The Stolen Kiss by Fragonard - Essay Example

“The Stolen Kiss Fragonard’s Love of Paint Learning about a piece of artwork as a means of placing into the context of art history and development involves more than just simply looking at the image and jotting down notes about one’s personal reflections. While these are important elements of the art, as all art is a process of communication between the image, the artist and the viewer, it is not sufficient as a means of understanding the full context of the artist’s message. The production of art is also necessarily greatly influenced by the forces in existence at the time of its creation, perhaps to an even greater extent than the ability of the artist to master the artistic techniques of his brushes and paints. Looking closely at a particular finished artwork can help the viewer to understand important concepts within the given society, such as the relationship between women and men or the political forces at work, but these ideas are better informed when one is aware of the history of the region or of some of the personal experience of the artist as both of these elements will have a profound effect upon the symbols employed to convey the message sent. To understand a work such as Jean-Honore Fragonard’s oil-painting “The Stolen Kiss” (1751-1760), it is necessary not only to understand the contents of the image and the technical elements that attempt to communicate a message, but also to understand the historical and cultural environment in which the painter worked as a means of understanding the painting’s historical context and importance. During his lifetime, Fragonard painted at least two paintings that he titled “The Stolen Kiss”, both of which were painted within the same general period but each featuring vastly different images. The painting to be discussed here (see Fig, 1) is presumed to have been the later of the two, based upon his subject matter and biographical data. Figure 1 - The Stolen Kiss1 As is shown, the painting depicts a scene of two young girls and a young man sitting in a darkened room over a small table. The young man and one young woman sit on the far side of the small table from the viewer while the girl being kissed sits on the same side as the viewer. The image is captured of the moment that the young man reaches across the table, bends the young woman back in his arms and reaches to place a kiss on her cheek. Meanwhile, the other girl helps the boy in his attempt by holding her friend’s hands down at the level of the table. While her body language seems appropriately shocked at this behavior, the girl’s eyes and face betray a willing acquiescence to the antics. According to the Metropolitan Museum,2 the painting originally belonged to the bailiff of Bréteuil, a man who was employed as an ambassador to Rome from Malta in 1760 and can thus be assumed to have been the patron for the piece. The subject reveals influence by Fragonard’s Italian tours, such as in the presence of the hat hanging from the neck of the young man and represents some of Fragonard’s transitional work as he shifted from the dark shadows of his Baroque teachings into the luxurious textures of Rococo. A ‘simple’ visual analysis of this piece reveals a great deal of social confusion and upset within a deceptively spontaneous and carefree moment. Fragonard ensures attention remains focused on the three young people in the painting by permitting the background to become indistinct in deep shadows. It doesn’t matter what’s going on in the background because everything he’s trying to say is already out in front. Contrast is thus the first thing that hits the viewer as the very light tones that make up the center of the image grab the viewer’s attention and holds it within the space of an imperfectly formed inverted triangle of light. This shape is emphasized by the artist’s use of very light or white shades within this area. It is significant to the piece because, while the pyramid is considered one of the most stable geometric shapes in existence, the inverted pyramid is one of the most unstable. Thus, we receive an impression of things being wildly off-balance in this scene before we’ve done any research. Within this defined space, the line of the girls’ arms continuously call attention to the gripped hands on the table, demonstrating an unwilling participation in the decadence of an unchaste moment. At the same time, the eyes of the various characters created an optical line that leads back over to the point of the kiss itself and indicates that it is not quite as unaccepted as it might appear. It may be sinful, but it sure feels nice. Finally, the rich colors of the girls’ clothing begin to suggest entry into the upper classes, with perhaps the girl in pink having more status as she is fully clothed in expensive-looking fabrics while the other girl has only the skirts. Attempting to take her cue from her wealthier counterpart, the girl being kissed seems to be reluctantly entering into a world of physical pleasures with a degree of concern about the effects this will have on her soul while the artist seems to discover an unhealthy lack of balance in the procedure. Examining the history of the region suggests there is reason to feel that such a visual analysis may have merit. French society in the earlier decades of the 1700s, was very similar to most of the other countries of Europe of the period. It was ruled by an absolute monarchy that operated in almost complete ignorance of the miseries of the common people. Louis XIV was monarch in the early 1700s, establishing a pattern of overindulgence in all pleasures and a gradual retaking of official power from the bureaucrats of the nation. “Throughout the eighteenth century … [the nobles] encroached steadily upon the official posts which the absolute monarchy had preferred to fill with technically competent and politically harmless middle class men. … Consequently, the nobility not merely exasperated the feelings of the middle class by their successful competition for official posts; they also undermined the state itself by an increasing tendency to take over provincial and central administration. Similarly, they … attempted to counteract the decline in their income by squeezing the utmost out of their very considerable feudal rights to exact money from the peasantry.”3 The feudal-type system involved an aristocratic class that held most of the status and wealth of the nation and a merchant class called the bourgeoisie that, at times, held enough wealth to rival the nobles, but had none of the political clout. There was “a vast peasantry accounting for one in seven or one in eight of the population, most of whom were legally free but bound to their seigneur … by a myriad of services and obligations surviving from the medieval past. … And, in cities, … a great urban population of innumerable crafts and occupations, for the most part poor and depending for survival on cheap and plentiful bread.”4 (Rude 1995). Facing economic ruin, the people of the country revolted beginning in 1787, finally winning their battle in 1799 with a new Republic established. However, the country wasn’t firmly settled yet before a young general, by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte, was elected Emperor of France in 1804 and began a series of wars that would involve much of the rest of Europe.5 It was during this time (April 1732-August 1806 specifically) that Jean-Honore Fragonard lived and became a famous French painter prior to the French Revolution. He was born to the glover Francois Fragonard and his wife, Francoise Petit under the relative stability of the French monarchy.6 Although he went to work with a Paris notary when his father’s business affairs weakened, his talent in art was soon recognized and he was sent to Francois Boucher, a well-known Baroque style artist, at the age of 18 to study more in-depth. With early influence from Chardin, Fragonard was eventually entrusted by Boucher to make replicas of the master’s paintings.7 Even before he entered the Academy, Fragonard won the Prix de Rome in 1752 with his painting “Jeroboam Sacrificing to the Golden Calf” while he continued to study under the instruction of Charles-Andre van Loo.8 By 1756, he was living at the French Academy in Rome, learning his art under the hand of Charles-Joseph Natoire and developing a close friendship with Hubert Robert. The two artists made a tour of Italy in 1760, sketching the Italian countryside as they went.9 He finally returned to Paris in 1761, but didn’t win his admission to the Academy there until 1765 with “Coresus at Callirhoe” which also won him the patronage of the king and court.10 This settled his subjects to some degree as he began painting to please those most likely to buy his work rather than the images of the country and the common people that he’d focused on previously. His paintings began to take on the character of the court, which has already been identified as being strongly sensual and hedonistic as he entered his Rococo phase. However, he was already well into experimenting with Neoclassicism by the time he married in 1769 to Marie-Anne Gerard.11 The couple had a daughter, Rosalie Fragonard, who became one of his most frequent models, in the same year. Fragonard also had a son in 1780, Alexandre-Evariste Fragonard, who also grew up to become an artist. During the years of the French Revolution, Fragonard lost many of his regular patrons and he sought shelter outside of Paris for a while. By the time he returned to Paris, he was mostly forgotten and he died there in 1806.12 Working within this historical understanding, the visual analysis of the piece becomes much more substantial. One begins to see in the imbalance of the inverted triangle the imbalance of the political forces taking shape in Fragonard’s home country and the world. As monarchies continued to press common people for more in order to fund large parties and indulgences, more of the bourgeoisie actively sought positions of power within the aristocracy. This upward mobility can be seen in the differences between the two girls’ clothing as well as in the suggestion that the girl being kissed looks to the other for proper social guidance. At the same time, it seems clear that the movement from common tradesman to wealthy merchant would also entail adoption of the very behaviors that were driving the nation to its knees – an unhealthy infatuation with wealth and splendor and a blatant disregard for the rules of propriety and responsibility. While the nation struggled to protest this movement, much as the girl seems to struggle slightly to protest the kiss, its members nevertheless desired some of the pleasures and perks they saw among their superiors. Painted for a man positioned in this difficult middle ground, it is easy to imagine that the artist was both attempting to capture a scene of a contemporary household at the same time that he was attempting to provide a warning about limiting the scope of one’s ambitions, or at least coming to a clear definition of what they might be. If one wanted wealth and prestige, he might need to sacrifice the honor of his house to achieve it within the definitions of the period. As the research has demonstrated, much can be assumed about a piece of artwork from an analysis of its visual content, but this knowledge is made richer and gains credibility when one makes the effort to understand more about the historical contexts, both of the society and of the artist, in which the piece was created. While visual analysis can bring forward many different ideas about a piece, the history of France at the time the piece was created reveals a country heavily influenced by tremendous and growing subversive tension as the rich got richer by exploiting the welfare of the poor and then flaunting it. This created a great deal of confusion for those in the middle class who naturally aspired to the comforts of the wealthy but remained unsure about the hedonistic displays at the court. These sentiments were echoed to some degree within the character of the artist as he spent a great deal of time getting to know the common countryside and yet found it necessary to structure his work to appeal to the wealthy. Placing the visual analysis within this context gives it a great deal more weight and substance that actually causes me to appreciate the painting and its subtlety of expression to a much greater degree. Within this single painting, one can trace the changing of thought from the darkly serious thoughts of Baroque to the light-hearted veneer of Rococo even as the tremendous social pressures building up within the life of the artist and the progression of his country are presented through the analogy of three young people caught in an unchaste moment. Works Cited Cuzin, Jean-Pierre. Jean-Honore Fragonard: Life and Work: Complete Catalogue of the Oil Paintings. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1988. Fragonard, Jean-Honore. “The Stolen Kiss.” [oil on canvas]. (1756-1761). Presented by Metropolitan Museum of Art. November 14, 2009 Hobsbawn, E.J. The Age of Revolution. New York: Praeger, 1969. Pratt, N.S. The French Revolution. New York: John Day Company, 1970. Rude, G. Ideology and Popular Protest. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995. Read More