Delacroix. Freedom leading the people

Jacques Louis David's painting "The Oath of the Horatii" is a turning point in history European painting. Stylistically, it still belongs to classicism; This is a style oriented toward Antiquity, and at first glance, David retains this orientation. "The Oath of the Horatii" is based on the story of how the Roman patriots three brothers Horace were chosen to fight the representatives of the hostile city of Alba Longa, the Curiatii brothers. Titus Livy and Diodorus Siculus have this story; Pierre Corneille wrote a tragedy based on its plot.

“But it is precisely the oath of the Horatii that is missing from these classical texts. <...>It is David who turns the oath into the central episode of the tragedy. The old man holds three swords. He stands in the center, he represents the axis of the picture. To his left are three sons merging into one figure, to his right are three women. This picture is stunningly simple. Before David, classicism, with all its orientation towards Raphael and Greece, could not find such a harsh, simple male tongue to express civic values. David seemed to hear what Diderot said, who did not have time to see this canvas: “You need to paint as they said in Sparta.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

In the time of David, Antiquity first became tangible through the archaeological discovery of Pompeii. Before him, Antiquity was the sum of the texts of ancient authors - Homer, Virgil and others - and several dozen or hundreds of imperfectly preserved sculptures. Now it has become tangible, right down to the furniture and beads.

“But there is none of this in David’s picture. In it, Antiquity is amazingly reduced not so much to the surroundings (helmets, irregular swords, togas, columns), but to the spirit of primitive, furious simplicity.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

David carefully orchestrated the appearance of his masterpiece. He painted and exhibited it in Rome, receiving enthusiastic criticism there, and then sent a letter to his French patron. In it, the artist reported that at some point he stopped painting a picture for the king and began to paint it for himself, and, in particular, decided to make it not square, as required for the Paris Salon, but rectangular. As the artist had hoped, the rumors and letter fueled the public excitement, and the painting was booked a prime spot at the already opened Salon.

“And so, belatedly, the picture is put back in place and stands out as the only one. If it had been square, it would have been hung in line with the others. And by changing the size, David turned it into a unique one. It was a very powerful artistic gesture. On the one hand, he declared himself to be the main one in creating the canvas. On the other hand, he attracted everyone’s attention to this picture.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

The painting has another important meaning, which makes it a masterpiece for all time:

“This painting does not address the individual—it addresses the person standing in line. This is a team. And this is a command to a person who first acts and then thinks. David very correctly showed two non-overlapping, absolutely tragically separated worlds - the world of active men and the world of suffering women. And this juxtaposition - very energetic and beautiful - shows the horror that actually lies behind the story of the Horatii and behind this picture. And since this horror is universal, then “The Oath of the Horatii” will not leave us anywhere.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

Abstract

In 1816, the French frigate Medusa was wrecked off the coast of Senegal. 140 passengers left the brig on a raft, but only 15 were saved; to survive the 12-day wandering on the waves, they had to resort to cannibalism. A scandal broke out in French society; The incompetent captain, a royalist by conviction, was found guilty of the disaster.

“For liberal French society, the disaster of the frigate “Medusa”, the death of the ship, which for a Christian person symbolizes the community (first the church, and now the nation), became a symbol, a very bad sign of the emerging new regime of the Restoration.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

In 1818, the young artist Theodore Gericault, looking for a worthy subject, read the book of survivors and began working on his painting. In 1819, the painting was exhibited at the Paris Salon and became a hit, a symbol of romanticism in painting. Géricault quickly abandoned his intention to depict the most seductive thing - a scene of cannibalism; he did not show the stabbing, despair or the moment of salvation itself.

“Gradually he chose the only right moment. This is the moment of maximum hope and maximum uncertainty. This is the moment when the people who survived on the raft first see the brig Argus on the horizon, which first passed by the raft (he did not notice it).
And only then, walking on a counter course, I came across him. In the sketch, where the idea has already been found, “Argus” is noticeable, but in the picture it turns into a small dot on the horizon, disappearing, which attracts the eye, but does not seem to exist.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

Géricault refuses naturalism: instead of emaciated bodies, he has beautiful, courageous athletes in his paintings. But this is not idealization, this is universalization: the film is not about specific passengers of the Medusa, it is about everyone.

“Gericault scatters the dead in the foreground. He didn’t come up with this: French youth raved about the dead and wounded bodies. It excited, hit the nerves, destroyed conventions: a classicist cannot show the ugly and terrible, but we will. But these corpses have another meaning. Look what is happening in the middle of the picture: there is a storm, there is a funnel into which the eye is drawn. And along the bodies, the viewer, standing right in front of the picture, steps onto this raft. We're all there."

Ilya Doronchenkov

Gericault's painting works in a new way: it is addressed not to an army of spectators, but to every person, everyone is invited to the raft. And the ocean is not just the ocean of lost hopes of 1816. This is human destiny.

Abstract

By 1814, France was tired of Napoleon, and the arrival of the Bourbons was greeted with relief. However, many political freedoms were abolished, the Restoration began, and by the end of the 1820s the younger generation began to realize the ontological mediocrity of power.

“Eugene Delacroix belonged to that layer of the French elite that rose under Napoleon and was pushed aside by the Bourbons. But nevertheless, he was treated kindly: he received a gold medal for his first painting at the Salon, “Dante’s Boat,” in 1822. And in 1824 he made the painting “The Massacre of Chios,” depicting ethnic cleansing when the Greek population of the island of Chios was deported and exterminated during the Greek War of Independence. This is the first sign of political liberalism in painting, which concerned still very distant countries.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

In July 1830, Charles X issued several laws seriously restricting political freedoms and sent troops to destroy the printing press of an opposition newspaper. But the Parisians responded with fire, the city was covered with barricades, and during the “Three Glorious Days” the Bourbon regime fell.

In Delacroix's famous painting dedicated to revolutionary events 1830, different social strata are represented: a dandy in a top hat, a tramp boy, a worker in a shirt. But the main one, of course, is a young beautiful woman with a bare chest and shoulder.

“Delacroix achieves here something that almost never happens with 19th-century artists, who were increasingly thinking realistically. He manages in one picture - very pathetic, very romantic, very sonorous - to combine reality, physically tangible and brutal (look at the corpses beloved by romantics in the foreground) and symbols. Because this full-blooded woman is, of course, Freedom itself. Political developments since the 18th century have confronted artists with the need to visualize what cannot be seen. How can you see freedom? Christian values ​​are conveyed to a person through a very human way - through the life of Christ and his suffering. But such political abstractions as freedom, equality, fraternity have no appearance. And Delacroix is ​​perhaps the first and not the only one who, in general, successfully coped with this task: we now know what freedom looks like.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

One of the political symbols in the painting is the Phrygian cap on the girl's head, a permanent heraldic symbol of democracy. Another telling motif is nudity.

“Nudity has long been associated with naturalness and with nature, and in the 18th century this association was forced. Story French Revolution even knows a unique performance when in the cathedral Notre Dame of Paris nudie French theater depicted nature. And nature is freedom, it is naturalness. And that’s what it turns out, this tangible, sensual, attractive woman denotes. It denotes natural freedom."

Ilya Doronchenkov

Although this painting made Delacroix famous, it was soon removed from view for a long time, and it is clear why. The viewer standing in front of her finds himself in the position of those who are attacked by Freedom, who are attacked by the revolution. The uncontrollable movement that will crush you is very uncomfortable to watch.

Abstract

On May 2, 1808, an anti-Napoleonic rebellion broke out in Madrid, the city was in the hands of protesters, but by the evening of the 3rd, mass executions of rebels were taking place in the vicinity of the Spanish capital. These events soon led to a guerrilla war that lasted six years. When it ends, the painter Francisco Goya will be commissioned two paintings to immortalize the uprising. The first is “The Uprising of May 2, 1808 in Madrid.”

“Goya really depicts the moment the attack began - that first blow by the Navajo that started the war. It is this compression of the moment that is extremely important here. It’s as if he’s bringing the camera closer; from a panorama he moves to an extremely close-up shot, which also hasn’t happened to this extent before. There is another exciting thing: the sense of chaos and stabbing is extremely important here. There is no person here whom you feel sorry for. There are victims and there are killers. And these murderers with bloodshot eyes, Spanish patriots, in general, are engaged in the butcher’s business.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

In the second picture, the characters change places: those who are cut in the first picture, in the second they shoot those who cut them. And the moral ambivalence of the street battle gives way to moral clarity: Goya is on the side of those who rebelled and died.

“The enemies are now separated. On the right are those who will live. This is a series of people in uniform with guns, absolutely identical, even more identical than David’s Horace brothers. Their faces are invisible, and their shakos make them look like machines, like robots. These are not human figures. They stand out in black silhouette in the darkness of the night against the backdrop of a lantern flooding a small clearing.

On the left are those who will die. They move, swirl, gesticulate, and for some reason it seems that they are taller than their executioners. Although the main, central character - a Madrid man in orange pants and a white shirt - is on his knees. He’s still higher, he’s a little bit on the hill.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

The dying rebel stands in the pose of Christ, and for greater persuasiveness, Goya depicts stigmata on his palms. In addition, the artist makes you constantly go through a difficult experience - look at last moment before execution. Finally, Goya changes the understanding of a historical event. Before him, an event was depicted with its ritual, rhetorical side; for Goya, an event is a moment, a passion, a non-literary cry.

In the first picture of the diptych it is clear that the Spaniards are not slaughtering the French: the riders falling under the horses’ feet are dressed in Muslim costumes.
The fact is that Napoleon’s troops included a detachment of Mamelukes, Egyptian cavalrymen.

“It would seem strange that the artist turns Muslim fighters into a symbol of the French occupation. But this allows Goya to turn a modern event into a link in the history of Spain. For any nation that forged its identity during Napoleonic Wars, it was extremely important to realize that this war is part of the eternal war for one’s values. And such a mythological war for the Spanish people was the Reconquista, the reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslim kingdoms. Thus, Goya, while remaining faithful to documentary and modernity, puts this event in connection with the national myth, forcing us to understand the struggle of 1808 as the eternal struggle of the Spaniards for the national and Christian.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

The artist managed to create an iconographic formula for execution. Every time his colleagues - be it Manet, Dix or Picasso - addressed the topic of execution, they followed Goya.

Abstract

The pictorial revolution of the 19th century occurred even more noticeably in the landscape than in the event picture.

“The landscape completely changes the optics. A person changes his scale, a person experiences himself differently in the world. Landscape is a realistic representation of what is around us, with a sense of the moisture-laden air and everyday details in which we are immersed. Or it can be a projection of our experiences, and then in the shimmer of sunset or in joyful sunny day we see the state of our soul. But there are striking landscapes that belong to both modes. And it’s very difficult to know, in fact, which one is dominant.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

This duality is clearly manifested in German artist Caspar David Friedrich: his landscapes tell us about the nature of the Baltic, and at the same time represent philosophical statement. There is a languid sense of melancholy in Frederick's landscapes; the person in them rarely penetrates further than the background and usually has his back turned to the viewer.

on his last picture“Ages of Life” depicts a family in the foreground: children, parents, an old man. And further, behind the spatial gap - the sunset sky, the sea and sailboats.

“If we look at how this canvas is constructed, we will see a striking echo between the rhythm of the human figures in the foreground and the rhythm of the sailboats at sea. Here are tall figures, here are low figures, here are large sailboats, here are boats under sail. Nature and sailboats are what is called the music of the spheres, it is eternal and independent of man. The man in the foreground is his ultimate being. Friedrich’s sea is very often a metaphor for otherness, death. But death for him, a believer, is a promise eternal life, about which we do not know. These people in the foreground - small, clumsy, not very attractively written - with their rhythm repeat the rhythm of a sailboat, like a pianist repeats the music of the spheres. This is our human music, but it all rhymes with the very music that for Friedrich fills nature. Therefore, it seems to me that in this painting Friedrich promises not an afterlife paradise, but that our finite existence is still in harmony with the universe.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

Abstract

After the French Revolution, people realized that they had a past. The 19th century, through the efforts of romantic aesthetes and positivist historians, created modern idea stories.

“The 19th century created historical painting as we know it. Not abstract Greek and Roman heroes, acting in an ideal setting, guided by ideal motives. History XIX century becomes theatrically melodramatic, it comes closer to man, and we are now able to empathize not with great deeds, but with misfortunes and tragedies. Each European nation created a history for herself in the 19th century, and by constructing history, she, in general, created her portrait and plans for the future. In this sense, European historical painting XIX centuries are terribly interesting to study, although, in my opinion, she did not leave, almost no, truly great works. And among these great works, I see one exception, which we Russians can rightfully be proud of. This is "Morning" Streltsy execution“Vasily Surikov.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

19th-century history painting, focused on superficial verisimilitude, typically follows a single hero who guides history or fails. Surikov’s painting here is a striking exception. Its hero is a crowd in colorful outfits, which occupies almost four-fifths of the picture; This makes the painting appear strikingly disorganized. Behind the living, swirling crowd, some of which will soon die, stands the motley, undulating St. Basil's Cathedral. Behind the frozen Peter, a line of soldiers, a line of gallows - a line of battlements of the Kremlin wall. The picture is cemented by the duel of glances between Peter and the red-bearded archer.

“A lot can be said about the conflict between society and the state, the people and the empire. But I think there are some other meanings to this piece that make it unique. Vladimir Stasov, a promoter of the work of the Peredvizhniki and a defender of Russian realism, who wrote a lot of unnecessary things about them, said very well about Surikov. He called paintings of this kind “choral.” Indeed, they lack one hero - they lack one engine. The people become the engine. But in this picture the role of the people is very clearly visible. Joseph Brodsky said beautifully in his Nobel lecture that the real tragedy is not when a hero dies, but when a choir dies.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

Events take place in Surikov’s paintings as if against the will of their characters - and in this the artist’s concept of history is obviously close to Tolstoy’s.

“Society, people, nation in this picture seem divided. Peter's soldiers in uniforms that appear to be black and the archers in white are contrasted as good and evil. What connects these two unequal parts of the composition? This is an archer in a white shirt going to execution, and a soldier in uniform who supports him by the shoulder. If we mentally remove everything that surrounds them, we will never in our lives be able to imagine that this person is being led to execution. These are two friends returning home, and one supports the other with friendship and warmth. When Petrusha Grinev in „ The captain's daughter“The Pugachevites hung them up, they said: “Don’t worry, don’t worry,” as if they really wanted to cheer you up. This feeling that a people divided by the will of history is at the same time fraternal and united is an amazing quality of Surikov’s canvas, which I also don’t know anywhere else.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

Abstract

In painting, size matters, but not every subject can be depicted on a large canvas. Various painting traditions depicted villagers, but most often - not in huge paintings, but this is exactly what “Funeral at Ornans” by Gustave Courbet is. Ornans is a wealthy provincial town, where the artist himself comes from.

“Courbet moved to Paris, but did not become part of the artistic establishment. He did not receive an academic education, but he had a powerful hand, a very tenacious eye and great ambition. He always felt like a provincial, and he was best at home in Ornans. But he lived almost his entire life in Paris, fighting with the art that was already dying, fighting with the art that idealizes and talks about the general, about the past, about the beautiful, without noticing the present. Such art, which rather praises, which rather delights, as a rule, finds a very great demand. Courbet was, indeed, a revolutionary in painting, although now this revolutionary nature of him is not very clear to us, because he writes life, he writes prose. The main thing that was revolutionary about him was that he stopped idealizing his nature and began to paint it exactly as he saw it, or as he believed that he saw it.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

On giant painting almost in full height about fifty people are depicted. All of them real faces, and experts identified almost all the funeral participants. Courbet painted his fellow countrymen, and they were pleased to be seen in the picture exactly as they were.

“But when this painting was exhibited in 1851 in Paris, it created a scandal. She went against everything that the Parisian public was accustomed to at that moment. She insulted artists with the lack of a clear composition and rough, dense impasto painting, which conveys the materiality of things, but does not want to be beautiful. She frightened the average person by the fact that he could not really understand who it was. The breakdown of communications between the spectators of provincial France and the Parisians was striking. Parisians perceived the image of this respectable, wealthy crowd as an image of the poor. One of the critics said: “Yes, this is a disgrace, but this is the disgrace of the province, and Paris has its own disgrace.” Ugliness actually meant the utmost truthfulness.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

Courbet refused to idealize, which made him a true avant-garde of the 19th century. He focuses on French popular prints, and a Dutch group portrait, and ancient solemnity. Courbet teaches us to perceive modernity in its uniqueness, in its tragedy and in its beauty.

“French salons knew images of hard peasant labor, poor peasants. But the mode of depiction was generally accepted. The peasants needed to be pitied, the peasants needed to be sympathized with. It was a somewhat top-down view. A person who sympathizes is, by definition, in a priority position. And Courbet deprived his viewer of the possibility of such patronizing empathy. His characters are majestic, monumental, they ignore their viewers, and they do not allow one to establish such contact with them, which makes them part of the familiar world, they very powerfully break stereotypes.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

Abstract

The 19th century did not love itself, preferring to look for beauty in something else, be it Antiquity, the Middle Ages or the East. Charles Baudelaire was the first to learn to see the beauty of modernity, and it was embodied in painting by artists whom Baudelaire was not destined to see: for example, Edgar Degas and Edouard Manet.

“Manet is a provocateur. Manet is at the same time a brilliant painter, the charm of whose colors, colors very paradoxically combined, forces the viewer not to ask himself obvious questions. If we look closely at his paintings, we will often be forced to admit that we do not understand what brought these people here, what they are doing next to each other, why these objects are connected on the table. The simplest answer: Manet is first and foremost a painter, Manet is first and foremost an eye. He is interested in the combination of colors and textures, and the logical pairing of objects and people is the tenth thing. Such paintings often confuse the viewer who is looking for content, who is looking for stories. Manet doesn't tell stories. He could have remained such an amazingly accurate and exquisite optical apparatus if he had not created his last masterpiece already in those years when he was in the grip of a fatal illness.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

The painting "Bar at the Folies Bergere" was exhibited in 1882, at first earned ridicule from critics, and then was quickly recognized as a masterpiece. Its theme is a café-concert, a striking phenomenon Parisian life second half of the century. It seems that Manet vividly and authentically captured the life of the Folies Bergere.

“But when we start to take a closer look at what Manet did in his painting, we will understand that there are a huge number of inconsistencies that are subconsciously disturbing and, in general, do not receive a clear resolution. The girl we see is a saleswoman, she must use her physical attractiveness to make customers stop, flirt with her and order more drinks. Meanwhile, she does not flirt with us, but looks through us. There are four bottles of champagne on the table, warm - but why not in ice? In the mirror image, these bottles are not on the same edge of the table as they are in the foreground. The glass with roses is seen from a different angle than all the other objects on the table. And the girl in the mirror does not look exactly like the girl who looks at us: she is thicker, she has more rounded shapes, she is leaning towards the visitor. In general, she behaves as the one we are looking at should behave.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

Feminist criticism drew attention to the fact that the girl’s outline resembles a bottle of champagne standing on the counter. This is an apt observation, but hardly exhaustive: the melancholy of the picture and the psychological isolation of the heroine resist a straightforward interpretation.

“These optical plot and psychological mysteries of the picture, which seem to have no definite answer, force us to approach it again every time and ask these questions, subconsciously imbued with that feeling of beautiful, sad, tragic, everyday modern life, which Baudelaire dreamed of and which Manet left before us forever.”

Ilya Doronchenkov

Eugene Delacroix. Freedom leading the people to the barricades

In his diary, young Eugene Delacroix wrote on May 9, 1824: “I felt a desire to write on modern subjects.” It was not with a random phrase, a month earlier he wrote down a similar phrase: “I want to write about the subjects of the revolution.” The artist had repeatedly spoken before about his desire to write on contemporary topics, but very rarely realized these Desires. This happened because Delacroix believed: “... everything should be sacrificed for the sake of harmony and the real transmission of the plot. We must do without models in paintings. A living model never corresponds exactly to the image that we want to convey: the model is either vulgar or inferior , or her beauty is so different and more perfect that everything has to be changed.”

The artist preferred subjects from novels to the beauty of his life model. “What should you do to find a plot?” he asks himself one day. “Open a book that can inspire, and trust your mood!” And he religiously follows his own advice: every year the book becomes more and more a source of themes and plots for him.

Thus, the wall gradually grew and strengthened, separating Delacroix and his art from reality. The revolution of 1830 found him so withdrawn in his solitude. Everything that just a few days ago constituted the meaning of life for the romantic generation was instantly thrown far back and began to “look small” and unnecessary in front of the enormity of the events that had taken place.

The amazement and enthusiasm experienced these days invade Delacroix's solitary life. For him, reality loses its repulsive shell of vulgarity and everyday life, revealing true greatness, which he had never seen in it and which he had previously sought in Byron’s poems, historical chronicles, ancient mythology and in the East.

The July days resonated in the soul of Eugene Delacroix with a plan new painting. Barricade battles on July 27, 28 and 29 in French history decided the outcome of the political coup. These days King Charles X was overthrown - last representative the Bourbon dynasty, hated by the people. For the first time for Delacroix it was not a historical, literary or oriental subject, but the most real life. However, before this plan was realized, he had to go through a long and difficult path of change.

R. Escolier, the artist’s biographer, wrote: “At the very beginning, under the first impression of what he saw, Delacroix did not intend to depict Liberty among its adherents... He simply wanted to reproduce one of the July episodes, such as the death of d’Arcole.” Yes , then many feats were accomplished and sacrifices were made. The heroic death of d'Arcol is associated with the seizure of the Paris Town Hall by the rebels. On the day when the royal troops were holding the suspension bridge of Greve under fire, a young man appeared and rushed to the town hall. He exclaimed: “If I die, remember that my name is d’Arcole.” He was indeed killed, but managed to captivate the people with him and the town hall was taken.

Eugene Delacroix made a pen sketch, which, perhaps, became the first sketch for future picture. The fact that this was not an ordinary drawing is evidenced by the precise choice of moment, the completeness of the composition, thoughtful accents on individual figures, the architectural background organically fused with the action, and other details. This drawing could really serve as a sketch for a future painting, but art critic E. Kozhina believed that it remained just a sketch that had nothing in common with the canvas that Delacroix painted later.

The artist is no longer satisfied with the figure of d'Arcol alone, rushing forward and captivating the rebels with his heroic impulse. Eugene Delacroix conveys this central role to Freedom itself.

The artist was not a revolutionary and he himself admitted it: “I am a rebel, but not a revolutionary.” Politics interested him little, which is why he wanted to depict not a separate fleeting episode (even the heroic death of d'Arcole), not even a separate historical fact, but the nature of the whole event. So, the place of action, Paris, can only be judged by the piece written in the background of the picture with right side(in the background you can barely see the banner raised on the tower of Notre Dame Cathedral), and around the city houses. The scale, the feeling of the immensity and scope of what is happening - this is what Delacroix imparts to his huge canvas and what the depiction of a private episode, even a majestic one, would not provide.

The composition of the picture is very dynamic. In the center of the picture there is a group of armed people in simple clothes, they move towards the foreground of the picture and to the right.

Because of the gunpowder smoke, the area is not visible, nor is it clear how large this group itself is. The pressure of the crowd filling the depths of the picture forms an ever-increasing internal pressure that must inevitably break through. And so, ahead of the crowd, from a cloud of smoke to the top of the taken barricade, a beautiful woman with a tricolor republican banner in right hand and a gun with a bayonet in the left.

On her head is a red Phrygian cap of the Jacobins, her clothes flutter, exposing her breasts, the profile of her face resembles the classical features of the Venus de Milo. This is Freedom full of strength and inspiration, which with a decisive and bold movement shows the way to the fighters. Leading people through the barricades, Freedom does not order or command - it encourages and leads the rebels.

When working on the painting, two opposing principles collided in Delacroix’s worldview - inspiration inspired by reality, and on the other hand, a distrust of this reality that had long been ingrained in his mind. Distrust that life can be beautiful in itself, that human images and purely pictorial means can convey the idea of ​​a painting in its entirety. This mistrust dictated Delacroix's symbolic figure of Freedom and some other allegorical clarifications.

The artist transfers the entire event into the world of allegory, we reflect the idea in the same way as Rubens, whom he idolizes, did (Delacroix told the young Edouard Manet: “You must see Rubens, you must be imbued with Rubens, you must copy Rubens, for Rubens is a god”) in his compositions that personify abstract concepts. But Delacroix still does not follow his idol in everything: Freedom for him is symbolized not by an ancient deity, but by the simplest woman, who, however, becomes royally majestic.

Allegorical Freedom is full of life’s truth; in a swift rush it goes ahead of the column of revolutionaries, carrying them along and expressing higher meaning struggle - the power of ideas and the possibility of victory. If we did not know that the Nike of Samothrace was dug out of the ground after Delacroix’s death, we could assume that the artist was inspired by this masterpiece.

Many art critics noted and reproached Delacroix for the fact that all the greatness of his painting cannot obscure the impression, which at first turns out to be only barely noticeable. It's about about the clash in the artist’s mind of opposing aspirations, which left its mark even in the completed canvas; Delacroix’s hesitation between a sincere desire to show reality (as he saw it) and an involuntary desire to raise it to the buskins, between the attraction to painting that is emotional, immediate and already established, familiar To artistic tradition. Many were not happy that the most ruthless realism, horrifying the well-intentioned public art salons, is combined in this picture with the flawless, perfect beauty. Noting as a virtue the feeling of life authenticity, which had never before appeared in Delacroix’s work (and was never repeated again), the artist was reproached for the generality and symbolism of the image of Freedom. However, also for the generalization of other images, blaming the artist for the fact that the naturalistic nudity of the corpse in the foreground is adjacent to the nudity of Freedom.

This duality did not escape both Delacroix’s contemporaries and later connoisseurs and critics. Even 25 years later, when the public had already become accustomed to the naturalism of Gustave Courbet and Jean François Millet, Maxime Ducamp was still raging in front of “Freedom on the Barricades,” forgetting all restraint of expression: “Oh, if Freedom is like this, if this girl with bare feet and bare chested who runs screaming and waving a gun, then we don’t need her. We have nothing to do with this shameful vixen!”

But, reproaching Delacroix, what could be contrasted with his painting? The revolution of 1830 was also reflected in the work of other artists. After these events, the royal throne was occupied by Louis Philippe, who tried to present his rise to power as almost the only content of the revolution. Many artists who took exactly this approach to the topic rushed along the path of least resistance. For these masters, the revolution, as a spontaneous popular wave, as a grandiose popular impulse, does not seem to exist at all. They seem to be in a hurry to forget about everything that they saw on the streets of Paris in July 1830, and the “three glorious days” appear in their depiction as completely well-intentioned actions of the Parisian townspeople, who were only concerned with how to quickly get a new king to replace the expelled one. Such works include Fontaine’s painting “The Guard Proclaiming Louis Philippe King” or O. Berne’s painting “The Duke of Orleans Leaving the Palais Royal”.

But, pointing out the allegorical nature of the main image, some researchers forget to note that the allegorical nature of Freedom does not at all create dissonance with the other figures in the picture, and does not look as foreign and exceptional in the picture as it might seem at first glance. After all, the rest acting characters in essence and in their role they are also allegorical. In their person, Delacroix seems to bring to the fore those forces that made the revolution: the workers, the intelligentsia and the plebs of Paris. A worker in a blouse and a student (or artist) with a gun are representatives of very specific strata of society. These are, undoubtedly, vivid and reliable images, but Delacroix brings this generalization to symbols. And this allegory, which is clearly felt already in them, reaches its highest development in the figure of Freedom. She is a formidable and beautiful goddess, and at the same time she is a daring Parisian. And nearby, a nimble, disheveled boy is jumping over the stones, screaming with delight and waving pistols (as if orchestrating events) - little genius Parisian barricades, whom Victor Hugo would call Gavroche 25 years later.

The painting “Freedom on the Barricades” ends the romantic period in Delacroix’s work. The artist himself loved this painting very much and made a lot of efforts to ensure that it ended up in the Louvre. However, after the seizure of power by the “bourgeois monarchy,” the exhibition of this painting was prohibited. Only in 1848 was Delacroix able to long time, to exhibit my painting, but after the defeat of the revolution it ended up in storage for a long time. The true meaning of this work by Delacroix is ​​determined by its second name, unofficial: many have long been accustomed to seeing in this picture the “Marseillaise of French painting.”

“One Hundred Great Paintings” by N. A. Ionin, Veche Publishing House, 2002

Ferdinand Victor Eugene Delacroix (1798—1863) — French painter and graphic artist, leader of the romantic movement in European painting.

Eugene Delacroix Liberty leading the people, 1830 La Liberté guidant le peuple Oil on canvas. 260 × 325 cm Louvre, Paris “Liberty leading the people” (French ... Wikipedia

Basic Concepts Free will Positive freedom Negative freedom Human rights Violence ... Wikipedia

Eugene Delacroix Liberty leading the people, 1830 La Liberté guidant le peuple Oil on canvas. 260 × 325 cm Louvre, Paris “Liberty leading the people” (French ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see People (meanings). The people (also common people, mob, masses) are the main unprivileged mass of the population (both working people, declassed and marginal). They are not considered a people... ... Wikipedia

Freedom Basic concepts Free will Positive freedom Negative freedom Human rights Violence · ... Wikipedia

Liberty Leading the People, Eugene Delacroix, 1830, Louvre The July Revolution of 1830 (French: La révolution de Juillet) an uprising on July 27 against the current monarchy in France, leading to the final overthrow of the senior line of the Bourbon dynasty (?) and ... ... Wikipedia

Liberty Leading the People, Eugene Delacroix, 1830, Louvre The July Revolution of 1830 (French: La révolution de Juillet) an uprising on July 27 against the current monarchy in France, leading to the final overthrow of the senior line of the Bourbon dynasty (?) and ... ... Wikipedia

One of the main genres of fine art dedicated to historical events and figures, socially significant phenomena in the history of society. Addressed mainly to the past, I. J. also includes images of recent events... ... Big Soviet encyclopedia

Books

  • Delacroix, . An album of color and tone reproductions dedicated to the work of the outstanding French artist XIX century Eugene Delicroix, who led the romantic movement in fine arts. In album…

“I chose a modern plot, a scene on the barricades... If I did not fight for the freedom of the fatherland, then at least I must write for it,” Delacroix informed his brother, referring to the painting “Freedom Leading the People” ( In our country it is also known as “Freedom on the barricades”).
Freedom walks barefoot and bare-chested over the corpses of the fallen, calling the rebels behind her. In her raised hand she holds the tricolor republican flag, and its colors - red, white and blue - echo throughout the canvas.
This work by Delacroix should be called a romantic allegory rather than a documentary account of the events of the July Revolution of 1830. Delacroix himself did not take part in the “glorious days”, observing what was happening from the windows of his workshop, but after the fall of the Bourbon monarchy he decided to perpetuate the image of the Revolution.
During the Restoration, it seemed to many French that all the sacrifices of the French Revolution and the Empire were in vain. In July 1830, dissatisfaction with the Bourbon regime reached its peak. The Parisians rebelled and took possession of the capital. The so-called July Monarchy was established in France. King Louis Philippe came to power. “Sacred days of Parisian July!” exclaimed Heinrich Heine. “You will always testify to the innate nobility of man, which will never be eradicated. He who survived you no longer weeps over the old graves, but is full of joyful faith in the resurrection of nations. Sacred days July! How beautiful the sun was, how great the people of Paris were!”
In his masterpiece, Delacroix combined the seemingly incompatible - the protocol reality of reportage with the sublime fabric of poetic allegory. He gave a small episode of street fighting a timeless, epic sound. The central character of the canvas is Liberty, who combines the majestic posture of Aphrodite de Milo with the features that Auguste Barbier endowed Liberty with: “This is a strong woman with a powerful chest, with in a hoarse voice, with fire in the eyes, fast, with long strides."

Introduction. 2

"Freedom leading the people." 3

Interesting facts... 8

Bibliography. 10

Introduction.

Ferdinand Victor Eugene Delacroix, 1798-1863, painter and graphic artist, representative of romanticism.

Born on April 26, 1798 in Saint-Maurice near Paris. Studied at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris. He made his debut with the painting “Dante and Virgil” (1822).

In 1823, the artist turned to the theme of the Greek struggle against Turkey. The result of the herd was the composition “Massacre on Chios” (1824), in which the talent and professionalism of the author were revealed. The picture was painted in 1827. "Greece on the ruins of Missolunga." From this time on, Delacroix became known as a historical romantic painter. The artist created a number of works on historical subjects: the paintings “The Execution of Doge Marino Faliero” (1826), “The Death of Sardanapalus” (1827), illustrations for the works of W. Scott; canvases “The Battle of Poitiers” (1830), “The Battle of Nancy” (1831), “The Capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders” (1840-1841).

In addition to painting looking back to the past, Delacroix paints contemporary France. Portraits of artists, writers, as well as lithographs are what the artist worked on in the 30s. Back in the late 20s. he created a number of illustrations for J. V. Goethe’s tragedy “Faust”, as well as the painting “Faust in his study” (1827).

The unrest in Paris in the summer of 1830 was the topic for writing, perhaps, the most famous painting Delacroix - “Freedom on the Barricades” (“28 July 1830”). It was exhibited a year after the suppression of the Parisian uprising - at the Salon of 1831.

IN next year the artist went to the East, lived in Morocco and Algeria. Oriental motifs made up a significant part of Delacroix's work. In 1834 the paintings “Algerian Women” appeared, in 1854 - “Lion Hunt in Morocco”. IN last years Throughout his life, the artist chaired the jury of various exhibitions and salons.

He died on August 13, 1863 in Paris. During his life, Delacroix created a large number of paintings on historical and everyday themes, landscapes, portraits (for example, George Sand, F. Chopin), and still lifes. The artist also painted the halls of palaces and the chapel in a church in the city of Saint-Sulpice.

"Freedom leading the people"

In his diary, young Eugene Delacroix wrote on May 9, 1824: “I felt a desire to write on modern subjects.” This was not a random phrase; a month earlier he had written down a similar phrase: “I want to write about the subjects of the revolution.” The artist had repeatedly spoken before about his desire to write on contemporary topics, but very rarely realized these Desires. This happened because Delacroix believed: “...everything should be sacrificed for the sake of harmony and the real transmission of the plot. We must do without models in paintings. A living model never corresponds exactly to the image that we want to convey: the model is either vulgar, or inferior, or Her beauty is so different and more perfect that everything has to be changed.”

The artist preferred subjects from novels to the beauty of his life model. “What should you do to find a plot?” he asks himself one day. “Open a book that can inspire, and trust your mood!” And he religiously follows his own advice: every year the book becomes more and more a source of themes and plots for him.

Thus, the wall gradually grew and strengthened, separating Delacroix and his art from reality. The revolution of 1830 found him so withdrawn in his solitude. Everything that just a few days ago constituted the meaning of life for the romantic generation was instantly thrown far back and began to “look small” and unnecessary in front of the enormity of the events that had taken place.

The amazement and enthusiasm experienced these days invade Delacroix's solitary life. For him, reality loses its repulsive shell of vulgarity and everyday life, revealing true greatness, which he had never seen in it and which he had previously sought in Byron’s poems, historical chronicles, ancient mythology and in the East.

The July days resonated in the soul of Eugene Delacroix with the idea of ​​a new painting. The barricade battles of July 27, 28 and 29 in French history decided the outcome of the political revolution. These days, King Charles X, the last representative of the Bourbon dynasty hated by the people, was overthrown. For the first time for Delacroix it was not a historical, literary or oriental plot, but real life. However, before this plan was realized, he had to go through a long and difficult path of change.

R. Escolier, the artist’s biographer, wrote: “At the very beginning, under the first impression of what he saw, Delacroix did not intend to depict Liberty among its adherents... He simply wanted to reproduce one of the July episodes, such as the death of d’Arcol.” Yes, then many feats were accomplished and sacrifices were made. D'Arcole's heroic death is associated with the seizure of the Paris City Hall by rebels. On the day when the royal troops were holding the suspension bridge of Greve under fire, a young man appeared and rushed to the town hall. He exclaimed: “If I die, remember that my name is d’Arcole.” He was indeed killed, but managed to attract the people with him and the town hall was taken.

Eugene Delacroix made a pen sketch, which, perhaps, became the first sketch for the future painting. The fact that this was not an ordinary drawing is evidenced by the precise choice of moment, the completeness of the composition, thoughtful accents on individual figures, the architectural background organically fused with the action, and other details. This drawing could really serve as a sketch for a future painting, but art critic E. Kozhina believed that it remained just a sketch that had nothing in common with the canvas that Delacroix painted later.

The artist is no longer satisfied with the figure of D’Arcol alone, rushing forward and captivating the rebels with his heroic impulse. Eugene Delacroix conveys this central role to Liberty herself.

The artist was not a revolutionary and he himself admitted it: “I am a rebel, but not a revolutionary.” Politics interested him little, which is why he wanted to depict not a separate fleeting episode (even the heroic death of d’Arcol), not even a separate historical fact, but the nature of the entire event. So, the location of the action, Paris, can be judged only by the piece written in the background of the picture on the right side (in the depths the banner raised on the tower of Notre Dame Cathedral is barely visible), and by the city houses. The scale, the sense of immensity and scope of what is happening - this is what Delacroix conveys to his huge canvas and what the depiction of a private episode, even a majestic one, would not provide.

The composition of the picture is very dynamic. In the center of the picture there is a group of armed people in simple clothes, they move towards the foreground of the picture and to the right. Because of the gunpowder smoke, the area is not visible, nor is it clear how large this group itself is. The pressure of the crowd filling the depths of the picture forms an ever-increasing internal pressure that must inevitably break through. And so, ahead of the crowd, a beautiful woman with a tricolor republican banner in her right hand and a gun with a bayonet in her left strode widely from a cloud of smoke to the top of the taken barricade. On her head is a red Phrygian cap of the Jacobins, her clothes flutter, exposing her breasts, the profile of her face resembles the classical features of the Venus de Milo. This is Freedom full of strength and inspiration, which with a decisive and bold movement shows the way to the fighters. Leading people through the barricades, Freedom does not order or command - it encourages and leads the rebels.

When working on the painting, two opposing principles collided in Delacroix’s worldview - inspiration inspired by reality, and on the other hand, a distrust of this reality that had long been ingrained in his mind. Distrust in the fact that life can be beautiful in itself, that human images and purely pictorial means can convey the idea of ​​a painting in its entirety. This mistrust dictated Delacroix's symbolic figure of Freedom and some other allegorical clarifications.

The artist transfers the entire event into the world of allegory, we reflect the idea in the same way as Rubens, whom he idolizes, did (Delacroix told the young Edouard Manet: “You must see Rubens, you must be imbued with Rubens, you must copy Rubens, for Rubens is a god”) in his compositions that personify abstract concepts. But Delacroix still does not follow his idol in everything: freedom for him is symbolized not by an ancient deity, but by the simplest woman, who, however, becomes royally majestic.

Allegorical Freedom is full of vital truth; in a swift rush it goes ahead of the column of revolutionaries, carrying them along and expressing the highest meaning of the struggle - the power of the idea and the possibility of victory. If we did not know that the Nike of Samothrace was dug out of the ground after Delacroix’s death, we could assume that the artist was inspired by this masterpiece.

Many art critics noted and reproached Delacroix for the fact that all the greatness of his painting cannot obscure the impression, which at first turns out to be only barely noticeable. We are talking about a clash in the artist’s mind of opposing aspirations, which left its mark even in the completed canvas; Delacroix’s hesitation between a sincere desire to show reality (as he saw it) and an involuntary desire to raise it to the buskins, between the attraction to emotional, immediate and already established painting. , accustomed to the artistic tradition. Many were not happy that the most ruthless realism, which horrified the well-intentioned public of art salons, was combined in this picture with impeccable, ideal beauty. Noting as a virtue the feeling of life authenticity, which had never before appeared in Delacroix’s work (and was never repeated again), the artist was reproached for the generality and symbolism of the image of Freedom. However, also for the generalization of other images, blaming the artist for the fact that the naturalistic nudity of the corpse in the foreground is adjacent to the nudity of Freedom.

This duality did not escape both Delacroix’s contemporaries and later connoisseurs and critics. Even 25 years later, when the public had already become accustomed to the naturalism of Gustave Courbet and Jean François Millet, Maxime Ducamp was still raging in front of “Freedom on the Barricades,” forgetting all restraint of expression: “Oh, if Freedom is like this, if this girl with bare feet and bare-chested, running, screaming and waving a gun, then we don’t need her. We have nothing to do with this shameful vixen!”

But, reproaching Delacroix, what could be contrasted with his painting? The revolution of 1830 was also reflected in the work of other artists. After these events, the royal throne was occupied by Louis Philippe, who tried to present his rise to power as almost the only content of the revolution. Many artists who took exactly this approach to the topic rushed along the path of least resistance. For these masters, the revolution, as a spontaneous popular wave, as a grandiose popular impulse, does not seem to exist at all. They seem to be in a hurry to forget about everything that they saw on the streets of Paris in July 1830, and the “three glorious days” appear in their depiction as completely well-intentioned actions of the Parisian townspeople, who were only concerned with how to quickly get a new king to replace the expelled one. Such works include Fontaine’s painting “The Guard Proclaiming Louis Philippe King” or O. Berne’s painting “The Duke of Orleans Leaving the Palais Royal”.

But, pointing out the allegorical nature of the main image, some researchers forget to note that the allegorical nature of Freedom does not at all create dissonance with the other figures in the picture, and does not look as foreign and exceptional in the picture as it might seem at first glance. After all, the rest of the acting characters are also allegorical in essence and in their role. In their person, Delacroix seems to bring to the fore those forces that made the revolution: the workers, the intelligentsia and the plebs of Paris. A worker in a blouse and a student (or artist) with a gun are representatives of very specific strata of society. These are, undoubtedly, vivid and reliable images, but Delacroix brings this generalization to symbols. And this allegory, which is clearly felt already in them, reaches its highest development in the figure of Freedom. She is a formidable and beautiful goddess, and at the same time she is a daring Parisian. And nearby, jumping over the stones, screaming with delight and waving pistols (as if directing events) was a nimble, disheveled boy - a little genius of the Parisian barricades, whom Victor Hugo would call Gavroche 25 years later.

The painting “Freedom on the Barricades” ends the romantic period in Delacroix’s work. The artist himself loved this painting very much and made a lot of efforts to ensure that it ended up in the Louvre. However, after the seizure of power by the “bourgeois monarchy,” the exhibition of this painting was prohibited. Only in 1848 was Delacroix able to exhibit his painting one more time, and even for quite a long time, but after the defeat of the revolution it ended up in storage for a long time. The true meaning of this work by Delacroix is ​​determined by its second name, unofficial: many have long been accustomed to seeing in this picture the “Marseillaise of French painting.”

In 1999, Liberty flew aboard an Airbus Beluga from Paris to an exhibition in Tokyo via Bahrain and Calcutta in 20 hours. The dimensions of the canvas - 2.99 m in height by 3.62 m in length - were too large for the Boeing 747. Transportation was carried out in a vertical position in an isothermal pressure chamber, protected from vibration.

On February 7, 2013, a visitor to the Louvre-Lens Museum, where “Freedom” was exhibited, wrote on the lower part of the canvas with a marker, after which she was detained. On February 8, restorers restored the painting, spending less than two hours on it.

Bibliography.

1. Delacroix, Ferdinand-Victor-Eugene // encyclopedic Dictionary Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg, 1890-1907. Date of access: 12/14/2015

2. “One Hundred Great Paintings” by N.A. Ionin, Veche Publishing House, 2002 . Date of access: 12/14/2015

3. Law and history artistic culture: textbook manual for university students studying in the field of “Jurisprudence” / [V.G. Vishnevsky and others]; edited by MM. Rassolova. – M.: UNITY-DANA, 2012. – 431 p. – (Series “Cogito ergo sum”). Date of access: 12/14/2015

Eugene Delacroix

Ill. Eugene Delacroix "Freedom Leading the People"

Did you like the article? Share with your friends!