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.?

[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

[dcorc]

Originally Posted by Biki

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

[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

[dcorc]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[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.



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

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/Fre...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/Arti...bet/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.

Barb Solomon

[dcorc]

Originally Posted by 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?
....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.

Barb Solomon

[dcorc]

Originally Posted by bjs0704

Dave, Look at the shadows!

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



Dave

[bjs0704]

Dave, Your diagram looks about right.

Barb Solomon