation itself.
“Gradually he chose the only right moment. This is the moment of maximum hope and maximum uncertainty. This is the moment when the people who survived on the raft first see the brig Argus on the horizon, which first passed by the raft (he did not notice it).
And only then, walking on a counter course, I came across him. In the sketch, where the idea has already been found, “Argus” is noticeable, but in the picture it turns into a small dot on the horizon, disappearing, which attracts the eye, but does not seem to exist.”Ilya Doronchenkov
Géricault refuses naturalism: instead of emaciated bodies, he has beautiful, courageous athletes in his paintings. But this is not idealization, this is universalization: the film is not about specific passengers of the Medusa, it is about everyone.
“Gericault scatters the dead in the foreground. It was not he who came up with this: French youth raved about the dead and wounded bodies. It excited, hit the nerves, destroyed conventions: a classicist cannot show the ugly and terrible, but we will. But these corpses have another meaning. Look what is happening in the middle of the picture: there is a storm, there is a funnel into which the eye is drawn. And along the bodies, the viewer, standing right in front of the picture, steps onto this raft. We're all there."
Ilya Doronchenkov
Gericault's painting works in a new way: it is addressed not to an army of spectators, but to every person, everyone is invited to the raft. And the ocean is not just the ocean of lost hopes of 1816. This is human destiny.
Abstract
By 1814, France was tired of Napoleon, and the arrival of the Bourbons was greeted with relief. However, many political freedoms were abolished, the Restoration began, and by the end of the 1820s the younger generation began to realize the ontological mediocrity of power.
“Eugene Delacroix belonged to that layer of the French elite that rose under Napoleon and was pushed aside by the Bourbons. But nevertheless, he was treated kindly: he received a gold medal for his first painting at the Salon, “Dante’s Boat,” in 1822. And in 1824 he produced the painting “The Massacre of Chios,” depicting ethnic cleansing when the Greek population of the island of Chios was deported and exterminated during the Greek War of Independence. This is the first sign of political liberalism in painting, which concerned still very distant countries.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
In July 1830, Charles X issued several laws seriously restricting political freedoms and sent troops to destroy the printing house of an opposition newspaper. But the Parisians responded with fire, the city was covered with barricades, and during the “Three Glorious Days” the Bourbon regime fell.
In the famous painting by Delacroix, dedicated to the revolutionary events of 1830, different social strata are represented: a dandy in a top hat, a tramp boy, a worker in a shirt. But the main one, of course, is a young beautiful woman with a bare chest and shoulder.
“Delacroix succeeds here in something that almost never succeeds in artists of the 19th century century, increasingly more realistically thinking. He manages in one picture - very pathetic, very romantic, very sonorous - to combine reality, physically tangible and brutal (look at the corpses beloved by romantics in the foreground) and symbols. Because this full-blooded woman is, of course, Freedom itself. Political developments since the 18th century have confronted artists with the need to visualize what cannot be seen. How can you see freedom? Christian values are conveyed to a person through a very human way - through the life of Christ and his suffering. But such political abstractions as freedom, equality, fraternity have no appearance. And Delacroix is perhaps the first and not the only one who, in general, successfully coped with this task: we now know what freedom looks like.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
One of the political symbols in the painting is the Phrygian cap on the girl's head, a permanent heraldic symbol of democracy. Another telling motif is nudity.
“Nudity has long been associated with naturalness and with nature, and in the 18th century this association was forced. The history of the French Revolution even knows a unique performance when in the cathedral Notre Dame of Paris a nude French theater actress portrayed nature. And nature is freedom, it is naturalness. And that’s what this tangible, sensual, attractive woman turns out to mean. It denotes natural freedom."
Ilya Doronchenkov
Although this painting made Delacroix famous, it was soon removed from view for a long time, and it is clear why. The viewer standing in front of her finds himself in the position of those who are attacked by Freedom, who are attacked by the revolution. The uncontrollable movement that will crush you is very uncomfortable to watch.
Abstract
On May 2, 1808, an anti-Napoleonic rebellion broke out in Madrid, the city was in the hands of protesters, but by the evening of the 3rd, mass executions of rebels were taking place in the vicinity of the Spanish capital. These events soon led to guerrilla warfare, which lasted six years. When it ends, the painter Francisco Goya will be commissioned two paintings to immortalize the uprising. The first is “The Uprising of May 2, 1808 in Madrid.”
“Goya really depicts the moment the attack began - that first blow by the Navajo that started the war. It is this compression of the moment that is extremely important here. It’s as if he’s bringing the camera closer; from a panorama he moves to an extremely close-up shot, which also hasn’t happened to this extent before. There is another exciting thing: the sense of chaos and stabbing is extremely important here. There is no person here whom you feel sorry for. There are victims and there are killers. And these murderers with bloodshot eyes, Spanish patriots, in general, are engaged in the butcher’s business.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
In the second picture, the characters change places: those who are cut in the first picture, in the second they shoot those who cut them. And the moral ambivalence of the street battle gives way to moral clarity: Goya is on the side of those who rebelled and are dying.
“The enemies are now separated. On the right are those who will live. This is a series of people in uniform with guns, absolutely identical, even more identical than David’s Horace brothers. Their faces are invisible, and their shakos make them look like machines, like robots. These are not human figures. They stand out in black silhouette in the darkness of the night against the backdrop of a lantern flooding a small clearing.
On the left are those who will die. They move, swirl, gesticulate, and for some reason it seems that they are taller than their executioners. Although the main central character- a Madrid man in orange pants and a white shirt is kneeling. He’s still higher, he’s a little bit on the hill.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
The dying rebel stands in the pose of Christ, and for greater persuasiveness, Goya depicts stigmata on his palms. In addition, the artist makes him constantly relive the difficult experience of looking at the last moment before execution. Finally, Goya changes understanding historical event. Before him, an event was depicted with its ritual, rhetorical side; for Goya, an event is a moment, a passion, a non-literary cry.
In the first picture of the diptych, it is clear that the Spaniards are not slaughtering the French: the riders falling under the horses’ feet are dressed in Muslim costumes.
The fact is that Napoleon’s troops included a detachment of Mamelukes, Egyptian cavalrymen.
“It would seem strange that the artist turns Muslim fighters into a symbol of the French occupation. But this allows Goya to turn a modern event into a link in the history of Spain. For any nation that forged its identity during the Napoleonic Wars, it was extremely important to realize that this war is part of an eternal war for its values. And such a mythological war for the Spanish people was the Reconquista, the reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslim kingdoms. Thus, Goya, while remaining faithful to documentary and modernity, puts this event in connection with the national myth, forcing us to understand the struggle of 1808 as the eternal struggle of the Spaniards for the national and Christian.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
The artist managed to create an iconographic formula for execution. Every time his colleagues - be it Manet, Dix or Picasso - addressed the topic of execution, they followed Goya.
Abstract
The pictorial revolution of the 19th century occurred even more noticeably in the landscape than in the event picture.
“The landscape completely changes the optics. A person changes his scale, a person experiences himself differently in the world. Landscape is a realistic representation of what is around us, with a sense of the moisture-laden air and everyday details in which we are immersed. Or it can be a projection of our experiences, and then in the shimmer of a sunset or on a joyful sunny day we see the state of our soul. But there are striking landscapes that belong to both modes. And it’s very difficult to know, in fact, which one is dominant.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
This duality is clearly demonstrated by the German artist Caspar David Friedrich: his landscapes both tell us about the nature of the Baltic and at the same time represent a philosophical statement. There is a languid sense of melancholy in Frederick's landscapes; the person in them rarely penetrates further than the background and usually has his back turned to the viewer.
His latest painting, Ages of Life, shows a family in the foreground: children, parents, an old man. And further, behind the spatial gap - the sunset sky, the sea and sailboats.
“If we look at how this canvas is constructed, we will see a striking echo between the rhythm of the human figures in the foreground and the rhythm of the sailboats at sea. Here are tall figures, here are low figures, here are large sailboats, here are boats under sail. Nature and sailboats are what is called the music of the spheres, it is eternal and independent of man. The man in the foreground is his ultimate being. Friedrich’s sea is very often a metaphor for otherness, death. But death for him, a believer, is a promise eternal life, about which we do not know. These people in the foreground - small, clumsy, not very attractively written - with their rhythm repeat the rhythm of a sailboat, like a pianist repeats the music of the spheres. This is our human music, but it all rhymes with the very music that for Friedrich fills nature. Therefore, it seems to me that in this painting Friedrich promises not an afterlife paradise, but that our finite existence is still in harmony with the universe.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Abstract
After the Great french revolution people realized that they had a past. The 19th century, through the efforts of romantic aesthetes and positivist historians, created the modern idea of history.
“The 19th century created historical painting as we know it. Not abstract Greek and Roman heroes, acting in an ideal setting, guided by ideal motives. History XIX century becomes theatrically melodramatic, it comes closer to man, and we are now able to empathize not with great deeds, but with misfortunes and tragedies. Each European nation created its own history in the 19th century, and in constructing history, it, in general, created its own portrait and plans for the future. In this sense, European historical painting XIX centuries are terribly interesting to study, although, in my opinion, she did not leave, almost no, truly great works. And among these great works, I see one exception, which we Russians can rightfully be proud of. This is “The Morning of the Streltsy Execution” by Vasily Surikov.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
19th-century history painting, focused on superficial verisimilitude, usually follows a single hero who guides history or suffers defeat. Surikov’s painting here is a striking exception. Its hero is a crowd in colorful outfits, which occupies almost four-fifths of the picture; This makes the painting appear strikingly disorganized. Behind the living, swirling crowd, some of which will soon die, stands the motley, undulating St. Basil's Cathedral. Behind the frozen Peter, a line of soldiers, a line of gallows - a line of battlements of the Kremlin wall. The picture is cemented by the duel of glances between Peter and the red-bearded archer.
“A lot can be said about the conflict between society and the state, the people and the empire. But I think there are some other meanings to this piece that make it unique. Vladimir Stasov, a promoter of the work of the Peredvizhniki and a defender of Russian realism, who wrote a lot of unnecessary things about them, said very well about Surikov. He called paintings of this kind “choral.” Indeed, they lack one hero - they lack one engine. The people become the engine. But in this picture the role of the people is very clearly visible. Joseph Brodsky in his Nobel lecture he said beautifully that the real tragedy is not when the hero dies, but when the choir dies.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Events take place in Surikov’s paintings as if against the will of their characters - and in this the artist’s concept of history is obviously close to Tolstoy’s.
“Society, people, nation in this picture seem divided. Peter's soldiers in uniforms that appear to be black and the archers in white are contrasted as good and evil. What connects these two unequal parts of the composition? This is an archer in a white shirt going to execution, and a soldier in uniform who supports him by the shoulder. If we mentally remove everything that surrounds them, we will never in our lives be able to imagine that this person is being led to execution. These are two friends returning home, and one supports the other with friendship and warmth. When Petrusha Grinev in „ The captain's daughter“The Pugachevites hung them up, they said: “Don’t worry, don’t worry,” as if they really wanted to cheer you up. This feeling that a people divided by the will of history is at the same time fraternal and united is an amazing quality of Surikov’s canvas, which I also don’t know anywhere else.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Abstract
In painting, size matters, but not every subject can be depicted on a large canvas. Various pictorial traditions depicted villagers, but most often - not in huge paintings, but this is exactly what “Funeral at Ornans” by Gustave Courbet is. Ornans is a wealthy provincial town, where the artist himself comes from.
“Courbet moved to Paris, but did not become part of the artistic establishment. He did not receive an academic education, but he had a powerful hand, a very tenacious eye and great ambition. He always felt like a provincial, and he was best at home in Ornans. But he lived almost his entire life in Paris, fighting with the art that was already dying, fighting with the art that idealizes and talks about the general, about the past, about the beautiful, without noticing the present. Such art, which rather praises, which rather delights, as a rule, finds a very great demand. Courbet was, indeed, a revolutionary in painting, although now this revolutionary nature of him is not very clear to us, because he writes life, he writes prose. The main thing that was revolutionary about him was that he stopped idealizing his nature and began to paint it exactly as he saw it, or as he believed that he saw it.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
In the giant painting, almost full height about fifty people are depicted. All of them real faces, and experts identified almost all the funeral participants. Courbet painted his fellow countrymen, and they were pleased to be seen in the picture exactly as they were.
“But when this painting was exhibited in 1851 in Paris, it created a scandal. She went against everything that the Parisian public was accustomed to at that moment. She insulted artists with the lack of a clear composition and rough, dense impasto painting, which conveys the materiality of things, but does not want to be beautiful. She frightened the average person by the fact that he could not really understand who it was. The breakdown of communications between the spectators of provincial France and the Parisians was striking. Parisians perceived the image of this respectable, wealthy crowd as an image of the poor. One of the critics said: “Yes, this is a disgrace, but this is the disgrace of the province, and Paris has its own disgrace.” Ugliness actually meant the utmost truthfulness.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Courbet refused to idealize, which made him a true avant-garde of the 19th century. He focuses on French popular prints, and a Dutch group portrait, and ancient solemnity. Courbet teaches us to perceive modernity in its uniqueness, in its tragedy and in its beauty.
“French salons knew images of hard peasant labor, poor peasants. But the mode of depiction was generally accepted. The peasants needed to be pitied, the peasants needed to be sympathized with. It was a somewhat top-down view. A person who sympathizes is, by definition, in a priority position. And Courbet deprived his viewer of the possibility of such patronizing empathy. His characters are majestic, monumental, they ignore their viewers, and they do not allow one to establish with them the kind of contact that makes them part of the familiar world; they very powerfully break stereotypes.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Abstract
The 19th century did not love itself, preferring to look for beauty in something else, be it Antiquity, the Middle Ages or the East. Charles Baudelaire was the first to learn to see the beauty of modernity, and it was embodied in painting by artists whom Baudelaire was not destined to see: for example, Edgar Degas and Edouard Manet.
“Manet is a provocateur. Manet is at the same time a brilliant painter, the charm of whose colors, colors very paradoxically combined, forces the viewer not to ask himself obvious questions. If we look closely at his paintings, we will often be forced to admit that we do not understand what brought these people here, what they are doing next to each other, why these objects are connected on the table. The simplest answer: Manet is first and foremost a painter, Manet is first and foremost an eye. He is interested in the combination of colors and textures, and the logical pairing of objects and people is the tenth thing. Such pictures often confuse the viewer who is looking for content, who is looking for stories. Manet doesn't tell stories. He could have remained such an amazingly accurate and exquisite optical apparatus if he had not created his last masterpiece already in those years when he was in the grip of a fatal illness.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
The painting "Bar at the Folies Bergere" was exhibited in 1882, at first earned ridicule from critics, and then was quickly recognized as a masterpiece. Its theme is a café-concert, a striking phenomenon of Parisian life in the second half of the century. It seems that Manet vividly and authentically captured the life of the Folies Bergere.
“But when we start to take a closer look at what Manet did in his painting, we will understand that there are a huge number of inconsistencies that are subconsciously disturbing and, in general, do not receive a clear resolution. The girl we see is a saleswoman, she must use her physical attractiveness to make customers stop, flirt with her and order more drinks. Meanwhile, she does not flirt with us, but looks through us. There are four bottles of champagne on the table, warm - but why not in ice? IN mirror image these bottles are not on the same edge of the table as they are in the foreground. The glass with roses is seen from a different angle than all the other objects on the table. And the girl in the mirror does not look exactly like the girl who looks at us: she is thicker, she has more rounded shapes, she is leaning towards the visitor. In general, she behaves as the one we are looking at should behave.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Feminist criticism drew attention to the fact that the girl’s outline resembles a bottle of champagne standing on the counter. This is an apt observation, but hardly exhaustive: the melancholy of the picture and the psychological isolation of the heroine resist a straightforward interpretation.
“These optical plot and psychological mysteries of the picture, which seem to have no definite answer, force us to approach it again every time and ask these questions, subconsciously imbued with that feeling of beautiful, sad, tragic, everyday modern life, which Baudelaire dreamed of and which Manet left before us forever.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
100 masterpieces of painting. The most famous paintings in the world
... or “Freedom on the Barricades” - a painting by the French artist Eugene Delacroix. It seems to have been created in one impulse. Delacroix created the painting based on the July Revolution of 1830, which put an end to the Restoration regime of the Bourbon monarchy.
This is the final assault. The crowd converges on the viewer in a cloud of dust, waving their weapons. She crosses the barricade and breaks into the enemy camp. At the head are four figures in the center - a woman. A mythical goddess, she leads them to Freedom. Soldiers lie at their feet. The action rises in a pyramid, according to two planes: horizontal figures at the base and vertical, close-up. The image becomes a monument. The sweeping touch and sweeping rhythm are balanced. The painting combines accessories and symbols - history and fiction, reality and allegory. Allegories of Freedom are a living and energetic daughter of the people, which embodies rebellion and victory. Dressed in a Phrygian cap, floating on her neck, she brings to mind the revolution of 1789. The flag, a symbol of struggle, unfolds from the back of the blue-white-red. From dark to bright as a flame. Her yellow dress, whose double belt floats in the wind, slides below her breasts and is reminiscent of ancient drapery. Nudity is erotic realism and is associated with winged victories. The profile is Greek, the nose is straight, the mouth is generous, the chin is gentle. An exceptional woman among men, decisive and noble, turning her head towards them, she leads them to final victory. The profile figure is illuminated from the right. Resting on her bare left leg, which protrudes from her dress, the fire of action transforms her. Allegory is the real hero of the struggle. The rifle she holds in her left hand makes her look realistic. On the right, in front of the figure of Liberty, is a boy. The symbol of youth rises as a symbol of injustice. And we remember the character of Gavroche in Victor Hugo’s novel “Les Miserables.” “Liberty Leading the People” was first exhibited at the Paris Salon in May 1831, where the painting was enthusiastically received and immediately bought by the state. Due to the revolutionary plot, the painting was not exhibited in public for the next quarter of a century. In the center of the picture is a woman, symbolizing freedom. On her head is a Phrygian cap, in her right hand is the flag of Republican France, in her left is a gun. The bare chest symbolizes the dedication of the French of that time, who went bare-chested against the enemy. The figures around Liberty - a worker, a bourgeois, a teenager - symbolize the unity of the French people during the July Revolution. Some art historians and critics suggest that in the form of a man in a top hat to the left of main character the artist depicted himself.
Delacroix. "Freedom leading the people." 1831 Paris. Louvre.
Through the ruins of the barricade, which had just been recaptured from government troops, an avalanche of rebels was moving swiftly and menacingly right over the bodies of the dead. Ahead, a beautiful woman with a banner in her hand rises to the barricade. This is Freedom leading the people. Delacroix was inspired to create this image by the poems of Auguste Barbier. In his poem "Iambas" he found an allegorical image of the goddess of Liberty, shown as a powerful woman from the people:
"This Strong woman with a mighty chest,
With a hoarse voice and fire in his eyes,
Fast, with a wide stride,
Enjoying the cries of the people,
Bloody fights, long roar of drums,
The smell of gunpowder wafting from afar,
With the echoes of bells and deafening guns."
The artist boldly introduced a symbolic image into the crowd of real Parisians. This is both an allegory and a living woman (it is known that many Parisian women took part in the July battles). She has a classic antique profile, a powerful sculpted torso, a chiton dress, and a Phrygian cap on her head - ancient symbol liberation from slavery
Reviews
I always had the impression that there was something unhealthy about this picture. A strange symbol of patriotism and freedom. This power
This lady could rather symbolize freedom of morals, leading the people into a brothel, and not into revolution. True, the “goddess of freedom” has this
a menacing and stern facial expression that, perhaps, not everyone dares to
stare at her mighty breasts, so you can think in two ways here...
Sorry if I said something wrong, I was just expressing my opinion.
Dear princess! The opinion you expressed once again shows that men and women look at many things differently. An erotic moment in such an inappropriate situation? But it is undoubtedly present, and even very similar to it! Revolution is the destruction of everything old. Foundations are crumbling. The impossible becomes possible. So, this rapture of freedom is thoroughly erotic. Delacroix felt it. Barbier felt it. Pasternak (in a completely different revolutionary time) felt this (read “My Sister is My Life”). I’m even sure that if a man had undertaken to write a novel about the end of the world, he would have depicted many things differently. (Armageddon - isn't this the revolution of all revolutions?) With a smile.
If the end of the world is a revolution, then death is also a revolution))))
True, for some reason the majority are trying to organize a counter-revolution, yes
and they depict her in a very unerotic way, you know, a skeleton with a scythe and
in a black cloak. However... I won’t argue, maybe, in fact
men see it all somehow differently.
The daily audience of the Proza.ru portal is about 100 thousand visitors, who in total view more than half a million pages according to the traffic counter, which is located to the right of this text. Each column contains two numbers: the number of views and the number of visitors.
Description of work
Romanticism replaces the Age of Enlightenment and coincides with the industrial revolution, marked by the appearance of the steam engine, locomotive, steamship, photography and factory outskirts. If the Enlightenment is characterized by the cult of reason and civilization based on its principles, then romanticism affirms the cult of nature, feelings and the natural in man. It was in the era of romanticism that the phenomena of tourism, mountaineering and picnics took shape, designed to restore the unity of man and nature.
1. Introduction. Description of the historical and cultural context of the era.
2- Author's biography.
3- Type, genre, plot, formal linguistic characteristics (composition, material, technique, strokes, color), creative concept of the picture.
4- Painting “Freedom on the barricades”).
5- Analysis with modern context (justification of relevance).
Files: 1 file
Chelyabinsk State Academy
Culture and Arts.
Semester test based on an artistic painting
EUGENE DELACROIX "FREEDOM ON THE BARRICADES."
Performed by a second-year student of group 204 TV
Rusanova Irina Igorevna
Checked by art teacher O.V. Gindina.
Chelyabinsk 2012
1. Introduction. Description of the historical and cultural context of the era.
3- Type, genre, plot, formal linguistic characteristics (composition, material, technique, strokes, color), creative concept of the picture.
4- Painting “Freedom on the barricades”).
5- Analysis with modern context (justification of relevance).
ART OF WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE XIX CENTURY.
Romanticism replaces the Age of Enlightenment and coincides with the industrial revolution, marked by the appearance of the steam engine, locomotive, steamship, photography and factory outskirts. If the Enlightenment is characterized by the cult of reason and civilization based on its principles, then romanticism affirms the cult of nature, feelings and the natural in man. It was in the era of romanticism that the phenomena of tourism, mountaineering and picnics took shape, designed to restore the unity of man and nature. The image of a “noble savage”, armed with “folk wisdom” and not spoiled by civilization, is in demand. That is, the romanticists wanted to show an unusual person in unusual circumstances.
The development of romanticism in painting proceeded in sharp polemics with adherents of classicism. The Romantics reproached their predecessors for “cold rationality” and the lack of “movement of life.” In the 20-30s, the works of many artists were characterized by pathos and nervous excitement; they showed a tendency towards exotic motifs and play of imagination, capable of leading away from the “dull everyday life”. The struggle against frozen classicist norms lasted a long time, almost half a century. The first who managed to consolidate the new direction and “justify” romanticism was Theodore Gericault
Historical milestones defining the development of Western European art mid-19th centuries, there were European revolutions of 1848-1849. and the Paris Commune of 1871. In the largest capitalist countries there is a rapid growth of the labor movement. The scientific ideology of the revolutionary proletariat emerges, the creators of which were K. Marx and F. Engels. The rise in activity of the proletariat arouses the furious hatred of the bourgeoisie, which unites around itself all the forces of reaction.
With the revolutions of 1830 and 1848-1849. The highest achievements of art are connected, the directions of which during this period were revolutionary romanticism and democratic realism. The most prominent representatives of revolutionary romanticism in the art of the mid-19th century. There was the French painter Delacroix and the French sculptor Rude.
Ferdinand Victor Eugène Delacroix (French: Ferdinand Victor Eugène Delacroix; 1798-1863) - French painter and graphic artist, leader of the romantic movement in European painting. Delacroix’s first painting was “Dante’s Boat” (1822), which he exhibited at the Salon.
The work of Eugene Delacroix can be divided into two periods. In the first, the artist was close to reality, in the second, he gradually moved away from it, limiting himself to subjects drawn from literature, history, and mythology. The most significant paintings:
“The Massacre at Chios” (1823-1824, Louvre, Paris) and “Freedom on the Barricades” (1830, Louvre, Paris)
Painting "Freedom on the barricades".
The revolutionary romantic painting “Freedom on the Barricades” is associated with the July Revolution of 1830 in Paris. The artist specifies the scene of action - the Ile de la Cité and the towers of Notre Dame Cathedral loom on the right. The images of people whose social affiliation can be determined both by the character of their faces and by their costumes are also quite specific. The viewer sees rebel workers, students, Parisian boys and intellectuals.
The image of the latter is a self-portrait of Delacroix. Its introduction into the composition once again indicates that the artist feels like a participant in what is happening. A woman walks through the barricade next to the rebel. She is naked to the waist: on her head is a Phrygian cap, in one hand is a gun, in the other is a banner. This is an allegory of Freedom leading the people (hence the second title of the picture - Freedom leading the people). In the growing movement from the depths, the rhythm of raised hands, guns, sabers, in the clouds of gunpowder smoke, in the major-sounding chords of the red-white-blue banner - the brightest spot of the picture - one can feel the rapid pace of the revolution.
The painting was exhibited at the Salon of 1831, the canvas aroused strong approval from the public. The new government bought the painting, but immediately ordered its removal; its pathos seemed too dangerous. However, then for almost twenty-five years, due to the revolutionary nature of the plot, Delacroix’s work was not exhibited.
Currently located in room 77 on the 1st floor of the Denon Gallery in the Louvre.
The composition of the picture is very dynamic. The artist gave a simple episode of street fighting a timeless, epic sound. The rebels rise to the barricade recaptured from the royal troops, and they are led by Liberty herself. Critics saw her as “a cross between a merchant and an ancient Greek goddess.” In fact, the artist gave his heroine both the majestic posture of the “Venus de Milo” and those features that the poet Auguste Barbier, singer of the revolution of 1830, endowed Liberty with: “This is a strong woman with a powerful chest, with a hoarse voice, with fire in her eyes, fast, with a wide stride." Liberty raises the tricolor banner of the French Republic; followed by an armed crowd: artisans, military, bourgeois, adults, children.
Gradually a wall grew and became stronger, separating Delacroix and his art from reality. The revolution of 1830 found him so withdrawn in his solitude. Everything that just a few days ago constituted the meaning of life for the romantic generation was instantly thrown far back and began to “look petty” and unnecessary in front of the enormity of the events that had taken place.
The amazement and enthusiasm experienced these days invade Delacroix's solitary life. For him, reality loses its repulsive shell of vulgarity and everyday life, revealing true greatness, which he had never seen in it and which he had previously sought in Byron’s poems, historical chronicles, ancient mythology and in the East.
The July days resonated in the soul of Eugene Delacroix with the idea of a new painting. Barricade battles on July 27, 28 and 29 in French history decided the outcome of the political coup. These days, King Charles X, the last representative of the Bourbon dynasty hated by the people, was overthrown. For the first time for Delacroix it was not a historical, literary or oriental plot, but real life. However, before this plan was realized, he had to go through a long and difficult path of change.
R. Escolier, the artist’s biographer, wrote: “At the very beginning, under the first impression of what he saw, Delacroix did not intend to depict Liberty among its adherents... He simply wanted to reproduce one of the July episodes, such as the death of d’Arcole.” Yes , then many feats were accomplished and sacrifices were made. D'Arcol's heroic death was associated with the seizure of the Paris Town Hall by the rebels. On the day when the royal troops were holding the suspension bridge of Greve under fire, a young man appeared and rushed to the town hall. He exclaimed: “If I die, remember that my name is d’Arcole.” He was indeed killed, but managed to attract the people with him and the town hall was taken.
Eugene Delacroix made a pen sketch, which, perhaps, became the first sketch for the future painting. The fact that this was not an ordinary drawing is evidenced by the precise choice of moment, the completeness of the composition, thoughtful accents on individual figures, the architectural background organically fused with the action, and other details. This drawing could really serve as a sketch for a future painting, but art critic E. Kozhina believed that it remained just a sketch that had nothing in common with the canvas that Delacroix painted later. The figure of d’Arcole alone is no longer enough for the artist. rushing forward and captivating the rebels with his heroic impulse, Eugene Delacroix conveys this central role to Freedom itself.
While working on the painting, two opposing principles collided in Delacroix's worldview - inspiration inspired by reality, and on the other hand, a distrust of this reality that had long been ingrained in his mind. Distrust that life can be beautiful in itself, that human images and purely pictorial means can convey the idea of a painting in its entirety. This mistrust dictated to Delacroix the symbolic figure of Freedom and some other allegorical clarifications.
The artist transfers the entire event into the world of allegory, we reflect the idea in the same way as Rubens, whom he idolizes, did (Delacroix told the young Edouard Manet: “You must see Rubens, you must be imbued with Rubens, you must copy Rubens, for Rubens is a god”) in his compositions that personify abstract concepts. But Delacroix still does not follow his idol in everything: freedom for him is symbolized not by an ancient deity, but by the simplest woman, who, however, becomes royally majestic.
Allegorical Freedom is complete life truth, in a swift rush she walks ahead of the column of revolutionaries, carrying them along with her and expressing the highest meaning of the struggle - the power of the idea and the possibility of victory. If we did not know that the Nike of Samothrace was dug out of the ground after Delacroix’s death, we could assume that the artist was inspired by this masterpiece.
Many art critics noted and reproached Delacroix for the fact that all the greatness of his painting cannot obscure the impression, which at first turns out to be only barely noticeable. It's about about the clash in the artist’s mind of opposing aspirations, which left its mark even in the completed canvas; Delacroix’s hesitation between a sincere desire to show reality (as he saw it) and an involuntary desire to raise it to the buskins, between the attraction to painting that is emotional, immediate and already established, familiar to the artistic tradition. Many were not happy that the most ruthless realism, which horrified the well-intentioned public of art salons, was combined in this picture with impeccable, ideal beauty. Noting as a virtue the feeling of life authenticity, which had never before appeared in Delacroix’s work (and was never repeated again), the artist was reproached for the generality and symbolism of the image of Freedom. However, also for the generalization of other images, blaming the artist for the fact that the naturalistic nudity of the corpse in the foreground is adjacent to the nudity of Freedom.
But, pointing out the allegorical nature of the main image, some researchers forget to note that the allegorical nature of Freedom does not at all create dissonance with the other figures in the picture, and does not look as foreign and exceptional in the picture as it might seem at first glance. After all, the rest acting characters in essence and in their role they are also allegorical. In their person, Delacroix seems to bring to the fore those forces that made the revolution: the workers, the intelligentsia and the plebs of Paris. A worker in a blouse and a student (or artist) with a gun are representatives of very specific strata of society. These are, undoubtedly, vivid and reliable images, but Delacroix brings this generalization to symbols. And this allegory, which is clearly felt already in them, reaches its highest development in the figure of Freedom. She is a formidable and beautiful goddess, and at the same time she is a daring Parisian. And nearby, jumping over the stones, screaming with delight and waving pistols (as if directing events) is a nimble, disheveled boy - a little genius of the Parisian barricades, whom Victor Hugo would call Gavroche 25 years later.
The painting “Freedom on the Barricades” ends the romantic period in Delacroix’s work. The artist himself loved this painting very much and made a lot of efforts to ensure that it ended up in the Louvre. However, after the seizure of power by the “bourgeois monarchy,” the exhibition of this painting was prohibited. Only in 1848 was Delacroix able to exhibit his painting one more time, and even for quite a long time, but after the defeat of the revolution it ended up in storage for a long time. The true meaning of this work by Delacroix is determined by its second name, unofficial: many have long been accustomed to seeing in this picture the “Marseillaise of French painting.”
The painting is depicted on canvas. It was painted in oil.
ANALYSIS OF THE PICTURE BY COMPARISON OF MODERN LITERATURE AND RELEVANCE.
Own perception of the picture.
On this moment I believe that Delacroix's painting "Freedom on the Barricades" is very relevant in our time.
The theme of revolution and freedom still excites not only great minds, but also the people. Now the freedom of mankind is under the direction of power. People are limited in everything, humanity is driven by money, and the bourgeoisie is at the head.
In the 21st century, humanity has more opportunities to go to rallies, pickets, manifestos, draw and create texts (but there are exceptions if the text is classified as extremism), in which they boldly show their positions and views.
Recently, the topic of freedom and revolution in Russia has also become more relevant than it was before. All this is connected with the latest events on the part of the opposition (the Left Front, Solidarity movements, the party of Navalnov and Boris Nemtsov)
More and more often we hear slogans calling for freedom and a revolution in the country. Modern poets clearly express this in poetry. Example – Alexey Nikonov. His revolutionary rebellion and his position in relation to the entire situation in the country is reflected not only in poetry, but also in his songs.
I also believe that our country needs a revolutionary coup. You can't take away humanity's freedom, put them in shackles and force them to work for the system. A person has the right to choose, freedom of speech, but they are trying to take that away too. And there are no boundaries - you are a baby, a child or an adult. Therefore, Delacroix’s paintings are very close to me, as is he himself.
In his diary, young Eugene Delacroix wrote on May 9, 1824: “I felt a desire to write in modern stories" This was not a random phrase; a month earlier he had written down a similar phrase: “I want to write about the subjects of the revolution.” The artist had repeatedly spoken before about his desire to write on contemporary topics, but very rarely realized these desires. This happened because Delacroix believed “...everything should be sacrificed for the sake of harmony and the real transmission of the plot. We must do without models in our paintings. A living model never corresponds exactly to the image that we want to convey: the model is either vulgar, or inferior, or its beauty is so different and more perfect that everything has to be changed.”
The artist preferred subjects from novels to the beauty of his life model. “What should be done to find the plot? - he asks himself one day. “Open a book that can inspire and trust your mood!” And he religiously follows his own advice: every year the book becomes more and more a source of themes and plots for him.
Thus, the wall gradually grew and strengthened, separating Delacroix and his art from reality. The revolution of 1830 found him so withdrawn in his solitude. Everything that just a few days ago constituted the meaning of life for the romantic generation was instantly thrown far back and began to “look small” and unnecessary in front of the enormity of the events that had taken place. The amazement and enthusiasm experienced these days invade Delacroix's solitary life. For him, reality loses its repulsive shell of vulgarity and everyday life, revealing true greatness, which he had never seen in it and which he had previously sought in Byron’s poems, historical chronicles, ancient mythology and in the East.
The July days resonated in the soul of Eugene Delacroix with the idea of a new painting. The barricade battles of July 27, 28 and 29 in French history decided the outcome of the political revolution. These days, King Charles X, the last representative of the Bourbon dynasty hated by the people, was overthrown. For the first time for Delacroix it was not a historical, literary or oriental subject, but the most real life. However, before this plan was realized, he had to go through a long and difficult path of change.
R. Escolier, the artist’s biographer, wrote: “At the very beginning, under the first impression of what he saw, Delacroix did not intend to depict Liberty among its adherents... He simply wanted to reproduce one of the July episodes, such as the death of d'Arcol." Yes , then many feats were accomplished and sacrifices were made. D'Arcol's heroic death was associated with the seizure of the Paris Town Hall by the rebels. On the day when the royal troops were holding the suspension bridge of Greve under fire, a young man appeared and rushed to the town hall. He exclaimed: “If I die, remember that my name is d'Arcol." He was indeed killed, but managed to captivate the people with him and the town hall was taken. Eugene Delacroix made a sketch with a pen, which, perhaps, became the first sketch for future painting, The fact that this was not an ordinary drawing is evidenced by the precise choice of moment, the completeness of the composition, thoughtful accents on individual figures, the architectural background organically fused with the action, and other details. This drawing could really serve as a sketch. to the future painting, but the art critic E. Kozhina believed that it remained just a sketch, having nothing in common with the canvas that Delacroix painted later. The figure of d'Arcol alone, rushing forward and captivating with his heroic impulse, is no longer enough for the Artist. rebels. Eugene Delacroix conveys this central role to Liberty herself.
The artist was not a revolutionary and he himself admitted it: “I am a rebel, but not a revolutionary.” Politics interested him little, which is why he wanted to depict not a separate fleeting episode (even the heroic death of d'Arcole), not even a separate historical fact, but the nature of the whole event. So, the location of the action, Paris, can be judged only by the piece written in the background of the picture on the right side (in the depths the banner raised on the tower of Notre Dame Cathedral is barely visible), and by the city houses. The scale, the feeling of the immensity and scope of what is happening - this is what Delacroix imparts to his huge canvas and what the depiction of a private episode, even a majestic one, would not provide.
The composition of the picture is very dynamic. In the center of the picture there is a group of armed people in simple clothes, they move towards the foreground of the picture and to the right. Because of the gunpowder smoke, the area is not visible, nor is it clear how large this group itself is. The pressure of the crowd filling the depths of the picture forms an ever-increasing internal pressure that must inevitably break through. And so, ahead of the crowd, a beautiful woman with a tricolor republican banner in her right hand and a gun with a bayonet in her left strode widely from a cloud of smoke to the top of the taken barricade. On her head is a red Phrygian cap of the Jacobins, her clothes flutter, exposing her breasts, the profile of her face resembles the classical features of the Venus de Milo. This is Freedom full of strength and inspiration, which with a decisive and bold movement shows the way to the fighters. Leading people through the barricades, Freedom does not order or command - it encourages and leads the rebels.
While working on the painting, two opposing principles collided in Delacroix's worldview - inspiration inspired by reality, and on the other hand, a distrust of this reality that had long been ingrained in his mind. Distrust in the fact that life can be beautiful in itself, that human images and purely pictorial means can convey the idea of a painting in its entirety. This mistrust dictated to Delacroix the symbolic figure of Freedom and some other allegorical clarifications.
The artist transfers the entire event into the world of allegory, reflects the idea in the same way as Rubens, whom he idolizes, did (Delacroix told the young Edouard Manet: “You must see Rubens, you must be imbued with Rubens, you must copy Rubens, for Rubens is a god”) in his compositions that personify abstract concepts. But Delacroix still does not follow his idol in everything: freedom for him is symbolized not by an ancient deity, but by the simplest woman, who, however, becomes royally majestic. Allegorical Freedom is full of vital truth; in a swift rush it goes ahead of the column of revolutionaries, carrying them along with it and expressing the highest meaning of the struggle - the power of the idea and the possibility of victory. If we did not know that the Nike of Samothrace was dug out of the ground after Delacroix’s death, we could assume that the artist was inspired by this masterpiece.
Many art critics noted and reproached Delacroix for the fact that all the greatness of his painting cannot obscure the impression, which at first turns out to be only barely noticeable. We are talking about a clash in the artist’s mind of opposing aspirations, which left its mark even in the completed canvas, Delacroix’s hesitation between a sincere desire to show reality (as he saw it) and an involuntary desire to raise it to the buskins, between the attraction to painting that is emotional, immediate and already established, accustomed to artistic tradition. Many were not happy that the most ruthless realism, which horrified the well-intentioned public of art salons, was combined in this picture with impeccable, ideal beauty. Noting as a virtue the feeling of life authenticity, which had never before appeared in Delacroix’s work (and was never repeated again), the artist was reproached for the generality and symbolism of the image of Freedom. However, also for the generalization of other images, blaming the artist for the fact that the naturalistic nudity of the corpse in the foreground is adjacent to the nudity of Freedom. This duality did not escape Delacroix’s contemporaries and later connoisseurs and critics. Even 25 years later, when the public had already become accustomed to the naturalism of Gustave Courbet and Jean François Millet, Maxime Ducamp was still raging in front of “Freedom on the Barricades,” forgetting all restraint. expressions: “Oh, if Freedom is like this, if this girl with bare feet and bare chest, who runs screaming and waving a gun, then we don’t need her. We have nothing to do with this shameful vixen!”
But, reproaching Delacroix, what could be contrasted with his painting? The revolution of 1830 was also reflected in the work of other artists. After these events, the royal throne was occupied by Louis Philippe, who tried to present his rise to power as almost the only content of the revolution. Many artists who took exactly this approach to the topic rushed along the path of least resistance. For these masters, the revolution, as a spontaneous popular wave, as a grandiose popular impulse, does not seem to exist at all. They seem to be in a hurry to forget about everything that they saw on the streets of Paris in July 1830, and the “three glorious days” appear in their depiction as completely well-intentioned actions of Parisian townspeople, who were only concerned with how to quickly get a new king to replace the exiled one. Such works include Fontaine’s painting “The Guard Proclaiming Louis Philippe King” or O. Vernet’s painting “The Duke of Orleans Leaving the Palais Royal”.
But, pointing out the allegorical nature of the main image, some researchers forget to note that the allegorical nature of Freedom does not at all create dissonance with the other figures in the picture, and does not look as foreign and exceptional in the picture as it might seem at first glance. After all, the rest of the acting characters are also allegorical in essence and in their role. In their person, Delacroix seems to bring to the fore those forces that made the revolution: the workers, the intelligentsia and the plebs of Paris. A worker in a blouse and a student (or artist) with a gun are representatives of very specific strata of society. These are, undoubtedly, vivid and reliable images, but Delacroix brings this generalization to symbols. And this allegory, which is clearly felt already in them, reaches its highest development in the figure of Freedom. She is a formidable and beautiful goddess, and at the same time she is a daring Parisian. And nearby, jumping over the stones, screaming with delight and waving pistols (as if directing events) is a nimble, disheveled boy - a little genius of the Parisian barricades, whom Victor Hugo would call Gavroche 25 years later.
The painting “Freedom on the Barricades” ends the romantic period in Delacroix’s work. The artist himself loved this painting very much and made a lot of efforts to ensure that it ended up in the Louvre. However, after the seizure of power by the “bourgeois monarchy,” the exhibition of this painting was prohibited. Only in 1848 was Delacroix able to exhibit his painting one more time, and even for quite a long time, but after the defeat of the revolution it ended up in storage for a long time. The true meaning of this work by Delacroix is determined by its second name, unofficial. Many have long been accustomed to seeing in this picture the “Marseillaise of French painting.”