Analyze This! #2, A Soul Brought To Heaven by Bouguereau [Archive]

PthaloBlueGirl

12-07-2003, 01:48 PM

I know it is only afternoon on Sunday where I am at but I thought I would post it now in case I can't closer to Monday my time.
>>>>>>>>
Here is A Soul Brought To Heaven, or Artrenewal calles it
A Soul In Heaven, and A Soul Carried To Heaven. Whatever, you get the point.

We'd been talking about light in The Forge Of Vulcan and this one seemed to have a good lighting atmosphere too. Plus it can be profoundly meaningful to you, or not as the case may be :-)

While trying to get an idea why the artist painted it I discovered this page:
http://www.alloilpaintings.com/bougsoulbrou.html
It says that Bouguereau painted this while still in mourning for his wife and two sons who died between 1875 and 1877. Poor man!

It doesn't show a particular family member but the grief is clear. The hope of a reunion in heaven is clear too and so is an anger. Or at least to me. The lighting is very dark and stormy, troubled, as if there is doubt about an afterlife. Or an anger at his family's death. I wonder if he asked the cosmic Why to himself when he painted it? There is also a sense of urgency as if the two angels have to speed the woman on her way before it is too late. It doesn't seem sublime to me or even erotic as one webmaster states. Here is the link: http://home.att.net/~ShadowlandHome/Bouguereau_frame.html

The two male angels could represent his young sons, but they were very young when they died. It may be his wife they carry and she is the only one who seems content.

I also noticed how the angels were a bit dark. The lightest figure, the center of attention, is the woman. The use of light and dark is what makes you look at her first. Even the angel's wings are dark. Also I noticed that there wasn't any obvious light source. It is as if the woman is some how generating her own small light. All right, now I know you all are singing 'This little light of mine' :-)

Another thing I just now noticed is that it is her BODY that the angels are carrying. Is the soul trapped inside? Her arms look as if they might have been crossed over her chest or clasped together over her stomach, see how the fingers are interlaced? Note the flowers too. A final show of love. They topple down to Earth as she is no longer concerned with pain or suffering. I wonder what kind of flowers they are and if they have a meaning? I guess he didn't use Forget-Me-Nots for they'd be too small.

The lighting is very dramatic and as usual the human form is beautifully portrayed.

I am learning that B worked VERY hard on his paintings doing all kinds of drawings and paint studies before even starting on a painting. And it does show. His technical skill is amazing. I love the way he paints feet!! I admire him, though I am lazy and don't want to work that hard :-) I guess that shows in my work too :-)

At any rate, what are your thoughts?

:D

PthaloBlueGirl

12-07-2003, 01:54 PM

To get a larger view go here:
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Soul_Carried_to_Heaven.jpg

I would like to say 'publicly' how grateful I am for those who serve. If it weren't for those who went before we wouldn't have the rights we enjoy today.

Today is Pearl Harbor Day.

:(

Peace On Earth To All Living Things

:D

prairie painter

12-07-2003, 05:16 PM

Hmph. There's always some critic who will say "oooh, a breast! Must mean eroticism!" Probably just in reference to "naked came ye", or perhaps even to referring to her nurturing motherhood. You are right, the angels do seem to be hurrying, perhaps to reunite her with their children? The cloud they are all pointed toward looks to me like another angel, too. Don't quite know what to make of that. I'll have to post and go look at it somemore. I do read great sorrow in the somber colors, but definite hope in the bright clear light ahead of them. Please pardon if my observations seem a bit shallow, I'm new to examining art this way, but am becoming very drawn in. Thanks for keeping the idea going!

dcorc

12-07-2003, 06:30 PM

She's spotlit as our centre of attention, from above and slightly to the right. I'm sure that's another angel standing on the cloud on the right. The flowers (which appear to be pink roses) falling in a diagonal suggests movement to the right, and the angels' wings look to me as though they are just about to perform a downstroke, which would lift them over the little bank of cloud - which seems to suggest a threshold - between heaven and the terrestrial landscape suggested at bottom left. The Threshold suggestion is also reinforced by the dull overcast lighting of the world which they are leaving, compared to the pale grey-blue and yellow light of heaven.

Dave

Biki

12-08-2003, 02:08 AM

Keep talking - i love to listen.

but alas, i have nothing intelligent to say myself ...

just content to listen & learn.

:)

Biki

12-08-2003, 02:10 AM

btw - is this a weekly thing?

there is one i would love to look at & hear you all comment on.
Once again my question will be the lighting & how the artist got the forward & backward distance pf the figures.

let me know how & who to pose this to for discussion.?

thanks

biki

PthaloBlueGirl

12-08-2003, 03:31 AM

HI BIKI. Yes, this is a weekly thing. I think Arlene is in charge. Since you spoke up first you could get the next analyze this week, but I think that Craig is next in line...? I don't know but get your idea and questions ready in case you can do next Monday or the Monday after.

And if you look at the painting in this thread you'll see a dimensionality too. The front angel's foot comes towards you, so does the woman's feet. Just look at it and you'll see what I mean. It might not be quite as obvious since the three people are close together.

:D

dcorc

12-08-2003, 04:13 AM

you'll see a dimensionality too. The front angel's foot comes towards you, so does the woman's feet

The illusionistic aspect of this, together with the iconography, is reminiscent of the sort of ceiling paintings one sees in late 17thC and early 18thC stately homes.

Dave

PthaloBlueGirl

12-08-2003, 05:49 AM

I mentioned up top how I loved the way B painted feet. Here is an image that I just love the feet and hands in. Love the fabric too!! Bouguereau rocks!!

http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Au_bord_du_ruisseau.jpg
For larger image of whole painting.

DanaT

12-08-2003, 10:33 AM

Yes, Bougereau had a foot fetish :p Reminds me of studies by Peter Paul Rubens who like to put in angels and feet.

Dave, you know I hadn't thought of the connection between Bougereau and Tiepolo. Tiepolo and his son did some amazing ceiling ornamentations in the 18th century.

http://www.visipix.com/cgi-bin/view?q=2\tiepolo&n=21&p=1&l=en&u=2

At a quick glance, the difference between the two that I saw: Bougereau's rendering was more tight and Tiepolo's colors were more high key. Perhaps because darker or normal key paintings couldn't be seen well on a ceiling?

Another interesting aspect about the Bougereau figures is that their skintones look like the gods in Velasquez' paintings - very otherworldly. We know that Velasquez did this to separate the gods from the mere mortals but I wonder why Bougereau chose this particular palette for skintones.

Biki, I think you sign up to host Analyze This in this thread: http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1811572

Just post a message there that you want to do it and arlene will get back to you.

PthaloBlueGirl

12-08-2003, 10:48 AM

This is interesting. Could you give me a sample, with a link to a larger image if possible, of what you think is normal skin tone vs 'otherworldly'? I always thought his skin was life-like.

Thanks
:D

DanaT

12-08-2003, 01:19 PM

Sure, Pthalo Blue. :)

The forge workmen in last week's painting are an example of what I'd call realistic skintones.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/04-Dec-2003/6512-v_forge_dtl.jpg

Here's another example from his Waterseller of Seville:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Dec-2003/6512-Velazquez_WatersellerDetail.jpg

Oddly enough, while looking for examples to show you, I realized that Velazquez rarely if ever painted WOMEN with realistic skintones. The closest I could find was this and it still doesn't equal the ones above.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Dec-2003/6512-eggs_detail.jpg

A member from the Figure forum once told me that in a life drawing class, the male students get their inspiration from idealizing the female model. She is their muse, a representation of divine beauty. Even the more classically inclined students are not interested in a totally realistic representation of the model but a rendering of what she represents to them.

Obviously the worthy old woman cooking eggs had no such idealizations surrounding her. I see a picture of a worthy, hardworking woman providing for her family. Sturdy, the salt of the earth, yes, but someone to idealize? no.

Bougereau, on the other hand, having lost his wife, was probably not interested in a totally realistic depiction of his late wife. Quite understandably, she was a symbol of divinity to him. A totally realistic rendering of skintones would have shattered the illusion that he wished to create.

I've heard that professional portrait artists sometimes do this to make the portrait more flattering to the sitter (and more appealing to the buyer).

So it looks here that I answered my own question. :p

Good painting for discussion, PthaloBlue! :D

DanaT

12-08-2003, 01:31 PM

ARRGH, I didn't mean to invade a Bougereau thread with V. paintings again. Next time I'll just post the links like I did with the Tiepolo paintings.

Sorry folks.

Alan Cross

12-08-2003, 02:09 PM

I really like the triangle of the feet and the body it has such a nice flow to it....makes your eye stay right on that spot.
Alan :)

PthaloBlueGirl

12-08-2003, 02:21 PM

Thanks. I think I get what your saying. Though I thought the angels's skin was fairly realistic, idealized too, maybe perfect but not out of the ordinary like he painted them orange or something :-) The color in the dead woman was all right too, I mean she is dead and does have that paleness.

No worries, I like V too. It might be the screen I am using but I don't see much difference in the color of the forge guys as compared to the woman with the eggs except that she seems to have a spotlight on her.

And then I guess if you're painting skin you have to make it work with the environment. Skin, like anything else is colored differently in different lighting and surroundings. Boris Vallejo used to wow me with his skintones, yes he is a fantasy artist of today and not classical. I only mention it because I read one of his books and he said he tried to put some of the colors of the surroundings in the skin. His people were all idealized too...

I'm into skin ;) that is to say I am trying to paint people and do better with skintones so that is why the subject interests me.

:D

Alan Cross

12-08-2003, 03:31 PM

Well I am the opposite I do skin tones any color but real lol
Alan :)

DanaT

12-08-2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by PthaloBlueGirl

I'm into skin ;) that is to say I am trying to paint people and do better with skintones so that is why the subject interests me.

Me too, and its so difficult. Skin is so subtle. On second look you're right about the angel. The old woman's skin looks very much like the workmen in the forge but I think it's just a little too yellow.

Now Alan, you're really intriguing me. I have to go look for your work when I get back. LOL

When was this painted, Pthalo?

Alan Cross

12-08-2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by DanaT

Now Alan, you're really intriguing me. I have to go look for your work when I get back. LOL

Thanks Dana well I do mostly impressionist so you can get away with different colors.....
Alan :)

PthaloBlueGirl

12-08-2003, 04:22 PM

I think he painted it in 1878. I have that date scribbled down on my scratch paper. I don't know a lot about B but am learning slowly but surely. Too bad there isn't a biography video about him. Though I think I am correct when I say that they showed B's painting of a Madona and angels all around on this tape I was watching earlier today from Aand E on the Impressionists. A and E plays some of its stuff early in the morning for teachers to record and use. No I am not a teacher. I didn't get to record part two though I wanted to see that Bert Morissot, or however you spell it. The narrator was saying about how Monet or someone wanted to paint stuff to put in the Salon and the art of the day was Academic and they showed several pieces without saying any names. I can't say for certain that it was a B, so don't quote me.

Anyone know what pallette B used for skin? I think I read somewhere he used yellow ochre instead of naples yellow. Y.O. makes good sand when mixed with white but I don't much care for it in skin. He must have mixed it with something or the oil version is different.

Joseph Sheppard, who wrote the book How To Paint Like The Old Masters, uses yellow ochre too. He also lists Napels. Been trying the paint-it-in-black-and-white-first grisaille technique and there are things I like about it and things I don't.

At any rate, about the painting we are discussing. I love the way the fabric is shaped and colored. Shadows are another problem area. I wonder if he had real fabric that color on a model for him to paint from or if he got so good after a while he could just paint whatever without references?

:D

PthaloBlueGirl

12-08-2003, 04:38 PM

By the beard of Neptune! I went to A and E's Biography web site just hoping that if I typed in Bouguereau they'd have a bio movie on him. Well, they don't but they did have a paragraph that said he painted 700 paintings!!! How on Earth could he do all of those paintings when it obviously was a lot of effort and a lot of work? The dued is a genius. I'd tip my hat if I had one. Man! I think I like him and respect him even more now.

At any rate it also says:
"born in La Rochelle, W France. After struggling to support himself while studying at the École des Beaux-Arts, he became one of the most popular and successful artists of the time, painting mainly classical and religious subjects. He was awarded the Prix de Rome in 1850 and went on to produce more than 700 works..."

:D

Bouguereau Rocks!

DanaT

12-08-2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by PthaloBlueGirl

At any rate, about the painting we are discussing. I love the way the fabric is shaped and colored. Shadows are another problem area. I wonder if he had real fabric that color on a model for him to paint from or if he got so good after a while he could just paint whatever without references?

Hmm, I know that in the academies, they used to soak drapery in plaster of paris and drape it. The plaster of paris would harden and the folds would remain permament. Obviously they couldn't do that on a model. The drapery on the angel's leg looks a lot like drapery from the early Renaissance. Fra Bartholomeo did a lot of drapery studies and his apprentices and several genarations afterwards used his studies for their own work.

By Bougereau's time, drawings by the Italian Renaissance masters were becoming highly sought after. I'm thinking B. possessed or had access to a few good Renaissance drapery studies to use.

loop

12-09-2003, 07:53 AM

hi everybody great discussion, I don't know much about art , I do like this picture. it's interesting that he used purple for his shadowy color and through the passage, presumably into heaven there is absolutly no purple but just about everything outside of heaven is veiled in it, I wonder if this has any meaning ?? land of shadows ? I thought the impressionists were the ones to really start adding colors to their shadows ?

llis

12-09-2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by loop
it's interesting that he used purple for his shadowy color and through the passage, presumably into heaven there is absolutly no purple but just about everything outside of heaven is veiled in it, I wonder if this has any meaning ?? land of shadows ? I thought the impressionists were the ones to really start adding colors to their shadows ?

Just curious... where did you get the idea that in heaven there is no purple?

PthaloBlueGirl

12-09-2003, 08:45 AM

I thought the impressionists were the ones to really start adding colors to their shadows ?

Good question. I don't know. I think I remember hearing Bouguereau was a contemporary of the Impressionists and got a lot of flack for not doing Impressionist type art.

I really don't know. Anyone??

I would think shadows could be just about any color. Like the shadows on the drapery aren't 'black' or whatever they are varying shades of the fabric...

Maybe there is a storm coming and that is why they, the angels, have to hurry? I just noticed that there is a pillar under the cloud they are flying to like it is one of those huge, scary, 'Thunderhead' type of clouds. I seen one on the Discovery Channel once when they were talking about Storm Chasers and it was huge, almost anvil-like, and this could be a thunder cloud the angel at the 'doorway' is on.

And as for the plaster soaked fabric. I just got an idea. Modern day artists could do the same thing with Elmer's glue or that fabric stiffening stuff you can get at craft stores. Then just wash it out.

And how do I deny reciept of this merit badge?? I just got a notice that I was awarded one and I didn't do anything to deserve it except to post a lot. If that is all anyone has to do to get a merit badge then it is not worth it. What I mean is had I done several WIPs and wrote a few articles or something really useful then I could see the point. I have done none of this so I am not being rewarded for any efforts that have contributed to this community.

It also devalues the merit badge system if all anyone has to do is post a lot in order to get one.

:D

llis

12-09-2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by PthaloBlueGirl

And how do I deny reciept of this merit badge?? I just got a notice that I was awarded one and I didn't do anything to deserve it except to post a lot. If that is all anyone has to do to get a merit badge then it is not worth it. What I mean is had I done several WIPs and wrote a few articles or something really useful then I could see the point. I have done none of this so I am not being rewarded for any efforts that have contributed to this community.

It also devalues the merit badge system if all anyone has to do is post a lot in order to get one.

:D

At the present time, the merit badges are just for fun. I think, in the beginning, it was a way to encourage folks to post and be recognized for posting or participating in specific forums. Many people do not like the system and I agree it is misleading for those that take awards seriously.

As far as I know, you can't deny reciept of a merit badge. Just smile and accept the award in the spirit it is given. A little fun never hurt anyone. :D Enjoy WetCanvas! for the things it can give you that you enjoy and look over the things about it that annoy you. It's like in real life. Nothing can be perfect.... right?

Precious Mazie

12-09-2003, 10:24 AM

Hi I'm new to this forum and am really just lurking. I have always enjoyed art history. Will continue to lurk. However I tried all the links provided in this thread and only one worked for me. Is this a problem only I am having? Or are others not getting to the links either. The one that worked was the last listed in this thread. Sorry for interrupting.

PthaloBlueGirl

12-09-2003, 10:42 AM

Hi. I also am having some trouble with the links that I posted. I checked two of them and they are correct and when I go to the pages from my bookmarks list they open fine. I don't know what the problem could be except for the way Wetcanvas puts those '.....' in long web addresses. It might be confusing the browsers we use. I know those links I posted are there. I didn't check them all. Just two in the first post. The first one opened up fine. The one to the Shadowlands Gallery didn't. Yet, it opened fine when I clicked on my bookmark of it from my 'Favorites' list.

Very strange!

:confused:

:)

Olan

12-09-2003, 11:09 AM

I too, like Alan, like the triangle composition. The roses I feel are a statement that she left her loved ones behind; in other words she was loved. In death as we see it there is sadness and gloom but in heaven there is a rebirth, hence, the movement from dark to light and bright which gives hope and encouragement to loved ones. I don't sense any hurry by the angels but I can see they take great care in thier task. They seem to have a light touch and would not 'B' also have the same touch. Looks like 'B' touched this canvas with his heart and that is a statement.

DanaT

12-09-2003, 11:24 AM

Hmm, I found this early Academic Classical painter who used some colors in his shadows. I think putting colors in shadows is more a property of landscape or vista paintings rather than a solely Impressionist characteristic.

Leon Cogniet (undated)

http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/C/Cogniet_Leon/large/Cogniet_Leon_Bataille_D%20Heliopolis.jpg

pampe

12-09-2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Alan Cross
Well I am the opposite I do skin tones any color but real lol
Alan :)

REALLY??????, alan...you've always told the forum that you don't do portraits at all......:confused:

Biki

12-09-2003, 02:43 PM

I found this little snippet on th ARC site, and was intrigued by it.

................................

In 1900 at the Universal Exposition in Paris, it is reported that Degas and Monet were approached by a newspaper reporter who asked who, in their opinion, would most likely be considered the greatest 19th century French artist in the year 2000. After a brief debate, both agreed on one man - William Bouguereau.

...............................

Alan Cross

12-09-2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by loop
hi everybody great discussion, I don't know much about art , I do like this picture. it's interesting that he used purple for his shadowy color and through the passage, presumably into heaven there is absolutly no purple but just about everything outside of heaven is veiled in it, I wonder if this has any meaning ?? land of shadows ? I thought the impressionists were the ones to really start adding colors to their shadows ?

until you mentioned that purple I was so into the figures I saw the background but didn't.....now that you brought it to my attention I love it fits the mood perfectly....with the lighter sky up above, its so complete.
Alan :)

bjs0704

12-09-2003, 07:53 PM

You are right, there is a strong similarity between Bouguereau’s A Soul Brought to Heaven and illusionistic ceilings like Tiepolo.

The way Bouguereau takes the clouds and forms an angel’s silhouette is special touch.This one by Correggio has a similar device where the clouds form little cupids.

The strong contrasts of light and dark colors reminds me even more of some of the religious paintings by Titian.

Compare to Velaquez, Bouguereau is realistic and idealistic. Velazquez is often harshly realistic with only touches of idealism. These are good examples of their different attitudes toward art.

Titian:

http://www.abcgallery.com/T/titian/titian16.html

Correggio:

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/giorgio.vasari/corregg/pic3.htm

I have never learned much about Bouguereau, thanks for the chance to learn more.

Barb Solomon:cat:

loop

12-10-2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by llis

Just curious... where did you get the idea that in heaven there is no purple?

well I never had a near death experiance or anything :D

I was just talking about the painting. since the sun is yellow it's compliment is purple hence the purple shadows, but there does not seem to be any shadows in heaven (in the painting)

loop

12-10-2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by DanaT
Hmm, I found this early Academic Classical painter who used some colors in his shadows. I think putting colors in shadows is more a property of landscape or vista paintings rather than a solely Impressionist characteristic.

Leon Cogniet (undated)

http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/C/Cogniet_Leon/large/Cogniet_Leon_Bataille_D%20Heliopolis.jpg

very true indeed, I thought that the impressionists were the first to actually start painting outdoors and not solely in the studio ? ....hmmm

PthaloBlueGirl

12-10-2003, 10:34 AM

THis might help a little:
http://www.museumeducation.org/pdf/Artists/info.PDF

Says:"Landscape painting has its origins in Egyptian wall and papyrus paintings and in Romana frescoes."

"Artists in the 15th century began to take risks while painting landscapes, growing away from the required Christian message.."

"...Albrecht Durer was one of these artists..."

also mentions: "...17th century Dutch painters..."

I hope I quoted correctly.

If you want to read the whole thing click on the link above. It is a PDF Adobe Acrobat file and you'll need Adobe Acrobat to read it. A free version came with my computer. I do not know where you can download a copy of the software for yourself.

I don't know where else to get more information on the history of landscape painting. I guess you'll just have to slog through the large volumes of art history at the library. This was the only useful link at google. The others were more about galleries, modern landscapes, and art importers.

:D

DanaT

12-10-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by loop

very true indeed, I thought that the impressionists were the first to actually start painting outdoors and not solely in the studio ? ....hmmm

They may have been the first to paint solely en plein aire but before that, artists did watercolor sketches on location as a guide for finishing paintings in the studio. A quick watercolor sketch could record realistic atmospheric color.

Check out this one by JMW Turner of the Romantic school in the beginning of the 19th century:

http://www.frick.org/html/pntg64df.htm

He finished all his paintings based on onsite watercolor sketches.

Pthalobluegirl, we must have crossposted. Duerer was one of the artists I was thinking of. :)

bjs0704

12-10-2003, 11:07 AM

Actually the Impressionist got the idea of painting outside from a group of painters known as the Barbizon school.

I have noticed the use of lavender and purples in work of many artists from about the same time as Bouguereau. I am not sure if this is due to the invention of new colors or thinking about painting differently because of new scientific theories.

The color wheel that many of us use was invented by Isaac Newton. Before that painters would have thought about color differently. Other painters, from about the time Bouguereau worked, were making theories about color. There is a lot written about Delecroix's theories.

In this painting, I suppose that Bouguereau wanted to have no darkness in heaven - so there is no shadow.

His use of color does show that he used the new scientific ideas when he felt they helped his work. He wasn't the "old fogey" the Impressionists made him out to be.

Barb Solomon:cat: