Art History III Essay
_Ruins of the Chateau of Pierrefonds by
Jean Baptiste Camille Corot is a curious work of art that cannot be fully
classified as entirely Romantic or Realist. Corot originally painted the Ruins
of Pierrefonds in the 1830’s when the Romantic style was still going strong.
But when Napoleon III decided to actually revamp the real ruins of Pierrefonds,
Corot went back to the painting in order to make the painting palatable to the
new Realist style of the 1860’s.
Corot chose, as many artists of the era, to paint in oil on canvas. The composition of the portrait is somewhat triangular with a strong diagonal movement across the plane of the canvas from the upper left hand corner to the bottom right hand corner. The coloring of the work is fairly bland, with the three main colors being used are a cream/yellow, green, and light blue. It is the division of the green and blue that creates any interest at all. The way the trees on the left hand side of the work extend off of the canvas creates an imbalance that automatically leads the viewer’s eye up the tree trunks, down past the chateau, and back across the bottom of the painting towards the trees. The great expanse of blue sky is all that holds the balance of the painting at all. Yet Corot was not entirely worried about balance or symmetry. The Romantic style when this work was originally painted encouraged the hidden and surprised feeling evoked by the ruins sitting just behind the trees. The viewer can now feel like they just happened upon this cozy little scene in the idyllic French countryside.
The brushstrokes in this work are somewhat wispy and ethereal. When Corot went back to “enhance” the painting for the benefit of Napoleon III, he purposefully put in a haze. This created a sense of atmosphere, but also a sense of fantasy. Corot’s use of texture (through brushstrokes) also creates the sense of atmosphere and depth. By placing very textured tree’s and grass up close and fading back to a lightly defined chateau, the feeling of distance is produced. The relationship of light and dark creates pockets of interest. Shadowing among the trees grabs the eye and the bright tree trunk begins the eye’s journey through the painting. All of these small details of texture, line, color and shape provide the interest that keeps one looking through the work to find new information and surprises. I find it interesting that although this work was accomplished in oil, I see its style comparable to watercolor due to the diluted nature of the tones he uses and the haziness created through strokes.
Perhaps the fact that I could see this work done in watercolor says something about what Corot was thinking when he originally painted this work. The serene sense of this painting seems effortless and uncontrived; spur of the moment even. Due to the fact that the subject of this painting is ruins, Corot does not try to cover every detail of the scene and instead tries to bring about that sense of calm historical beauty. Although the focus of the work is the Chateau, it is refreshing that he did not minutely paint every crack, crumble, and line of the old building. I feel that the way he treated this painting more effectively interests and entrances the viewer.
To prove my point, I look to John Constable’s Salisbury Cathedral from the Bishop’s Garden (Adams 739). If one takes a quick glance at the two paintings side by side, a similarity of subject and style is immediately understood. Constable painted his work in 1820, also as oil on canvas and I imagine is similar in style to the original version of Ruins of the Chateau of Pierrefonds. Constable’s style is clean, detailed, and to the point. Believing that the point of art was to document and record what we see, and that art should not come from the imagination, Constable took it upon himself to leave out a lot of the overly sentimental tones in his brushstrokes and instead took his hand to creating much texture and realism. The romantic period is still felt in the fact that Salisbury Cathedral still blends and lives harmoniously with nature, but the whole work does not have the hidden and atmospheric quality of Corot’s ruins. Whereas Constable took the time to define everything from the cows to the last window on the cathedral, Corot lost interest in detail at the patch of trees. Neither style is bad, but I find Corot’s hazy, lazy day quite relaxing and quieting.
Personally, Ruins of the Chateau of Pierrefonds is to me a more interesting work. Because my eye does not have every detail and piece of information provided, I must become more engrossed in the painting and I have the liberty of making my own ideas and stories about what is happening. The unspecific individuals in the boat make the work have a universal feel. I could be the one sitting in the boat as I push off for a relaxing ride on the river. Constable also leaves the people walking along the trees by the cathedral feature free, but I think due to the detailing in the rest of the work, it is much less freeing to me as a viewer. In the same manner the water in Constables work does not possess the same serenity and possibility that the pond in Corot’s work possesses. I feel that I could float off anywhere in the pond near the ruins, but would be forced to meander among cows while near the Bishop’s garden. I suppose the water in either work should maybe not account for much considering they are not the main focus, but I believe water and it’s fluidity can immediately enhance or detract from a painting. In neither work is the water distracting or detracting, but I feel Corot’s water better helps support the feeling he wrought in the brushstrokes and composition.
Ruins of the Chateau of Pierrefonds is fascinating for the time span it covered. Bridging both the Romantic and Realist styles and originally painted just 14 years after John Constable’s Salisbury Cathedral from the Bishop’s Garden, it is quite fun that Corot went back to “fix” it 32 years later for the sake of impressing Napoleon III. Those 32 years, in my opinion greatly enhanced the work by removing detail and creating realistic atmosphere. I’m not sure if I find the work really progressive due to the fact that may other artists had caught on to atmosphere and looser brushstrokes many years earlier, but I do find it a nice glimpse into the French countryside 30 some years apart. Why Corot thought his idea of enhancing the painting would impress Napoleon (it did not…) I have no idea. But I find it funny and gutsy and good that he did. The final rendering done in 1866 is a calming, quiet, and beautiful viewing of Pierrefonds before tourists took over and its charm is what makes the work so good.
Corot chose, as many artists of the era, to paint in oil on canvas. The composition of the portrait is somewhat triangular with a strong diagonal movement across the plane of the canvas from the upper left hand corner to the bottom right hand corner. The coloring of the work is fairly bland, with the three main colors being used are a cream/yellow, green, and light blue. It is the division of the green and blue that creates any interest at all. The way the trees on the left hand side of the work extend off of the canvas creates an imbalance that automatically leads the viewer’s eye up the tree trunks, down past the chateau, and back across the bottom of the painting towards the trees. The great expanse of blue sky is all that holds the balance of the painting at all. Yet Corot was not entirely worried about balance or symmetry. The Romantic style when this work was originally painted encouraged the hidden and surprised feeling evoked by the ruins sitting just behind the trees. The viewer can now feel like they just happened upon this cozy little scene in the idyllic French countryside.
The brushstrokes in this work are somewhat wispy and ethereal. When Corot went back to “enhance” the painting for the benefit of Napoleon III, he purposefully put in a haze. This created a sense of atmosphere, but also a sense of fantasy. Corot’s use of texture (through brushstrokes) also creates the sense of atmosphere and depth. By placing very textured tree’s and grass up close and fading back to a lightly defined chateau, the feeling of distance is produced. The relationship of light and dark creates pockets of interest. Shadowing among the trees grabs the eye and the bright tree trunk begins the eye’s journey through the painting. All of these small details of texture, line, color and shape provide the interest that keeps one looking through the work to find new information and surprises. I find it interesting that although this work was accomplished in oil, I see its style comparable to watercolor due to the diluted nature of the tones he uses and the haziness created through strokes.
Perhaps the fact that I could see this work done in watercolor says something about what Corot was thinking when he originally painted this work. The serene sense of this painting seems effortless and uncontrived; spur of the moment even. Due to the fact that the subject of this painting is ruins, Corot does not try to cover every detail of the scene and instead tries to bring about that sense of calm historical beauty. Although the focus of the work is the Chateau, it is refreshing that he did not minutely paint every crack, crumble, and line of the old building. I feel that the way he treated this painting more effectively interests and entrances the viewer.
To prove my point, I look to John Constable’s Salisbury Cathedral from the Bishop’s Garden (Adams 739). If one takes a quick glance at the two paintings side by side, a similarity of subject and style is immediately understood. Constable painted his work in 1820, also as oil on canvas and I imagine is similar in style to the original version of Ruins of the Chateau of Pierrefonds. Constable’s style is clean, detailed, and to the point. Believing that the point of art was to document and record what we see, and that art should not come from the imagination, Constable took it upon himself to leave out a lot of the overly sentimental tones in his brushstrokes and instead took his hand to creating much texture and realism. The romantic period is still felt in the fact that Salisbury Cathedral still blends and lives harmoniously with nature, but the whole work does not have the hidden and atmospheric quality of Corot’s ruins. Whereas Constable took the time to define everything from the cows to the last window on the cathedral, Corot lost interest in detail at the patch of trees. Neither style is bad, but I find Corot’s hazy, lazy day quite relaxing and quieting.
Personally, Ruins of the Chateau of Pierrefonds is to me a more interesting work. Because my eye does not have every detail and piece of information provided, I must become more engrossed in the painting and I have the liberty of making my own ideas and stories about what is happening. The unspecific individuals in the boat make the work have a universal feel. I could be the one sitting in the boat as I push off for a relaxing ride on the river. Constable also leaves the people walking along the trees by the cathedral feature free, but I think due to the detailing in the rest of the work, it is much less freeing to me as a viewer. In the same manner the water in Constables work does not possess the same serenity and possibility that the pond in Corot’s work possesses. I feel that I could float off anywhere in the pond near the ruins, but would be forced to meander among cows while near the Bishop’s garden. I suppose the water in either work should maybe not account for much considering they are not the main focus, but I believe water and it’s fluidity can immediately enhance or detract from a painting. In neither work is the water distracting or detracting, but I feel Corot’s water better helps support the feeling he wrought in the brushstrokes and composition.
Ruins of the Chateau of Pierrefonds is fascinating for the time span it covered. Bridging both the Romantic and Realist styles and originally painted just 14 years after John Constable’s Salisbury Cathedral from the Bishop’s Garden, it is quite fun that Corot went back to “fix” it 32 years later for the sake of impressing Napoleon III. Those 32 years, in my opinion greatly enhanced the work by removing detail and creating realistic atmosphere. I’m not sure if I find the work really progressive due to the fact that may other artists had caught on to atmosphere and looser brushstrokes many years earlier, but I do find it a nice glimpse into the French countryside 30 some years apart. Why Corot thought his idea of enhancing the painting would impress Napoleon (it did not…) I have no idea. But I find it funny and gutsy and good that he did. The final rendering done in 1866 is a calming, quiet, and beautiful viewing of Pierrefonds before tourists took over and its charm is what makes the work so good.