Woman and Child

Yavelberg 1

Josh Yavelberg

Professor John D.Angeline

November 11, 2001

Art History

Woman and Child[Y1]

The theme of woman and child [Y2]is prevalent throughout the history of art due to its relation with the Christian religion. Many artists have covered the theme, and in many different media. The precedents of composition, however, have had a great influence on all artists that have painted the theme. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art, two artists of completely different styles have covered this genre. It became interesting to compare the [Y3]painting by Jean-Honore Fragonard, “Portrait of a Woman with a Dog,” with a Renaissance painting of the “Madonna and Child” by Francesco Granacci.

Francesco Granacci painted the “Madonna and Child” (Figure 1) [Y4]that is hanging in the Metropolitan Museum of Art around the year 1520 during what might still be considered as the High Renaissance. Like much of the artwork throughout the Renaissance, this work was most likely inspired by sculpture. Granacci was a pupil of Ghirlandaio, as too was Michelangelo.[Y5] The painting remains highly static and in a shallow space, much like relief sculpture. The statuesque quality gives the painting a sense of timelessness. [Y6] Unlike Michelangelo’s figures, which remain gestured and full of motion, Granacci paints the Madonna and child in a very slow, steady, and detailed embrace. The composition of the work is also rather calculated as it stems from the Renaissance belief in a look back to the Greek classical ideal. The subject, itself, calls for a slower, more intimate visual presentation. There is no evidence of the artist’s hand in the work either. The brushstrokes are even and solid, showing that the image is more important than the artist who had painted it.

The composition of the painting is also very interesting. The shallow space and solid tones emphasize the dimensional restrictions of a painting, however the use of highly detailed, linear drawing and the compositional decision of an open window creates a sense of three dimensions. The window allows the viewer to exit the painting and not become overwhelmed by the presence of the two figures. The window also acts as a symbol. Mary knows that she will have to let Christ go out into the world and fulfill his destiny, but she still clings to him adoringly as the baby looks out toward the viewer. The viewer is told where to look in the painting. The eye is drawn directly to the interaction between the faces of Mary and Christ. A compositional study of the painting (figure 2) shows that this interaction is emphasized by the darkness in the negative space between the two heads. The eye is drawn to this darkness because the rest of the painting is held together by the surrounding darkness of the robe that is worn by Mary.

The slow, quiet nature reminds the viewer of the painting’s original intent. The painting was probably commissioned as a private devotional piece, probably to be displayed in a home or a private devotional chapel at the local church. The idea of private devotion becomes important when one reads into this painting. The symbol of the blackbird that the baby Jesus holds up to Mary’s breast is supposed to signify temptations of the flesh. The symbol stems from the temptation of St. Benedict, and is therefor a symbol of that saint(Cooper 22[Y7]). This symbol most likely signifies that the person or church, which had originally commissioned the work, was from the Benedictine order.

In contrast to this work, Jean-Honore Fragonard painted “Portrait of a Woman with a dog” (Figure 3). Fragonard painted in a Rococo style during the end of the eighteenth century. This style usually involved excessive decoration, and an idealized view of bourgeoisie life. The artist was a “first-rate colorist whose decorative skill almost surpassed his master’s” (Kleiner and Tansey 892). Fragonard’s color remains in a very light, pastel range. The painting is very decorative and stylized. It takes advantage of many of the conventions of portraiture. The sitter is portrayed in a three-quarter view at half-length, a very standard convention, and with the decorative style, Fragonard could be mocking the genre of portraiture and the social elite. The painting is in fact so stylized and connected with the artist, that Fragonard looses a sense of anatomy and the woman becomes, in a sense, fluffy.

The artist is obviously mocking the genre of portraiture. The woman is not an ideally beautiful person. She is overweight and pretentiously dressed. She holds a small white puppy adoringly. The connection between the woman and the puppy recalls the Madonna and Child from years past. The portrait is, in a way, a devotional work of art. It is painted in remembrance of a person and hung on a wall for all to see and remember. The decorative nature in Fragonard’s work is played up through its color sense and it’s fluffy nature which melds with the decor of the interiors of the bourgeoisie mansions. The painting was also part of a series that pokes fun at the workshop type mass production of these sort of idolizing paintings. Fragonard simply makes fun of the vanity of the upper class.

There is, as previously stated, a sense that Fragonard had the theme of a Madonna and Child in mind when he painted this work. For the contemporary viewer, this painting brings to mind that pretentious woman who always caries her lap dog as if it is the only thing that would love her back. The woman smiles as she receives the puppy, seemingly as a gift, however the viewer connects her with her future, her destiny of becoming “that snobby woman.” Much like when a devout person meditates upon a painting of the Madonna and Child and understands that Mary looks to Christ with the knowledge of his future. Unlike the Madonna and Child, though, Fragonard’s woman expresses no sense of burden.

The “fluffy” sense that Fragonard’s painting emits makes one wonder if he was reacting against the ignorance of the bourgeoisie. The classical ideal of a carefully calculated space, and linear design is typically connected with knowledge. The fact that Fragonard dispels this ideal in his painting, he could in fact be making a statement towards the character of the individual. More rationally analyzing this stylistic decision, Fragonard probably found a style that sold well, and created works that would be liked. It is also still important that he is an artist, and there is indeed a social message to be gained from his representation of the bourgeoisie.

Both paintings feel very theatrical; they both contain figures dressed to tell a sort of story. In the “Madonna and Child,” Mary is dressed in, the idealized portrayal of a Greek tunic. They are in a shallow space, much like a stage set, and the landscape seems very stylized, much like a stage backdrop. The statuesque figures remain timeless as they play out their roles endlessly. Contrary to this religious image, Fragonard’s secular view of an upper-class woman, dressed in the contemporary style, however somewhat embellished, also stands in a shallow, empty space. The only object that makes the space seem solid is a solitary desk. She is illustrating a moment in time, like the “Madonna and Child,” however her moment is of contemporary, real events. She stands there, receiving her gift and showing off her vanity and connection to worldly possessions.

Fragonard’s Rococo style stems from the conventions of previous artists. His connection with the art of portraiture stems from an idea of devotion, contrary to the images for use of religious devotion. His artwork ties directly into the stylistic ideals of a vain and greedy upper-class, that before the Enlightenment had been devoting their energy to religious matters and salvation. The Rococo broke from the conventions of art and dealt with more secular matters. These secular paintings allowed artists to become politicians, and express their views of the world with their art.

Bibliography

Cooper, J.C. An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Traditional Symbols. London, Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Tansey, Richard and Kleiner, Fred. Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, Tenth Edition. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1996.[Y8]

Figures

Figure 1 : Madona and Child, sketch Figure 2: Composition Sketch

after Francesco Granacci's "Madonna and Child," after Francesco Granacci's

Oil on Wood, around 1520."Madonna and Child"

Figure 3: “Woman and Dog”

Sketch after “Portrait of a Woman with a Dog”

Jean-Honore Fragonard, Oil on Canvas

Around 1780.

[Y1]MLA Format with last name and page number in header.

[Y2]Theme: This is the guiding lens that we will be looking at these two artworks with.

[Y3]Direction of the paper, though not a formal thesis, describes that this will be a comparison essay.

[Y4]Referring to images at the end of the paper. When you insert images into the paper, formatting often gets disrupted and makes the paper difficult to read.

[Y5]Context (should have been cited)

[Y6]Formal description

[Y7]MLA style citation (Author page)

[Y8]MLA Citations (earlier edition as this was a paper from 2001)