Something that has always fascinated me about both the Corbet, and Millet paintings is the light. Corbet feels like studio light even though it is an out door scene, but what I find interesting in both is the dark contrasting shadow. On the Corbet Painting it's like a dark foreboding cloud hovering over the top half of the image. On the Millet painting it's similar but creepiing in from the bottom right. On both paintings it is as though there is possibly some menacing dark force trying to overshadow the daily routines of the people in each.
You’re absolutely right about the use of light and shadow in both artists works. The way light is handled in each painting is so deliberate, almost like a character in itself. In Corbet’s work, that looming dark shadow certainly creates a sense of tension, as if the everyday scene of labor is being overshadowed by something larger and more ominous. It’s almost as though the light can’t escape the weight of the heavy atmosphere. With Millet, the creeping shadow from the bottom right adds a similar sense of unease, like it’s creeping into the serene routine of the figures. Both artists use light and shadow to not only frame the scene but to evoke a sense of foreboding, highlighting the precariousness of these people's lives. It's fascinating how these seemingly tranquil moments can have such an undercurrent of menace.
Reading them like this juxtaposed offers no quarter. Without one there cannot be the other. As much as I would love to live in the world depicted by Romanticism o know in a very short while I will be craving Realism.
So it goes, human nature. We need both. You have done a wonderful job of clarifying the dichotomy.
You’re exactly right: the two need each other. Romanticism gives us the dream, the escape, the yearning; Realism grounds us, reminds us of what is. That tension, that pull between longing and living, is where so much of our humanity resides.
I wonder what they will call this age of art?
Bluescreenism.
A.i-ism
Digitalism
Whatever it is, I can assure you, I won't be covering it.
Me neither
Something that has always fascinated me about both the Corbet, and Millet paintings is the light. Corbet feels like studio light even though it is an out door scene, but what I find interesting in both is the dark contrasting shadow. On the Corbet Painting it's like a dark foreboding cloud hovering over the top half of the image. On the Millet painting it's similar but creepiing in from the bottom right. On both paintings it is as though there is possibly some menacing dark force trying to overshadow the daily routines of the people in each.
You’re absolutely right about the use of light and shadow in both artists works. The way light is handled in each painting is so deliberate, almost like a character in itself. In Corbet’s work, that looming dark shadow certainly creates a sense of tension, as if the everyday scene of labor is being overshadowed by something larger and more ominous. It’s almost as though the light can’t escape the weight of the heavy atmosphere. With Millet, the creeping shadow from the bottom right adds a similar sense of unease, like it’s creeping into the serene routine of the figures. Both artists use light and shadow to not only frame the scene but to evoke a sense of foreboding, highlighting the precariousness of these people's lives. It's fascinating how these seemingly tranquil moments can have such an undercurrent of menace.
Outstanding overviews! Many thanks!!
So happy that you enjoyed!
Reading them like this juxtaposed offers no quarter. Without one there cannot be the other. As much as I would love to live in the world depicted by Romanticism o know in a very short while I will be craving Realism.
So it goes, human nature. We need both. You have done a wonderful job of clarifying the dichotomy.
You’re exactly right: the two need each other. Romanticism gives us the dream, the escape, the yearning; Realism grounds us, reminds us of what is. That tension, that pull between longing and living, is where so much of our humanity resides.
Yin Yang ☯️ was not created for nothing. (Double negative cancels each other— balance yet again.)