Return from the Market - 1739
Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin
French painter - 1699-1779
Source: Wikipedia
Rudolf Arnheim (German-born author, art and film theorist, perceptual psychologist and teacher - 1904-2007), discusses the composition of the above painting ("Return from the Market") in his book The Power of the Center. Among other things he points out the bowl on the floor, implying that it, as well as everything else in the painting, is right where it is for a good reason. Everything in the painting, through its "location, weight, and mutual relation" helps the painting make its point. I myself have not quite figured out what that point is, though I'm trying, and while trying to understand it occurred to me that the bowl on the floor (not to mention the nearby tall dark bottles, one of which is already tipped over), no matter how important it may be to the composition, looks like it's liable to be walked on or accidentally kicked and broken. In fact, what is a bowl doing on the floor? Is it for the cat to drink out of? In any case, it's awfully close to the maid's foot and to me the relationship that stands out most clearly in this picture is that between her shoe and the bowl on the floor. I looked at some of Chardin's other interior scenes with people to see what else might be on the floor and, if so, whether it seemed like it "should" be there. I found that, in all the paintings I looked at of his indoor genre scenes, there were objects on the floor. In some cases they looked like they belonged there (though it does make one wonder if they really needed all of those things under their feet), for example in this picture:  Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin Source: Wikipedia Also in this one I can see some reason for what's on the floor:  Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin Source: The Humanities Web In "The Governess" (above) it seems somewhat reasonable that those particular objects might be on the floor. There is a child in the picture whom we naturally associate with the playthings, but then again why did he leave them on the floor when he's fastidiously dressed and with a book under his arm as if he's about to leave for school? It doesn't seem odd that the governess has a basket of sewing things on the floor, as there is a piece of cloth on her lap that she might be working on. But...Those playthings seem out of place, at least if we're thinking about what they are. But in the picture below, I can't see any reason at all for the presence of that object on the floor; it looks like it has nothing to do with the subject.  Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin Source: Wikipedia Why is there what looks like a metal teapot on the floor, other than for the sake of the composition without regard to what the object is? I'm sure that the placement of that particular object didn't seem unnatural to Chardin, but it does to me. It looks like it has just waddled out there from beyond the canvas at the right and is contemplating what to do, having realized that this is not where it should be. In the next picture, I saw the beginning of an answer to my "wonderings" about all the objects on the floor in Chardin's pictures. This picture, to me, looks almost exactly like a Chardin still life - none in particular, but it could just as easily be a still life as a scene with a figure - If the figure was replaced by an object of equal lightness and of a similar shape.  Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin Source: The Humanities Web The maid in the above picture could be a duck, or a rabbit, or a tall, slender and shapely white pot.  Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin Source: The Humanities Web Compare the picture of the "Still Life with Pestle, Bowl....etc." with the "Scullery Maid" picture above it. Isn't that the same copper pot in both of them? And the mortar and pestle in the lower picture are shaped a lot like the tall slender object on the left in the picture above it. The black handle of the knife in the lower picture occupies virtually the same space and is approximately the same shape as the black-topped casserole pot (which looks like it might be stepped on as soon as that maid moves) in the other picture; obviously they are playing the same role in their respective compositions. In the still life below, there is that copper pot again, and the mortar and pestle. In this picture there is also a slender pale blue (almost white) pot that merges with the eggs because of their similar light color and swelling curves, making, when combined, a bent and shapely light object not so different than the shape of the maid bending over the barrel.  Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin Source: The Humanities Web What this means to me is that Chardin looked at his subjects in almost exactly the same way when it came to painting them, whether he was painting a mother and her children or some pots and a dead rabbit. Although he was obviously sympathetic with, and gently portrayed, the humanness of the people he painted, he also saw them as objects in a still life...a quiet life where everything has its place and is comfortable in it, you might say. And so Chardin's addition to a figure painting of a pot or bowl that he used in still lifes, to balance or otherwise enhance the composition (and help "make the point"), must have come naturally and seemed not at all inappropriate to him as apparently he considered that the point of the picture was best conveyed by the underlying structure and composition, which you grasp immediately and unconsciously, whereas superficial incongruities, which may be the source of "second thoughts" about what you're looking at, are not as important (though not entirely unimportant, either - He did not include objects that weren't associated with the human subjects, it's just that they are on the floor where it seems they shouldn't be). And so I rest my case. What do you think? Update: I have written a new post, exploring this subject furthr: What's on the floor and why is it there?. To subscribe to the Thinking About Art Monthly Newsletter, see near bottom of this page. |
1 comments:
I see these objects serving as compositional devices for two likely purposes, Jean. First, as you say, they help to balance the composition and the type of actual object itself is less important than its relative size and shape in countering the much larger masses of the human forms and big objects such as chairs. Covering the smaller incidental objects with a thumb while viewing the pictures, I can appreciate that he felt a counterbalance of sorts was needed. Secondly, I think these objects helped the artist convey more strongly the sense that the floor is a flat plane. By providing an object to scale positioned on the floor in relation to the people and other forms (and including its shadow), the impression of a flat floor plane is made very convincing where otherwise these empty areas might have felt too undefined to Chardin. He certainly had the skill to pull off the illusion without such a device but years of working this way may have left him composing in this manner by habit and/or instinct. And perhaps in our day we are more accustomed to "empty" parts of a painting and see less of a need for these "grounding" and counterbalancing devices whereas in Chardin's time making things a little busier throughout the painting felt more appropriate.
Post a Comment