Gustave Courbet is a realist painter he only paints things that he can see and touch. A thing he said was show me and angel and I’ll paint one, I really like this quote because it shows his dedication to painting realistic things. Most of his work goes against the academic traditions. The painting “The Stonebreakers” and “A Burial at Ornans” are two examples of his that show social, political and artistic issues. These two paintings have moved away from the academic traditions and in doing so created strong rejections from the bourgeoisie.
Academic traditions usually show biblical subject matter but in Courbet’s paintings he emphasized the peasant life. In the painting “The Stonebreakers” you see an older and younger man working very hard at breaking stones. You cannot clearly see their faces and that goes against academic standards. You can see that they are working hard because you can visually see the strain on their bodies. Another thing that goes against the academic standards is that these men are considered lower class or peasants and they take up the majority of the canvas. According to the older standards the peasants were made small since they are made much larger in this painting it’s a characteristic of Courbet’s to be technically radical. “The Stonebreakers” painting was considered offensive by the wealthy because of the former issues of social, political and artistic in France. In this painting it was attacked, as being crude because Courbet was glorifying the working class and that didn’t sit to well with the wealthy. The bourgeoisies didn’t want to think about how they were oppressing the poor. This painting is like a kick in the face to them because you cannot see their faces and you just see these two men working very hard. Dimensions are radical, large painting. And in the academic style paintings of this size were reserved for historical subject matter. Again this is offensive to the bourgeoisie. Cropping is a characteristic of photography and that influences Courbet. It’s showing what is real and what is in front of him. The painting no longer exists it was destroyed in World War 2.
Academic traditions usually show biblical subject matter but in Courbet’s paintings he emphasized the peasant life. In the painting “The Stonebreakers” you see an older and younger man working very hard at breaking stones. You cannot clearly see their faces and that goes against academic standards. You can see that they are working hard because you can visually see the strain on their bodies. Another thing that goes against the academic standards is that these men are considered lower class or peasants and they take up the majority of the canvas. According to the older standards the peasants were made small since they are made much larger in this painting it’s a characteristic of Courbet’s to be technically radical. “The Stonebreakers” painting was considered offensive by the wealthy because of the former issues of social, political and artistic in France. In this painting it was attacked, as being crude because Courbet was glorifying the working class and that didn’t sit to well with the wealthy. The bourgeoisies didn’t want to think about how they were oppressing the poor. This painting is like a kick in the face to them because you cannot see their faces and you just see these two men working very hard. Dimensions are radical, large painting. And in the academic style paintings of this size were reserved for historical subject matter. Again this is offensive to the bourgeoisie. Cropping is a characteristic of photography and that influences Courbet. It’s showing what is real and what is in front of him. The painting no longer exists it was destroyed in World War 2.
In both of these painting Courbet showed political radicalism by glorifying the lower class and showing empathy-oppressed state of the lower class workers. He showed the technical radicalism by now showing a clear view of the individual faces, that the lower class people filled the majority of the canvas, and using a canvas of a very large size. All these things were against the academic standards and offended the bourgeoisies.
"The Stonebreakers" really glorified the working class. When you consider the size of the painting and how it that size was reserved for historical painting, you realize that the respect generally regarded to historical figures was given to those stone workers by Courbet. But they don't even have faces! I can see why there would be an initially negative reaction.
ReplyDeleteNice thoughts. I also like to think about "The Stone Breakers" in connection with the recent uprisings of the working class. In 1848, socialist revolutions broke out all over Europe. The 1848 socialist revolutions were very recent events when this painting was created (1849) and displayed (1850-51). The upper-class didn't want to feel threatened by Courbet's subject matter (or looming, powerful figures, for that matter).
ReplyDelete-Prof. Bowen
Hierarchy of scale was practiced, as we learned in previous classes, in ancient Egypt to set the more important figures in a work apart by making them larger. The academy system did something similar based on subject matter. Subjects considered important enough to use a large canvas on were a mythic version of history done in an idealized style as a window into the past. This gave those who wanted Art to change society or wanted a change in the Academic system a lot to rebel against. Courbet usually worked both those angles simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteThe scale of the two men in The Stone Breakers, is a very important part of the painting. Even biblical and mythilogical subjects did usually dominate the canvas like this. It shows just how threatening this could have come across to the higher classes of the time and the space that was being taken from them.
ReplyDeleteI found it very interesting in how bold Courbet decided to be with his work of art. This style of painting seemed to be a brave and courageous move that could have ruined his career but he was fortunate in how it turned out.
ReplyDelete