Analyse this: The Meeting - Gustave Courbet

[Biki]

My sister just went to the Musee Fabre Exhibition in australia here, I sent me the brochure. On the cover was this painting.

I got this shot from the ARC site.

I can see something wrong with this painting ( unless it was intentional)
Can anyone else see what I see.?

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/10-Feb-2004/23158-The_Meeting_-_smaller.jpg

[bjs0704]

Wonderful choice, Biki.

I have always thought that the beard belonging to the fellow on the right was a bit odd. But my books always showed this painting in black and white. They also alway manage to only show very small reprints of it. The color is actually surprising to me.

Barb Solomon :cat:

[dcorc]

I can see something wrong with this painting ( unless it was intentional)
Can anyone else see what I see.?



Well there are certainly odd things going on with the shadows - given the way the shadow of the guy on the right falls, I would expect to see more from the others - they seem to be standing on a patch of (what seems to be) shadow thrown by something else out of frame, but are not themseves in shadow, or casting shadows in the direction I would expect.

Dave

[bjs0704]

You are right about the shadows, Dave.

The two men on the left seem to be standing in the shadow of a tree. I have been trying to make out a shadow for them, but I don't see anything that corresponds. I see a shadow for the dog, but that could be the tree. It seems a little out of place. They are also receiving sunshine on their left side when their bodies should also be in as shadowed as their feet.

I have been told that Courbet was a man with strong political views. Was he trying to tell us that these men had no "substance" or was it simply a hot day?

Barb Solomon :cat:

[Biki]

Exactly Dave.

When i saw this painting - the two men on the left & the dog seemed to be floating in space.

The cover of the brochure is much paler in colour, so it was very obvious.
He either forgot to do the shadows, or Barb is right - he was making a statement. Very clever Barb.

I don't think they are in the shadow of a tree - as the figures are not shaded.

[bjs0704]

I suspect that good ole Courbet was a bit rushed painting this one. It IS a bit confused. The shadow does look like a tree. But it does look like he sketched them from somewhere else and added them as an afterthought.

Barb Solomon :cat:

[dcorc]

I suspect that good ole Courbet was a bit rushed painting this one. It IS a bit confused. The shadow does look like a tree. But it does look like he sketched them from somewhere else and added them as an afterthought.

Barb Solomon :cat:

The two figures on the left, and the dog most of all, do have a rather "cardboard cut out" sort of look about them.

Dave

[Olan]

I suspect that good ole Courbet was a bit rushed painting this one. It IS a bit confused. The shadow does look like a tree. But it does look like he sketched them from somewhere else and added them as an afterthought.

Barb Solomon :cat:

Well, maybe Barb but first let me show you this. Drawing a line from where the walking stick touches the ground to where the shadow of the hand holding it is we can establish the direction of the light source (sun). Now by drawing a line from the shadow of the hand to the hand and beyond we establish the height of the light. I too agree that the dog is casting a shadow and used his foot as a starting point with a parallel line to the light scource. Notice how the shadow on the man in the center cuts about the knees. Well, I don't know about anyone else but the dappled light on the right arm of the reddish coat that is line with this line looks like good evidence that the shadows are very close to true.

It does ,however, appear as thou some shadow from the center man is missing but it could be caused by the lay of the land. Even the dogs shadow appears to fall away. Or could that be part of the center mans shadow too.


http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Feb-2004/12524-23158-The_Meeting_-_smaller.jpeg

[dcorc]

Hi Olan

Extending your geometrical reasoning (in relation to the shadow of the man on the right) to the centre man predicts the position of the central axis of his shadow as shown in blue, but I see no shadow there. I am prepared to accept the area I have marked in red as looking like the shadow of the dog.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Feb-2004/30792-The_Meeting.jpg

The placement of the leftmost two figures in relation to each other seems a little ambiguous. The dappled shadow on the arm of the leftmost man does appear to be cast by foliage, which reinforces the idea that perhaps the dark area on the ground is also the shadow of a tree - but then the placement of that shadow on the ground isn't compatible with the upper bodies of the 2 men on the left being in sunlight, given the light direction :confused:

I still say the lighting's inconsistent.


Dave

[Olan]

Hi Dave
Look at the shadow just behind the dogs front legs. This could well be the mans. Notice how it curves out to the walking stick and hat while the dogs neck is straight up. Could this not be the center mans left arm shadow?

It would either have to be a large tree or they would have to be standing under it with the sun on high to be completely shaded. The shadow does not support the theory of a large tree and they are not under it. For the dog to cast a shadow they have to be standing close to the end of the tree shadow again not possible for them to be completely shaded because of the angle.

I also tired the blue line but like I said the land seems to fall away and that would skew the shadow as well.

I believe I could show this in a photo but the sun is not out here today and we are expected to remain overcast for a few more days. :(

[bjs0704]

Great diagrams, DCor Dave and Olan! They definely show up the shadow "problem". :)

I was checking earlier on Google to see what I could find about this painting. I also found a website of the show Biki was telling us about - “French Paintings from the Musee Fabree, Montpellier” at the National Gallery of Australia. It really is quite nice. I have read quite a bit about the show. No wonder. Some of the work is incredible.

http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/FrenchPainting/Default.cfm?mystartrow=1&realstartrow=1


I found these link to our on WetCanvas Virtual Museum. It is a nice little article about Courbet.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Museum/Artists/c/Gustave_Courbet/index.html

I am also going to have to take back anything that I have said about Courbet making a mistake. I may have “peeked”, I may have “cheated”, but I am definitely wrong about there being a mistake. :evil:

Barb Solomon :cat:

[dcorc]

Hi Dave
Look at the shadow just behind the dogs front legs. This could well be the mans. Notice how it curves out to the walking stick and hat while the dogs neck is straight up. Could this not be the center mans left arm shadow?
....the land seems to fall away and that would skew the shadow as well

OK, possibly. But there's still something odd about this painting, which I can't quite place at the moment. :)

Dave

[bjs0704]

Dave, Look at the shadows!

Ok, as I have said before, I have been to the museum's website. There is, in fact, something up with the shadows. We have all seen it correctly.

I don't want to say anymore - it is too much like giving away the ending in a mystery. :evil:

Barb Solomon :cat:

[dcorc]

Dave, Look at the shadows!

I would have expected to see the shadows in these positions:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Feb-2004/30792-Meeting2.jpg

Dave

[bjs0704]

Dave, Your diagram looks about right.

Barb Solomon :cat:

[Biki]

good on you Barb, for solving the puzzle. :clap: :clap: :clap:

[bjs0704]

Now, we know that Courbet intended his odd shadows. When I sarcastically asked if Courbet was saying that two of these men lacked substance, I really didn't know how close I was. I really was surprised. :p

The website says that the painting shows the meeting of the painter, his patron Alfred Bruyas, and Bruyas’s servant Calas, on a road outside Montpellier.

Notice Courbet and the dog are good down to earth creatures who have shadows. Bruyas and Calas are lacking shadows.

The painting is about the relationship between painter and patron.

Now, Courbet and Correggio from last week have to be about as different as two painters could possible be.

Barb Solomon :cat:

[Olan]

I would have expected to see the shadows in these positions:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Feb-2004/30792-Meeting2.jpg

Dave

Well, me to Dave and a tree trunk shadow some what in this area. Which was my only concern. In real life all that is or is not might show better than a web shot.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Feb-2004/12524-The_Meeting_Bonjour_Monsieur_Courbet_CGF.jpeg

Barb, I see this but would you cast a shadow if you where standing in a shade? I mean only the feet here as it applies to this statement.

Note the way in which only Courbet stands on the earth; neither the deferential Bruyas nor Calas cast a shadow, as if only the painter, as labourer, is of this earth.

OK, Biki :D

[Biki]

OK Olan, is it your turn next.? - to put up a piccy.? :D

There are not a lot of us interested - but I sure am. I learn heaps from this. :music:

[eezacque]

Hmmm, apart from the shadows, the perspective is a bit itchy here. The three men's eyes are at the same level. The feet of the rightmost one are closer to the lower edge of the painting than those of the other two. Also, this same rightmost man is closest to me. Reconstructing one vanishing point by drawing lines through the eyes and feet of the middle and right man, assuming these two men are the same size, suggests a geometrical horizon at the men's eye level. That is, I am at the same level as these three men. However, the actual geographical horizon is at the men's waist. This means that the landscape descends towards the horizon, which seems to be the case now that I study this background more closely, but the difference between geometrical horizon, as dictated by the laws of geometry, and the actual geographical horizon suggests, at least to me, that there is something wrong, so that the three men seem to be not firmly rooted. Nothing incorrect, just itchy.

[bjs0704]

eezacque - What an interesting observation. :cool: :cool: The museum show points out the way "Courbet stands on the earth", but they don't elaborate. I always looked at Courbet's (the man on the right) body position - if you are right then Courbet would have played with the perspective to give him a more substantial feel then the other two men. An interesting check to this theory would be to look at the dog(who Courbet would have held in higher esteem).

Biki - you have found a great one here. It has definely had more than I would have noticed at first glance. Quite fun. I do love "Analyze This" and appreciate the efforts that everyone goes to. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Barb Solomon :cat:

[Biki]

Hmmm, apart from the shadows, the perspective is a bit itchy here. The three men's eyes are at the same level. The feet of the rightmost one are closer to the lower edge of the painting than those of the other two. Also, this same rightmost man is closest to me. Reconstructing one vanishing point by drawing lines through the eyes and feet of the middle and right man, assuming these two men are the same size, suggests a geometrical horizon at the men's eye level. That is, I am at the same level as these three men. However, the actual geographical horizon is at the men's waist. This means that the landscape descends towards the horizon, which seems to be the case now that I study this background more closely, but the difference between geometrical horizon, as dictated by the laws of geometry, and the actual geographical horizon suggests, at least to me, that there is something wrong, so that the three men seem to be not firmly rooted. Nothing incorrect, just itchy.

Eezacque, can draw some lines to illistrate your point.?
I have often wondered about the relationship of figures to the vanishing point.
In anything I have read about perspective, it has never been addressed.

[eezacque]

Eezacque, can draw some lines to illistrate your point.?


There you are:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Feb-2004/16976-cour.jpg

The lines through eyes and feet, respectively, are both horizontal and parallel, under the assumption that the middle and the right man are of the same height and at the same level, which seems to be approximately the case. By the laws of geometrical perspective, these two line meet at a vanishing point at the geometrical horizon, which falls outside the picture.
The geographical solution is simple the end of the world, as we see it.

[bjs0704]

It does appear that Courbet made his drawing of the background from one source and his drawing of the men from another. It does add to the "cut and pasted" look that DCor Dave mentioned earlier. I wonder if he could have done this for a reason.

Barb Solomon :cat:

[kbilltv]

Since "Analyse this" is the title, what seems most analytically concerning is that the fellow on the far left seems to be overtly staring at the middle fellow's butt. (see diagram) I leave it to the psych's to reach conclusions.

From a drafting critique pov, all three of their feet seem to have irrelevent 'footing' with the perspective of the setting.

[Biki]

Since "Analyse this" is the title, what seems most analytically concerning is that the fellow on the far left seems to be overtly staring at the middle fellow's butt. (see diagram) I leave it to the psych's to reach conclusions.

From a drafting critique pov, all three of their feet seem to have irrelevent 'footing' with the perspective of the setting.


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - you are absolutely right about the servant looking at the other guys butt. LOL :D Maybe he has a little flatulence problem. :D

[kbilltv]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - you are absolutely right about the servant looking at the other guys butt. LOL :D Maybe he has a little flatulence problem. :D

Yay! I got the analyse right? What do I win?

[MsLilypond]

OK, possibly. But there's still something odd about this painting, which I can't quite place at the moment. :)

Dave


well the building by the 'traveler' looks horribly out of proportion

[terrabites]

well the building by the 'traveler' looks horribly out of proportion


Now that we know what's wrong with the painting, would anyone care to show us the proper geometric perspective and shadow placement using Photoshop? This is a great learning experience!

Thanks everyone for the illustrations and dialogue.

[dcorc]

well the building by the 'traveler' looks horribly out of proportion

So does the building you inhabit have wheels, and horses tethered to it? :)

Dave

[dcorc]

Now that we know what's wrong with the painting, would anyone care to show us the proper geometric perspective and shadow placement using Photoshop? This is a great learning experience!

Thanks everyone for the illustrations and dialogue.

Eh? I sort of thought we had!

Dave