Major Dimensions of Art - Essay Example

Joan Miro’s the bullfight and Gustave Courbet’s the stone breakers The Stonebreakers’ artist Gustave Courbet was a painter in the 19th century and painted this particular artistic piece in 1849 (Riat 11). He was a founding member of the realist movement and used it overtly in his style. While the rest of Europe was still enthralled by the classical and famous themes in their paintings, instead of focusing on their surrounding environment, Courbet and other realist pioneers countered this style with accurate portrayals of the working class and their lifestyles, as well as those of farmers and peasants (Riat 11). Initially, this was considered inelegant and greatly criticized. However, by the time he painted The Stonebreakers, opinions on the realist style were changing. In painting The Stonebreakers, Courbet sought to depict the harsh lives that peasants went through as evidenced by the painting’s revealing illustration of trying conditions faced by the miners (Riat 101). The painting includes a peasant man and a peasant boy using mallets to break up boulders, while dressed in torn clothes. One is immediately drawn to the sharpness and depth of the canvas and the rigid details of the painting, which has no drama or romanticism. This trait is uniquely realist. One also notices the monotony of color used, reflecting the painting’s languid tone as the man and boy break up the boulders. This is especially important for Courbet as it allows him to draw attention to the peasants’ efforts. In addition, Courbet also seems to be drawing attention to the ages of the boy and man since the man seems to old and the boy too young to be breaking boulders (Riat 101). The painting also reveals the industrial era and the poverty that existed alongside it. Unfortunately, peasants were the most disadvantaged people during the industrial revolutions, especially in the mines and factories (Riat 102). Most of the peasants, with increased mechanization of farm work, were forced into the mines, while young boys were exploited for their labor as they could be underpaid. The Stonebreakers is reflective of the unease that Courbet felt for the abuse of the vulnerable by an increasingly capitalist society, as well as the agony and anguish they suffered in the mines with the hard work. This was a main theme in the realist era and Courbet uses mellow colors and unexaggerated style to draw attention towards the peasants’ plight (Riat 102). This work, alongside other works by Courbet, was an inspiration for future modernists and impressionists with its focus on contemporary society and events. This was suggestive of the improved innovation in art that finally led to the surrealist era. The Bullfight’s artist Joan Miro was born in Barcelona in 1893 and was a ceramist, a sculptor, and painter. As a painter, he evolved greatly throughout the early to mid-20th century with his work earning wide international acclaim throughout the same period (Brodskaia 56). While The Bullfight can be interpreted as surrealist art, Miro himself refused to ascribe his work to this art style and simply referred to his paintings during this era as semi-abstract. While surrealism stood out during this period, The Bullfight was more had a greater degree of abstraction as compared to other major surrealist artists at the time like Pablo Picasso. In The Bullfight, Miro seeks to represent his Catalan heritage of bull fighting in an abstract way, most likely due to the persecution he suffered under Dictator and anti-Catalan leader General Franco (Brodskaia 56). Miro had always been critical of contemporary painting styles, claiming that it was in support of the bourgeois, and The Bullfight was one of his ways to “assassinate painting” through an upset of established elements of painting (Brodskaia 150). The painting shows a raging bull being outmaneuvered by a skillful el-matador, although one has to look closely to actually make out the el-matador’s figure. Miro also exaggerates some of the bull’s features, such as his horns and his genitals, which he most likely did to show virility and strength. In this painting, the line is the major representative style with only few dots and shades of green, red, black, and purple to supplement it. This painting, which is oil on canvas, speaks to the viewer through symbols. The bull seems to be injured and bleeding, which is depicted in the form of an eye, while the el-matador is made smaller than normal (Brodskaia 150). This was a way for Miro to show Catalonia that the raging bull of Franco could not finish the Catalans who were viewed as an outsider society. As one of Miro’s famous canvas oil paintings, The Bullfight is done with childlike exuberance that revels in rebellion of both art style and politics (Brodskaia 151). The painting is filled with absurdity, such as the over-emphasized bull, the little matador, and the fish whose meaning is anyone’s guess. It has been proposed that it stands for Barcelona’s rich fishing heritage and that its stance against the bull is meant as defiance. The use of primary colors in the painting is an indication of his surrealist roots even though he was a critic of this style, as is the use of basic and organic shapes in conveying an energetic and lively zest for life. There are a few notable similarities between The Bullfight and The Stonebreakers. One of them stems from the fact that the two paintings deal with real societal issues. This is mostly because the surrealist movement, of which Miro was formerly a member, and the realist movement that Courbet pioneered were both related as surrealism arose from realism. The Stonebreakers deals with a pertinent societal issue of peasants being exploited for their labor as the industrial revolution took hold of Western Europe (Riat 102). The Bullfight is also painted with a similar theme, in this case regarding the isolation of the Catalans in Spanish society. The two paintings also use an elemental mix of fantasy and realism. The Stonebreakers uses a realistic approach by showing the work that most peasants spend doing in the mines with the peasants showing signs of fatigue. There is also an element of fantasy as it is rare to find old men working alongside young boys in a mine setting. Courbet most probably did this in order to kill two birds with one stone; show the suffering of the displaced old men in an increasingly industrialized society, as well as the exploitation of child labor. The same applies to Miro’s The Bullfight, which uses the realistic approach by dealing with the Spanish-Catalan issue using the Catalan symbol of bullfighting (Brodskaia 151). He also incorporates fantasy by including what looks like a fish, a symbol for the people of Barcelona, confronting the raging bull. The two paintings are also similar in that their artists create art that is close to the human eye’s perception, as well as to the human mind’s perception. Both paintings obey the various laws of shadows, light, and perspective. For The Bullfight, in spite of all its abstraction and mystic nature, has all its shadowy parts falling on one side (Brodskaia 152), while also obeying perspective laws through its representation of three dimensional figures on a surface allowing two dimensional representation. Miro still gives his figures a somewhat correct impression of position, depth, and height in relation to each other. Even though the figures are exaggerated, they are still correctly related to one another. The same is seen in The Stonebreakers where the use of light and shadows is uniform (Riat 102). The two peasants in this painting also obey the laws of perspective as the old man and the young man can be differentiated by their height, while Courbet also gives the painting the right impression with regards to the positions of the two peasants and the depth and width of the peasants’ figures. However, the most striking thing about these paintings is in their difference. This could be explained by the fact that, although Miro was a student of surrealist art, which, in turn, was an improvement on realist art, he was highly critical of the surrealist art form and preferred the sub-abstraction form of art. One major difference is that, even with their mixture of realism and fantasy, the content of the two paintings is strikingly different (Gaff 97). Courbet’s The Stonebreakers aims to bring to the viewer a new representation of their world, in this case during the industrial revolution. Courbet chooses to use an unusual point of view by painting an underage boy and an old man doing manual work in a mine. However, even with the use of this situation, which must have been mysterious to the bourgeois society of Western Europe in the 19th century, it is still in the realm of the possible. This is in contrast to Miro’s The Bullfight, which seems to take the viewer to another world. While the bullfighting arena is commonplace in Miro’s native Spain, the way in which he represents it is unreal. This could only exist inside a person’s mind (Gaff 98). The Bullfight uses experimental and traditional techniques of art to present the viewer with the impossible, which is meant to shock the viewer. The lack of harmony in The Bullfight also stands in contrast to the almost too harmonious nature of The Stone breakers. Miro’s attempt to fuse the subconscious with the reality around him caused him to paint figures that were part imagination and part real (Gaff 99). In addition, the influence of the new schools of thought in Dada and sub-abstractionism led to Miro’s paintings during the early to mid-40s, including The Bullfight, led Miro to paint in a way that allowed his subconscious to present itself in his work. For this reason, it is difficult to make out what Miro was trying to paint unless one really immerses him or herself into the painting. This is in contrast to Courbet’s The Stonebreakers, which views the events that it details in terms of the way it is and using universalism, rather than using Miro’s self-analytic and introspective style (Gaff 99). For Courbet, painting The Stonebreakers was a result of him observing society and the issues that were going on; instead of exploring their subconscious to come up with a deeper meaning to the painting. Therefore, the two paintings differ with regards to how they represent reality. The realistic effects that Courbet is able to achieve in his painting are also as a result of using a monotony of color and adding more depth and sharpness to the canvas. This is done through the use of turpentine to thin oil media, as well as through the use of glazes (Gaff 100). The use of these techniques gives his painting an added feel of solemnity and sobriety. This also allows the canvas to be sharp and have added depth, which enabled Courbet to detail the painting in a way that was both, rigid and devoid of any elements of romanticism that was so prevalent in the renaissance era. Use of this painting technique also makes the artwork monotonous. This is in contrast to Miro’s The Bullfight, which employs more experimental and contemporary painting techniques. Instead of using the colors and lines to put emphasis on the objects and to enhance them, Miro chose to make the objects more abstract, using experimental techniques, which were revolutionary at the time (Gaff 100). This also helps to create a feeling of compelling dynamics in the painting, while also strengthening reality’s remarkable illusions. Through the use of innovative and experimental techniques in The Bullfight, Miro is able to create a more expressive and mystical painting compared to the Stonebreakers. This is most likely as a result of the improvements that were made on realism with the advent of surrealism in terms of self-expression. Works Cited Brodskaia, Novak. V. Surrealism: Genesis of a Revolution. New York: Parkstone International, 2012. Internet resource Gaff, Jackie. 1920-40: Realism & Surrealism; a History of Modern Art. Oxford [u.a.: Heinemann Library, 2000. Print. Riat, Georges. Gustave Courbet. New York: Parkstone International, 2012. Internet resource Read More

 

Read More