Jacques Louis David's painting "The Oath of the Horatii" is a turning point in the history of European painting. Stylistically, it still belongs to classicism; This is a style oriented towards 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 brothers Curiatius. 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 stern, simple masculine language 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, “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 a ship that for Christian man symbolizes the community (first the church, and now the nation), has become 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 gold medal for his first painting at the Salon, “Dante’s Boat”, in 1822. And in 1824 he made 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 behind the “Three nice day"The Bourbon regime fell.
On famous painting Delacroix, dedicated to the revolutionary events of 1830, presents different social strata: a dandy in a top hat, a tramp boy, a worker in a shirt. But the main one, of course, is young a beautiful woman with 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, as it were, 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 picture is the Phrygian cap on the girl’s head, permanent heraldic symbol 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 ended up in the hands of protesters, but by the evening of the 3rd in the vicinity spanish capital walked mass shootings rebels. These events soon led to a guerrilla war that 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 on his knees. 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 the artist constantly relive the difficult experience of looking at the last moment before execution. Finally, Goya changes the understanding of a 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 Napoleonic Wars, it was extremely important to realize that this war is part of the eternal war for one’s 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, modernity, puts this event in connection with the national myth, making us realize the struggle of 1808 as eternal struggle 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 took place in the landscape even more palpably 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 sunset or in 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 manifested in German artist Caspar David Friedrich: his landscapes 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.
on his last picture“Ages of Life” depicts 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 said beautifully in his Nobel lecture that a real tragedy is not when a hero dies, but when a 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 painting 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. They are all real people, and experts have 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 such contact with them, which 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 look closely at what Manet did in his painting, we will understand that here great amount inconsistencies that subconsciously worry 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.
325x260 cm.“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
Louvre.
The plot of the painting “Freedom on the Barricades,” exhibited at the Salon in 1831, refers to the events bourgeois revolution 1830. The artist created a kind of allegory of the union between the bourgeoisie, represented in the painting by a young man in a top hat, and the people who surround him. True, by the time the picture was created, the alliance of the people with the bourgeoisie had already collapsed, and it long years was hidden from the viewer. The painting was bought (commissioned) by Louis Philippe, who financed the revolution, but the classic pyramidal compositional structure of this canvas emphasizes its romantic revolutionary symbolism, and the energetic blue and red strokes make the plot excitedly dynamic. A clear silhouette against the background bright sky a young woman in a Phrygian cap stands tall, personifying Freedom; her breasts are bare. She holds the French national flag high above her head. The gaze of the heroine of the canvas is fixed on a man in a top hat with a rifle, personifying the bourgeoisie; to her right is a boy waving pistols, Gavroche, - folk hero Parisian streets.
The painting was donated to the Louvre by Carlos Beistegui in 1942; included in the Louvre collection in 1953.
Marfa Vsevolodovna Zamkova.
http://www.bibliotekar.ru/muzeumLuvr/46.htm
“I chose a modern plot, a scene on the barricades. .. Even if I did not fight for the freedom of the fatherland, then at least I must glorify this freedom,” Delacroix informed his brother, referring to the painting “Freedom Leading the People” (in our country it is also known as “Freedom on barricades"). The call contained in it to fight against tyranny was heard and enthusiastically accepted by contemporaries.
Freedom walks barefoot and bare-chested over the corpses of fallen revolutionaries, calling the rebels to follow them. In her raised hand she holds the tricolor republican flag, and its colors - red, white and blue - echo throughout the canvas. In his masterpiece, Delacroix combined the seemingly incompatible - the protocol realism of reportage with the sublime fabric of poetic allegory. He gave a small episode of street fighting a timeless, epic sound. Central character canvas - Freedom, combining the majestic posture of Aphrodite de Milo with those features that Auguste Barbier endowed Freedom with: “This Strong woman with a powerful chest, with a hoarse voice, with fire in her eyes, fast, with long strides.”
Encouraged by the successes of the Revolution of 1830, Delacroix began work on the painting on September 20 to glorify the Revolution. In March 1831 he received an award for it, and in April he exhibited the painting at the Salon. The painting, with its frantic power, repelled bourgeois visitors, who also reproached the artist for showing only the “rabble” in this heroic action. At the salon in 1831, the French Ministry of the Interior bought "Liberty" for the Luxembourg Museum. After 2 years, “Freedom”, the plot of which was considered too politicized, was removed from the museum and returned to the author. The king bought the painting, but, frightened by its nature, dangerous during the reign of the bourgeoisie, he ordered it to be hidden, rolled up, and then returned to the author (1839). In 1848, the Louvre requested the painting. In 1852 - Second Empire. The picture is again considered subversive and sent to the storage room. IN recent months Of the Second Empire, "Liberty" was again seen as a great symbol, and engravings of this composition served the cause of Republican propaganda. After 3 years, it is removed from there and demonstrated at the world exhibition. At this time, Delacroix rewrote it again. Perhaps he is darkening the bright red tone of the cap to soften its revolutionary look. In 1863, Delacroix dies at home. And after 11 years, “Freedom” is again exhibited at the Louvre.
Delacroix himself did not take part in the “three glorious days”, observing what was happening from the windows of his workshop, but after the fall of the Bourbon monarchy he decided to perpetuate the image of the Revolution.
A revolution always takes you by surprise. You live your life quietly, and suddenly there are barricades on the streets, and government buildings are in the hands of the rebels. And you have to react somehow: one will join the crowd, another will lock himself at home, and the third will depict a riot in a painting
1 FIGURE OF LIBERTY. According to Etienne Julie, Delacroix based the woman's face on the famous Parisian revolutionary - the laundress Anne-Charlotte, who went to the barricades after the death of her brother at the hands of the royal soldiers and killed nine guardsmen.
2 PHRYGIAN CAP- a symbol of liberation (such caps were worn in the ancient world by slaves who were freed).
3 BREAST- a symbol of fearlessness and selflessness, as well as the triumph of democracy (the naked chest shows that Liberty, as a commoner, does not wear a corset).
4 LEGS OF FREEDOM. Delacroix's freedom is barefoot - so in Ancient Rome It was customary to depict gods.
5 TRICOLOR- symbol of French national idea: liberty (blue), equality (white) and fraternity (red). During the events in Paris, it was perceived not as a Republican flag (most of the rebels were monarchists), but as an anti-Bourbon flag.
6 FIGURE IN A CYLINDER. This is both a generalized image of the French bourgeoisie and, at the same time, a self-portrait of the artist.
7 FIGURE IN BERET symbolizes the working class. Such berets were worn by Parisian printers who were the first to take to the streets: after all, according to the decree of Charles X on the abolition of freedom of the press, most printing houses had to be closed, and their workers were left without a livelihood.
8 FIGURE IN BICORN (DOUBLE-CORNER) is a student of the Polytechnic School who symbolizes the intelligentsia.
9 YELLOW-BLUE FLAG- symbol of the Bonapartists (heraldic colors of Napoleon). Among the rebels were many military men who fought in the emperor's army. Most of them were dismissed by Charles X on half pay.
10 FIGURE OF A TEENAGER. Etienne Julie believes that this is a real historical character whose name was d'Arcole. He led the attack on the Grève bridge leading to the town hall and was killed in action.
11 FIGURE OF A KILLED GUARDSMAN- a symbol of the mercilessness of the revolution.
12 FIGURE OF A KILLED CITIZEN. This is the brother of the washerwoman Anna-Charlotte, after whose death she went to the barricades. The fact that the corpse was stripped by marauders indicates the base passions of the crowd, which break to the surface in times of social upheaval.
13 FIGURE OF A DYING MAN The revolutionary symbolizes the readiness of the Parisians who took to the barricades to give their lives for freedom.
14 TRICOLOR over Notre Dame Cathedral. The flag over the temple is another symbol of freedom. During the revolution, the temple bells rang the Marseillaise.
Famous painting by Eugene Delacroix "Freedom Leading the People"(known among us as “Freedom on the Barricades”) gathered dust for many years in the house of the artist’s aunt. Occasionally, the painting appeared at exhibitions, but the salon audience invariably perceived it with hostility - they say it was too naturalistic. Meanwhile, the artist himself never considered himself a realist. By nature, Delacroix was a romantic who eschewed “petty and vulgar” everyday life. And only in July 1830, writes art critic Ekaterina Kozhina, “reality suddenly lost the repulsive shell of everyday life for him.” What happened? Revolution! At that time, the country was ruled by the unpopular King Charles X of Bourbon, a supporter absolute monarchy. At the beginning of July 1830, he issued two decrees: abolishing freedom of the press and granting voting rights only to large landowners. The Parisians could not stand this. On July 27, barricade battles began in the French capital. Three days later, Charles X fled, and the parliamentarians proclaimed Louis Philippe the new king, who returned the people’s freedoms trampled by Charles X (assemblies and unions, public expression of one’s opinion and education) and promised to rule by respecting the Constitution.
Dozens of paintings dedicated to the July Revolution were painted, but Delacroix’s work, due to its monumentality, occupies a special place among them. Many artists then worked in the manner of classicism. Delacroix, according to French critic Etienne Julie, "became an innovator who tried to reconcile idealism with the truth of life." According to Kozhina, “the feeling of life authenticity in Delacroix’s canvas is combined with generality, almost symbolism: the realistic nakedness of the corpse in the foreground calmly coexists with the antique beauty of the Goddess of Freedom.” Paradoxically, even the idealized image of Freedom seemed vulgar to the French. “This is a girl,” wrote the magazine La Revue de Paris, “who escaped from the Saint-Lazare prison.” Revolutionary pathos was not in honor of the bourgeoisie. Later, when realism began to dominate, “Liberty Leading the People” was bought by the Louvre (1874), and the painting entered the permanent exhibition.
|
1798
— Born in Charenton-Saint-Maurice (near Paris) in the family of an official. |
ARTIST Eugene Delacroix. Freedom leading the people to the barricades
In his diary, young Eugene Delacroix wrote on May 9, 1824: “I felt a desire to write on modern subjects.” 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 paintings. A living model never corresponds exactly to the image that we want to convey: the model is either vulgar or inferior , or her 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 you do to find a 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 a plan 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 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’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 artist is no longer satisfied with the figure of d'Arcol alone, rushing forward and captivating the rebels with his heroic impulse. Eugene Delacroix conveys this central role to Freedom itself.
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 place of action, Paris, can only be judged by the piece written in the background of the picture with right side(in the background you can barely see the banner raised on the tower of Notre Dame Cathedral), and around the city houses. The scale, the feeling of the immensity and scope of what is happening - this is what Delacroix conveys 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 stepped out 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 classic features 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 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 Delacroix's 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 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 emotional, immediate and already established painting. , 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 both 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 of expression: “Oh, if Freedom is like this, if this girl with bare feet and bare-chested, running, 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. Berne’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 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.”
“One Hundred Great Paintings” by N. A. Ionin, Veche Publishing House, 2002
Ferdinand Victor Eugene Delacroix(1798-1863) - French painter and graphic artist, leader of the romantic movement in European painting.
, Lance
K:Paintings of 1830"Freedom Leading the People"(fr. La Liberté guidant le peuple) or "Freedom on the Barricades"- painting by French artist Eugene Delacroix.
Delacroix created the painting based on the July Revolution of 1830, which put an end to the Restoration regime of the Bourbon monarchy. After numerous preparatory sketches, it took him only three months to paint the painting. In a letter to his brother on October 12, 1830, Delacroix writes: “If I did not fight for my Motherland, then at least I will write for it.”
“Liberty Leading the People” was first exhibited at the Paris Salon in May 1831, where the painting was enthusiastically received and immediately purchased by the state. Heinrich Heine spoke about his impressions of the salon and of Delacroix’s painting, in particular. 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.
In 1999, Liberty made a 20-hour flight from Paris to an exhibition in Tokyo via Bahrain and Calcutta. Transportation was carried out on board the Airbus Beluga (the dimensions of the canvas - 2.99 m in height by 3.62 m in length - were too large for a Boeing 747) in vertical position in an isothermal pressure chamber protected from vibration.
On February 7, 2013, a visitor to the Louvre-Lens museum, where “Liberty” is exhibited, wrote on the lower part of the canvas with a marker, after which she was detained. The next day, restorers removed the damage, spending less than two hours on it.
Filmography
- “On the pavements. Stopped Moment", film Alena Jaubert from the series “Palettes” (France, 1989).
Write a review of the article "Freedom Leading the People"
Notes
Links
- in the Louvre database (French)
Excerpt describing Freedom Leading the People
And my soul absorbed this laughter, like a person sentenced to death absorbs the warm farewell rays of the already setting sun...- Well, mommy, we’re still alive!.. We can still fight!.. You told me yourself that you’ll fight as long as you’re alive... So let’s think about whether we can do something . Can we rid the world of this Evil.
She supported me again with her courage!.. Again she found the right words...
This sweet, brave girl, almost a child, could not even imagine what kind of torture Caraffa could subject her to! In what brutal pain her soul could drown... But I knew... I knew everything that awaited her if I did not meet him halfway. If I don’t agree to give the Pope the only thing he wanted.
- My dear, my heart... I won’t be able to look at your torment... I won’t give you to him, my girl! The North and others like him don’t care who remains in this LIFE... So why should we be different?.. Why should you and I care about someone else’s, someone else’s fate?!.
I myself was frightened by my words... although in my heart I perfectly understood that they were caused simply by the hopelessness of our situation. And, of course, I was not going to betray what I lived for... For which my father and my poor Girolamo died. Simply, just for a moment, I wanted to believe that we could just pick up and leave this terrible, “black” Karaffa world, forgetting about everything... forgetting about other people unknown to us. Forgetting about evil...
It was a moment of weakness tired man, but I understood that I did not have the right to allow even her. And then, to top it all off, apparently unable to withstand the violence any longer, burning angry tears streamed down my face... But I tried so hard not to let this happen!.. I tried not to show my sweet girl into what depths of despair my exhausted, pain-torn soul...
Anna sadly looked at me with her huge gray eyes, in which lived a deep, not at all childish sadness... She quietly stroked my hands, as if wanting to calm me down. And my heart screamed, not wanting to humble myself... Not wanting to lose her. She was the only remaining meaning to my failed life. And I couldn’t allow the nonhumans called the Pope to take it away from me!
“Mommy, don’t worry about me,” Anna whispered, as if reading my thoughts. - I'm not afraid of pain. But even if it was very painful, grandfather promised to pick me up. I spoke to him yesterday. He will wait for me if you and I fail... And dad too. They will both be there waiting for me. But it will be very painful to leave you... I love you so much, mommy!..
Anna hid in my arms, as if seeking protection... But I couldn’t protect her... I couldn’t save her. I didn’t find the “key” to Karaffa...
- Forgive me, my sunshine, I let you down. I failed us both... I didn't find a way to destroy him. Forgive me, Annushka...
An hour passed unnoticed. We talked about different things, without returning to the murder of the Pope, since we both knew perfectly well that today we had lost... And it didn’t matter what we wanted... Caraffa lived, and that was the worst and most important thing. We have failed to free our world from it. Failed to save good people. He lived, despite any attempts, no desires. Despite everything...