The Modern Period in art is set at the period between 1870-1970. No distinct style could be established or described during this period. Yet, at the same time, one would know during which period a particular artist was known for his artworks. Such artists under discussion here would be Jean-Francois Millet. Two others that could be grouped into this period (specifically the French artists) are Georges Seurat, and Paul Gauguin. These three artists are isolated here, specific to the discussion their representations of the working class in modern art. More so, the shift of this representation is discussed here. Millet represented his subject matter in such a way that, visually as well as historically, one can see and know that he identified with it. The lazy hazy days that Seurat represented in his works, gives one the impression that he too enjoyed the relaxation of the working class along the riverbanks on a Sunday afternoon. Once again, the historical knowledge of where and how Gauguin spent his time, and life, clearly shows hoe intense his relationship was with the subject matter that he portrayed.
If one starts with Jean-Francois Millet’s works, it is easy to see the subject of his work. His focus was on the labor of humans. What he also intended, and what does come across is the fact that wanted to show the ritual in the way people do their work. It is for this reason that he spent time expressing the various types of workers that he could see around him. Three of these paintings are: Men and Women Trussing Hay, Woman Carding Wool, and the most prominent one, The Sower. By looking at these paintings one can deduce, but also read from Clarke that work remains constant in its repetitive actions. As he puts it, labor becomes an action that is ritualistic, and automatic. Once the person learnt the work, it just happens automatically, although there is still a person involved. Here Clark specifically refers to the Woman Carding Wool. One can see this human experience particularly by looking at the expression that Millet painted on her face.
Millets involvement with his subjects is also seen in the way he depicted the Men and Women Trussing Hay. The group is entrenched in their work, and Millet captured the depth of their work in such a way that one could almost see it as a photograph – that is how clear the essence of their demeanor comes across. The beautiful, strong color of The Sower gives an indication how closely the artist worked with his subjects. Clarke describes this picture as “the best picture Millet painted in the period of the Republic – and his first masterpiece.” The reason for this is that he had drawn from his experiences, from the past, the Bible as well as his “present” experiences with the workers in order for him to come up with such a masterpiece.
The French artist that provided his audience with an insight into the working class is Georges Seurat. He too gave the impression, through his work, that he was in fact part of the crowd. The particular paintings that one could look at here are: A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte (1884-86), Bathers at Asnières (1883-84), and The Models (1886-88). The first one was Seurat’s masterpiece. Nochlin quotes Ernst Bloch as saying that this piece epitomized the middle-class with their empty desires for a utopia. As the title to her impression states: “An Anti-Utopian Allegory.” Nochlin speaks in particular about the uniqueness of Seurat’s A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. The painter made use of the opportunity to engage with the modern conditions of the time. This particular painting ascribes to the sheer boredom of having to live in a society that has changed to a materialistic one. This could be a notion that could be ascribed to any part of the world even today. As a Modernist painter, as said at the beginning, Seurat used a completely different method of painting. He used what was later referred to as pointillism. Thus, there was no “pure” painting in his work, which is what Modernism allowed for.
The same scenario applies to Bathers at Asnière. The images show complete boredom as the sit and lay around in the sun not really knowing what to do. He even included the animals, showing the same lack of motivation to do anything. Nochlin’s specific take on this is, what she believes to be the anti-utopian scenario in these two paintings. One of the elements that stand out in both paintings is the fact that none of the “actors” in the painting is in communication with one anther – not even those walking along together. Nochlin compares this with the interaction of the characters in the painting by Raphael – School of Athens. The various people in the groups “react and interact,” thus, carrying across a distinct message. One can immediately see the different persons involved by the way they interact as well as the elements that bind them. Seurat on the other hand painted his figures in a disjuncture that also carries a message of, in Bloch’s words, a “wishful scene of epicurean happiness.” In reality then, Seurat did not just create paintings. His aim was to bring across a strong message, which had to do with the “social malaise of its time.” Some critics have suggested that Seurat’s technique of painting added to the expression. It added this dimension: one can imagine the time it took to patiently and monotonously create a painting with his pointillist technique. The most important aspect of Seurat’s work is indeed the fact that his technique and compositions are unique as well. It is what sets him apart from al the rest. To be exact; he had a particular “system” whereby he applied “a certain color theory” systematically. As Nochlin states, his colors were suggested to be a “chromo-luminarist” method. Furthermore, he painted these colors in a systematic “pointillist system” in small, regularized dots.”
One of the most striking paintings is Seurat’s The Models (1886-88). The same disjunction exists between the models that he painted. He used the same technique – pointillé – to paint this image. What is further striking about the painting is that one could assume that the models were part of the painting of the A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. This is possible as the completed painting is set in the background. The painting gives the impression that Seurat used the models to paint his Sunday Afternoon. When this was completed, he decided to paint the group that assisted him with the enormous task. By simply looking at the painting, the woman in the background painting could even be the model posing in the center of The Models. Perhaps his intention was to make the point for the interpretation of his other two works discussed here.
Paul Gauguin’s works are very close to the people with whom he spent a part of his life – the Tahitians. As mentioned at the beginning the Modern Period had no particular or distinct style.
This can clearly be seen in the differences in application of paints between the three artists here. Jean-Francois Millet’s application of his paint and color provides a technique that is distinct from Georges Seurat’s Pointillist application. Gauguin reflects in his paintings what Nochlin refers to his paint application as a “the decorative, mystical dematerialization of form.” Gauguin, thus, placed his work in a different form of painting. This could perhaps be ascribed to the fact that other artists did not influence him much. One could perhaps see the influences in the bright colors of the Tahitian culture and his close involvement with the people of the islands. In light of what was said about Seurat’s work, that gave a different perspective of an anti-Utopia, one finds scenes from Gauguin’s work that establishes a paradise far in the wilderness, away from what Seurat’s reality escaped from. Yet, he too captured the working class in his paintings. One of his paintings reflects The Seaweed Gatherers (1889). There is almost a similarity in the facial expressions in the way the three artists portrayed their subjects. The malaise in Gauguin’s The Seaweed Gatherers do not appear different to the malaise in Millet’s Woman Carding Wool his depiction of the Men and Women Trussing Hay.
Here is also a sense of immense tiredness in these “characters” as the woman in Gauguin’s painting seems to be taking a break for the hard labor. Another comparison could be Gauguin’s On the Beach (1892) scene and that of Seurat’s Bathers at Asnière. The cultural difference is stark, but the reality is that the same expression of boredom follows through. What binds them together is not the “distance in time but [the] geographic distance that functions as the Utopian catalyst.” Another one of Paul Gauguin’s work is The Siesta (1892). This is a typical time of rest for the island workers, especially in a place known for its heat, and humidity. In itself, the islands are seen as a paradise, as Gauguin’s later works indicated. Nochlin’s idea, therefore, is that most artists wished to express a Utopia, with the Seurat difference of his anti-Utopian paintings.
It is clear from Simon Schama’s exposition of Van Gogh, that he and Gauguin were close friends. He does, however, mention the fact that Van Gogh tolerated Gauguin as an amateur. Yet, he, van Gogh was intrigued by Gauguin’s escapades. It is interesting to note how the two artists, with different techniques, exchanged artworks. Gauguin gave Van Gogh a painting of the Black women he panted, and Van Gogh gave Gauguin the two paintings Sunflowers (1887), and A Pair of Shoes (1887). Even though they were seen as friends, the two were very different in their approaches to art. Gauguin definitely had a more mystical, detached outlook, which later led him to mention the word “abstract.” He spoke of art to be a matter of “Don't sweat it, dream on it.” Gauguin wished t have a mystical experience with his art. On invitation to Arles, Gauguin joined Van Gogh, and here he painted In the Full Heat of the Day (1888. This painting depicts the rural labor through the eyes of Gauguin. He painted it in contrast to Vincent van Gogh’s Grape Harvest. The differences between the two artists were not only in the way they used their color, but also in the way they applied the paint to the canvas. As Schama states: “You inhale Gauguin and let the vapours circulate. But you digest van Gogh's meaty hotpot of color and you let the juices seep.” This is an extremely important and apt description of the two artists and their works. As the discussion clearly showed, the two cannot be separated in terms of who they were, and how that influenced their expression of the working class. Gauguin was especially heatedly against the bourgeoisie.
One of the most outstanding lessons here is that the artists mentioned here – Jean-Francois Millet, Georges Seurat, and Paul Gauguin – have given an insight into the type of persons they were. More so, how the work they painted differs in terms of interpretation, and what their intentions were. It is also different in terms of the execution, and in terms of how they treated the subject matter. The subject matter focused on the working class, as in the case of Paul Gauguin, for example, he was completely against the bourgeoisie. According Nochlin, Seurat revealed an anti-Utopianism in his work, and it is captured through the application of his Pointillist system. Francois Millet, and Paul Gauguin used a different means to speak their audiences – the color they preferred was much more beautiful, strong color (Millet) and the influences of the bright colors of the Tahitian culture (Gauguin).
Works Cited
Clark, T. J. The Absolute Bourgeois: Artists and Politics in France, 1848-1851 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). 72-98
Nochlin, Linda. The Politics of Vision: Essays on Nineteenth-century Art and Society. (New York: Harper & Row, 1989). 70-193
Schama, Simon. The Power of Art. van Gogh: Painting from Inside the Head. (New York: Ecco, 2006). 298-351
