Week Two

Looking back to when the bourgeoisie first came into being, I see the Rococo style emerge. The upper classes were looking for light and fluffy pictures focusing on nature and happy, frivolous characters. That is what the bourgeoisie wanted to look at, and that is what they were willing to pay for – flowery fantasies. Courbet’s works used some depressing colors and subject matter. There was no nature or frolicking in it. By purchasing works ignoring reality and the rest of society, the wealthy were clearly expressing their desire to fantasize. Courbet and realism did not fit into that desire at all; it shoved reality into faces and forced the viewers to snap out of those fantasies. Looking back to Romantic works, where any emotion was welcome as long as it was a strong one, we can see Realism is several steps in a different direction.  Realism was not escapist, and it did not evoke visceral reactions. For the bourgeoisie, Realism worked through the pit of their stomachs, up to their mind and conscious, probably slowly building up feelings of guilt and/or disgust. People paying for those paintings didn’t want to see images that made them depressed or guilty. They wanted the flowery fantasies or to feel strong emotions. Courbet’s “Burial at Ornans” does not promote happy feelings, and neither does the manual labor in “The Stonebreakers.”

With socialism making its arguments and gaining popularity with writers, those with voice in mid-nineteenth century France wanted everyone to identify with the poor and the working class. The wanted the future to be run by them, not the wealthy. Any image that focused on the working or poor felt like a threat to the bourgeoisie.  A large image of manual laborers such as stonebreakers was like putting up a giant sign on a rich person’s home saying in big, bold letters, “You’re not important even thou you’re the one that pays us.  These other guys are.” That would seem fairly insulting to the rich and sheltered who were used to exquisite pandering.  If a person wanted to look at poor people, doing poor people things, then they would just watch poor people.  But by producing images that exhibited other lifestyles, artists could be seen as forcing viewers to acknowledge what they have clearly been trying to ignore.  I hate it when I am ignoring something and someone tries to push it in my face. I would be offended if I were a wealthy viewer back then.

Or, if you ignore the focus on the lower class, ignore the subject matter and potential messages, the composition would still be confusing and off-putting at the time. Nowadays, we are ready to look at any image and accept that it is art and meaningful and on purpose if that is what we’re told to believe.  Back then, they had more definitive standards, and Courbet was breaking them. The size and position of those stone-breakers do not make sense according to previous standards.  They were not holding some secret message slyly hidden and delivered in an established style.  The stonebreakers are a complete departure from previous compositions.  You stare at working men’s backsides, and, beyond that, the view is cut off by a cliff or stone wall.  There is no interest in depth or a far off haziness.  The viewer is kept within the confines of what a stone worker with blinders on would see.  You are forced to pay attention to the right-now of the workers.  There is no pretty landscape in the distance, only the labor of today.  The upper crust in denial would not like that view.

The burial, though it has the depth and extended view, is filled with faces lacking a unified mood, and does not provide a satisfactory main subject for the eye to focus on.  There is the white mass on the left broken by children’s faces that look as disinterested and confused as the viewer might feel when happening upon an image of a commonplace funeral in a fancy salon.  Then there are the red cloaked clergymen, who have the only saturated color in the painting, against the black and white contrasts of the man in front of them.  He kneels, as if to say, “Oh, look! A hole! There’s a hole right here. Look everyone, I have found a hole!”  If your attention is not caught by any of those characters, then you may be staring at the hole itself. Oh, look.  A hole.  And if the none of those options do not captivate you, then you are probably staring at the dog, who also is confused or disinterested.  Generally, if the bourgeoisie were out and about, looking at paintings, trying to have a good time in the Salon, they most likely wanted the composition to tell them where to look.  They would want their eyes guided to something interesting and pleasant.  The figures Courbet depicted obviously don’t care what the viewer decides to look at.  The viewer is not at all significant.