Critical Analysis: The Peasant Wedding by Pieter Brueghel - Essay Example

Critical Analysis: The Peasant Wedding by Pieter Brueghel, the Younger within its social and cultural contexts Pieter Bruegel’s artworks unveil the thin layer between art and human life in its fullness. To be specific, Bruegel’s artworks prove that critical interpretation cannot tame an artwork. Besides, his artworks confirm that the content of an artwork must follow social and cultural contexts of the same. The artwork named as The Peasant Wedding (1567) is symbolic of the artist’s aim to communicate with the viewers by providing enough clues to make them realize that art must be realistic. On the other side, Susan Sontag’s views on art supports Bruegel’s viewpoint because easier interpretation of art destroys its content to an extent. Thesis statement: The critical analysis of the artwork The Peasant Wedding by Pieter Brueghel proves that it unveils the social and cultural contexts of peasant life and supports Susan Sontag’s view that critical interpretation is against art. Critical analysis: This section is further divided into: social context, cultural context, and relationship with the interpretation of art. Social context: First of all, the social context of Pieter Brueghel’s artwork should be evaluated from the perspective of Dutch Renaissance painting. To be specific, Dutch Renaissance painting provided ample importance to Genre painting, i.e. the effort to portray common people and their lives. Besides, The Peasant Wedding is symbolic of the influence of human life on painting. Perez Zagorin opines that, “His oeuvre is broad, consisting of moral allegories and satires, panoramic landscapes, religious and biblical themes, and a variety of genre and secular scenes” (73). One can see that the artwork is interconnected with the social context of Western Europe. At the same time, the artist used to pretend as a farmer to know more about the social context of common people. So, one can see that the artwork is the end product of the artist’s effort to portray the social context of the peasants in his locality. This proves that the artist is interested in the portrayal of the lower classes in the society. Besides, the artwork helps the individual viewer to have a peep into the lives of the peasant class. This is important because artwork deals with the importance of cohesion among the guests (say, mainly peasants) in a social gathering/marriage feast. The marriage feast portrayed in the artwork is not conducted at a public place, but at a barn, symbolic of cohesion among the peasant class. From a different angle of view, the artwork mocks at the class division in the mainstream society. To be specific, all the things (blanket, tables, chairs, banqueting tray etc) portrayed in the artwork are symbolic of peasant life in rural areas of Western Europe. Even the food (bread, porridge etc) exposes the class division in the mainstream society to an extent. Besides, ample importance is provided to the process of eating, which is symbolic of rural life. One can see that people who live in rural areas know each other and they never try to act in an artificial manner. When they are invited to a social/cultural gathering, they behave in a natural manner. On the other side, higher class people make use of wedding banquet/feast as an opportunity to exhibit their wealth and influence in the mainstream society. But the common people portrayed in the artwork are symbolic of the innocence of rural society. So, one can see that the artwork is a study of the social context of peasant life. Cultural context When art is interpreted as the embodiment of imitation, ample importance is provided to its content. When the critic tries to analyse an artwork to expose the content, the same process is symbolic of the exposition of the cultural background of an artwork. Pieter Brueghel’s artwork is symbolic of the culture of lower classes, especially the peasant class culture. One can see that art is amalgamated to the lives of the peasants in rural areas. In the artwork, there are two musicians who are invited to create cheerful mood the people (say, guests). Still, these musicians are totally influenced by the arrival of food. Besides, the artwork mocks at the spiritual nature of the occasion (say, wedding). One can see that the guests who attend a wedding are expected to follow the rituals related to the cultural ceremony. In the artwork, the guests (say, peasants) totally neglect the spiritual aspect of the occasion and are totally immersed in eating and drinking. Still, this exposition of true nature of the peasant class does not violate reality (say, their cultural aspects). In the artwork, the artist provides ample importance to the cultural aspects of the peasant class. To be specific, the artwork helps the individual viewer to have a clear picture of the cultural aspects of peasant life. One can see that the importance given to food and ale in the artwork signifies the importance of the same in peasant life. The agricultural tools fixed on the wall of the barn are symbolic of peasant life. The artwork proves that peasant culture provide less importance to hypocrisy or the urge to hide unpleasant things. The peasants know that they cannot hide their real identity in the society. Besides, rural culture is harmoniously amalgamated into their lives. In short, the artwork exposes the cultural aspects of the peasant class in the society. Relationship with the interpretation of art Susan Sontag’s article named as Against Interpretation provides a clear picture of the interpretation of art. When Susan Sontag’s opinion is superimposed into the context of Genre painting, especially the artwork named as The Peasant Wedding, one can see that the process of interpretation is totally against art. Susan Sontag opines that, “Interpretation, based on the highly dubious theory that a work of art is composed of items of content, violates art” (10). To be specific, The Peasant Wedding belongs to Genre painting, i.e., the artist’s effort to portray the lives of the common people without any exaggeration. When one tries to interpret an artwork, there are so many obstacles to be dealt with because the modern interpretation of art is based on content. On the other side, this effort to expose the content is an aggression on art. Susan Sontag opines that, “It makes art into an article for use, for arrangement into a mental scheme of categories” (10). To be specific, interpretation primarily tries to tame the artwork by making use of specific components of art inherent in the artwork. So, one can see that the effort to interpret the artwork destroys the genuine nature of same because it destroys the viewer’s freedom by evaluating the content. In short, Susan Sontag’s viewpoint is relevant to an extent because the viewer’s enjoyment of an artwork must be free from the information provided by external agencies (say, critics). Summing, the artwork by Brueghel unveils the social life of the peasant class in Western Europe. Besides, the artwork proves that peasants make use of wedding feasts for proper socialization and to maintain relationships. On the other side, the artwork exposes peasant class culture within the context of rustic life. To be specific, the artwork is symbolic of the cultural aspects of rural life, which is entirely different from urban culture. In addition, the artwork proves that critical intrusion into the framework of art destroys the very aim of art, i.e. enjoyment of the same without any bias. In short, Brueghel’s artwork is beyond interpretation to an extent because the same hinders the critics from exposing the content. So, one can see that Brueghel’s artwork is beyond the influence of critical interpretation and upholds the distinctiveness of art to an extent. Works Cited Sontag, Susan. Against Interpretation and Other Essays. New York: Picador, 1990. Print. Zagorin, Perez. “Looking for Pieter Bruegel.” Journal of the History of Ideas 64.1(2003): 73-96. Print. Read More