Some of the most compared pieces of all time have been Oath of the Horatii by Jacques-Louis David and Liberty Leading the People by Ferdinand Victor Eugène Delacroix. Though both pieces attempt to deliver a political message to the audience, they also portray two completely different styles of art. Not only that, but both portraits also attempt to represent the moral characteristics of heroism and sacrifice through different interpretations. Jacques-Louis David was a neoclassical artist that favored the classical traditions of art in both style and subject matter. In following the neoclassical themes of the period, his paintings places heavy emphasis on public and moral virtue. In that way, his painting entitled Oath of the Horatii depicts …show more content…
a moving moment in the heroic story of courage and patriotic self-sacrifice by three brothers in pre-Republican Rome. It also focuses on political responsibility of three brothers in a classical, historical setting. The three characters are represented with intense, dramatic and contrasted lighting, clears character forms and a deliberately simple alignment so that the audience knows that they are the focal point of the entire painting. On the other hand, Eugène Delacroix is a painter of the Romantic period which makes the meaning behind his piece of art completely different to that of David.
This painting is different from David’s portrait in the sense that various social classes, the use of chiaroscuro and tenebrism, a clear display of drama and emotional expressions and specifically apportioned individuals are commonly used in Romanticism. In his painting entitled Liberty Leading the People, the overthrow of the French monarchy through civilian rebellion is characterized. This is represented by the French flag the woman is carrying and by the non-military attire the people throughout the painting are depicted wearing. In this painting, the woman represents a symbols of freedom or liberty. Compared to the other figures throughout the scene, her large stature completely dominates the picture even while she is surrounded by the deceased. Though she is a prominent figure in the painting and a direct representation of Lady Liberty, the woman is seen wearing a torn dress and no footwear to show that she herself is a common woman like those she is representing and leading. Unlike the majority of the women of the 19th century, she is wielding a weapon and participating in a revolution. Through this and the portrayal of her waving the country's flag, she is symbolized to be a symbol of revolution and a figure of the French Republic
itself. The major difference between these paintings, aside from the period and style they were created, is the messages which are being portrayed. Both paintings convey a sense of pride and acceptance in the audience, there are principal inspirations behind each of the paintings. David’s painting is focused more on a classical style than Delacroix’s romantic approach, which can be denoted through the beauty of the setting as well as the clothing of the characters. On the other hand, the characters and setting have a more modern approach in Delacroix’s painting. Both paintings attempt to represent honor, pride and sacrifice in their representations rather than trivial matters and material items, but nevertheless the underlying messages are entirely different. In conclusion, although the paintings may have some similarities, they are still very different. From David’s neoclassic style to Delacroix’s romantic style, to their political and heroic messages, these paintings are deeply contrasting. These differences are conveyed not only through the content of the paintings, but also through their various methods and styles.
Contextual Theory: This painting depicts a portrait of life during the late 1800’s. The women’s clothing and hair style represent that era. Gorgeous landscape and a leisurely moment are captured by the artist in this work of
Emiliano Zapata occupies a central place in this painting. He was the main leader of the peasant revolution in Mexico. At the back of the painting we can see his army which is mainly formed of common people. They are armed with bows, arrows and machetes in contrast to their leader, carrying only a sickle, used for cutting sugar cane. This displays that the people are soldiers and they are ready to fight to death for their freedom from the suppressors . Also it expresses their full devotion towards Zapata.
The painting depicts a mother and her four children, who are all leaning on her as she looks down solemnly, her tired, despondent expression suggests she felt trapped in her roles as being a mother and a wife. The woman and her children are clearly the focal point of the artwork as the bright colours used to paint them stand out impeccably against the dull, lifeless colours of the background. This painting appears to be centred around the ideology that women are home-keepers, whose main role is to satisfy and assist her husband while simultaneously minding the children and keeping the home tidy and ready for his return. The social consequences of this artwork could have been that the woman could have been berated for not taking pleasure out of being a mother and raising her children, as a woman should. She could have been made redundant as her husband may have felt as though she is no longer useful if she couldn’t adequately adhere to her roles as a mother and a
However, in David’s painting the three brothers pledging themselves to their country are seen as heroic. Whereas, in Goya’s painting symbolic language is seen through the ordinary non-heroic man who is viewed similar to Christ during his crucifixion. David’s artwork is detailed with particular brushwork and depicts the thought of war in a traditional sense. Dissimilarity, Goya’s somber artwork separates away from the customs of Christian art and traditional paintings of war, along with the use of visible loose brush
It differs greatly, in its portrayal of mothers, from Le Brun’s Self-portrait with her Daughter and Cassatt’s artworks. Behind Marie Antoinette, you see a jewelry cabinet, off to the right of the canvas. This illustrates that, although she is with her children, she finds treasure within her own materialistic objects. Furthermore, her expression lacks emotion as she holds the child loosely within her arms. The child looks off, barely acknowledging its mother, who is holding him. Next, the child, on the far right of the canvas, reveals an empty cradle, alluding to a child who has died. Again, Marie seems unfazed or simply chooses not to acknowledge the boy’s actions. Furthermore, the young girl, on the right of the canvas, clings on to her mother as she lovingly looks up to her mother. Marie holds a wry smile, appearing somewhat annoyed or displeased. The color scheme is dark, but Le Brun utilizes contrast to emphasize the royal family. However, it only works to further expose the detached relationship between a Marie and her children. According to the lecture, “To counter people’s hatred of the queen and their criticisms of her as a bad (even a degenerate) mother, Vigée Le Brun was commissioned to paint this portrait of Marie Antoinette and her children” (Gartrell). Sadly, the painting was
This anxiety is at the heart of Lily’s conflict with her society. The choice of the |Mrs. Lloyd” painting also hearkens to this theme. Reynolds made the choice to depict his subject wrapped in the cloths of antiquity. In his epoch, at the late 18th century, the neoclassical genre was in its heyday and just as the New Yorkers of the Gilded Age looked to Europe for cultural esteem, so too were the neoclassicist looking backwards, but to ancient Rome and Greece. The anxiety of influence in the scene from the novel is thus tripled upon itself so that the reader experiences it as the influence of Rome, on Europe, on New York, and finally on Lily. As the tip of this inverted pyramid, Lily must perform a fine balancing act and be representative of the natural beauty of classical forms, the elegance and refinement of aristocratic Europe, and the culmination of both in the great American experiment. She literally represents herself as all of these facets in the tableaux vivants, and as such achieves a sense of “eternal harmony” that Selden notes in her in that
The composition of this painting forces the eye to the woman, and specifically to her face. Although the white wedding dress is large and takes up most of the woman’s figure, the white contrasts with her face and dark hair, forcing the viewer to look more closely into the woman’s face. She smokes a cigarette and rests her chin on her hands. She does not appear to be a very young woman and her eyes are cast down and seem sad. In general, her face appears to show a sense of disillusionment with life and specifically with her own life. Although this is apparently her wedding day, she does not seem to be happy.
Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun was one of the most successful painters of her time. Over the course of her life, spanning from 1755-1842, she painted over 900 works. She enjoyed painting self portraits, completing almost 40 throughout her career, in the style of artists she admired such as Peter Paul Rubens (Montfort). However, the majority of her paintings were beautiful, colorful, idealized likenesses of the aristocrats of her time, the most well known of these being the Queen of France Marie Antoinette, whom she painted from 1779-1789. Not only was Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun the Queen’s portrait painter for ten years, but she also became her close, personal friend. She saw only the luxurious, carefree, colorful, and fabulous lifestyle the aristocracy lived in, rather than the poverty and suffrage much of the rest of the country was going through. Elisabeth kept the ideals of the aristocracy she saw through Marie Antoinette throughout her life, painting a picture of them that she believed to be practically perfect. Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun’s relationship with Marie Antoinette affected her social standing, politics, painting style, and career.
The pieces of art I will be comparing and contrasting are the three statues of David, by Donatello (Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi), Michelangelo (Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni), and Bernini (Gian Lorenzo Bernini). The statues are modeled after the biblical David, who was destined to become the second king of Israel. Also most famously known as the slayer of the Philistine giant Goliath with a stone and a sling. The sculptures are all based on the same biblical hero, but differ from one another. Each David is unique in its own certain way.
In 1784 David received a commission from the Comte d’Angiviller (the head supervisor of all build and construction under the King of France, Louis XVI) for a painting based on a Corneillian subject. Corneille’s play, Horace, was being performed in Paris at this time. Oath of the Horatii was started in Paris, but David felt he needed to be immersed in the ambiance and culture of Rome to complete it. The painting created a sensation when first exhibited in Rome of 1885, and was seen as an allegorical cry for a Revolution in France. Indeed, it was only four more years until the French Revolution was underway. The painting is now kept in the Louvre, Paris.
Although the painting itself displays many impressive artistic styles, it is also important to consider the artwork’s historical context. The Raft of the Medusa depicts the aftermath of the shipwreck of the French naval frigate Médusa, which crashed off the African coast. The desperate passengers then built a makeshift raft from the pieces of the destroyed ship, which is the moment depicted in Géricault’s painting. Particularly, The Raft of the Medusa was a contemporary piece that commented on the practice of slavery and the incompetence of the new French government in the early 19th century. Géricault, an abolitionist, sought ways to end the slave trade in the colonies. The anti-slavery cause was well known at the time and was highly promoted by the abolitionists throughout France. Thus, due to Géricault’s repugnance towards slavery, it is only fitting ...
Bernini’s “David” is 5 foot, 7 inches tall and was made in the year 1623. It is from the Baroque period, a time of discovery, exploration and increased trade. Bernini’s “David” is a three-dimensional sculpture that gives the viewer the ability to relate the image with one’s body and not only in one’s mind. Bernini wanted to show the intensity and dramatic tension in the hero David as he prepares to cast the stone from the sling. In contrast to the intensity of Bernini’s David, Michelangelo’s “David” looks much more contemplative, statuesque and less “life-like” than Bernini’s. This marble sculpture, unlike Michelang...
Not only did David want to do this but his artistic viewpoints wanted him to reflect the use of propaganda to others through art in the Neoclassical era. In other words, he wanted to depict through the painting how politics during the French Revolution were taken sternly and had serious repercussions in a sort of misleading way. In the same way, if you did not fit into the rest of society and you stood out you were labeled as a target. As we see Marat was murdered by Corday who was seen as his political enemy. In the meantime, through the style of David’s painting, we see the use of iconography or “the study or description of images and symbols” . Here in this painting of The Death of Marat, we see the main image (i.e. Marat) being used as more than just the centerpiece of the work rather, the symbol of the work which means there is more to this work than just The Death of Marat. Strangely enough, we can see the use of iconography when comparing The Death of Marat to an almost political Christ of his people. Meaning that Marat was killed for his religious beliefs/political beliefs and died for his people as that of Christ did with his religious beliefs. Incidentally, we can say that “David’s clear
Even with the fact that his David was depicted before the battle actually takes place, Michelangelo was probably inspired by concepts similar to the ones that inspired Donatello. Both artists intended to create artwork that would contrast feelings in Rome and that would make it possible for people in Florence to develop a sense of belonging to the state. Furthermore, with the Medici family sponsoring both artworks, it only seems natural that these artists wanted to create masterpieces that would trigger intense feelings in anyone seeing them and that would make the family and the city as a whole identify with David’s story.
Throughout the years Lady Liberty has grown to represent a promise of freedom and democracy. She has also held a patriotic place in many Americans hearts. Lady Liberty’s robe, crown, and etc. have some symbolisms of their own. Here are some: The spikes on her crown represent the seven seas and continents of the world. The twenty-five windows on her crown symbolize gemstones that were found on earth, and the heavens rays shining over God’s people. Lady Liberty holds a tablet in her hand which is written in Roman Numerals and reads, “July 4, 1776,” date the Declaration of Independence was signed. Her flaming torch, flowing robe, and great posture gave Americans great pride in themselves and a mascot that displays power, wealth, and freedom of a great nation.