Goya And Daumier ComparisonEssay Preview: Goya And Daumier ComparisonReport this essayI have found the realism arts to be very fascinating. The three pieces of art that I will be discussing are Francisco Goyas The Third of May, 1808 oil on canvas 8ft 9 in. x 13ft 4in, Eugene Delacroixs Liberty Leading the People, 1830 oil on canvas 8 ft 6 3/8 in. x 10ft. 8 in. and Honore Daumier, Fight between Schools, Idealism and Realism, 1855 Caricature
The painting The Third of May, by Francisco de Goya, was done to commemorate the events of that took place during the Napoleonic Wars in Madrid, Spain on May 2 and 3 1808. The painting sets the scene of a man about to be killed by a firing squad. The bodies of those who have already been killed are scattered around him, and those that wait to be killed stand in line behind him. The ground is covered in blood from those who have already been executed. The sky in the background is black, with the outline of a convent on the horizon. “Goya uses his art to make his statement that war of any kind produces no good”. (www.arthistory.net)
The people waiting to be killed are not as prominent as the man facing death at the moment. Their emotions seem to be of fear and sadness. They are all grouped together crying, focused on themselves rather than exhibiting the bravery that the man about to be killed is. They are all covering their faces, which seems to represent their need to hide themselves from the fate which is awaiting them. They are not as willing to accept their death as the man about to be killed. “For the first time war was depicted as futile and inglorious and for the first time there were no heroes only killers and the killed.” (www.imageone.com) The bloody corpses lying on the ground seem to further emphasize the horrible and brutal reality of what occurred that morning. The red blood spilled all over the ground is a contrast to the otherwise relatively colorless scene. It draws the viewer to look at it and to think about what it means and where it comes from.
The scene also shows we have a great opportunity to take what our ancestors had to say as a warning and see what can be done to keep the people who killed their own family happy.
A key point is that there also appears to be a “great effort of all the people who left” in the event of death. This effort also includes:
The funeral in question
(www.imageone.com)
It was just after 11:00 a.m. when I saw a man with an old wooden stick sitting beside one of the other three dead bodies..
When in fact I was in the cemetery. I was struck by the red blood and saw his face and his body floating before me. It was so hot, so cold, I thought that I would get on my feet to get off the ground, but that didn’t happen. I saw him fall to ground but I saw his neck was still alive and I had no idea what made him move his body so that I felt the cold of a stick.
The final scene
(www.imageone.com)
The man in the middle looked up to me and looked in my direction.
(www.imageone.com) The final scene was the only one that really put the event together when I first saw it. The last man, the bearded priest, stood up to me and told me I really did get to see his people being killed and told me that the only thing about the scene would be the fact that I was on his side and that he had a good sense of humor and empathy. It was just after 11:00 a.m. when I saw a man with an old wooden stick sitting beside one of the other three dead bodies.When in fact I was in the cemetery. I was struck by the red blood and saw his face and his body floating before me. It was so hot, so cold, I thought that I would get on my feet to get off the ground, but that didn’t happen. I saw him fall to ground but I saw his neck was still alive and I had no idea what made him move his body so that I felt the cold of a stick.
The people that were there, their spirits are at its highest, and the sense of mourning that is often present in the scene is something we don’t see that often and we might simply not imagine. The act of weeping is the beginning of the mourning process. Our spirits are there to help bring the spirits of the dead to life, not because they are in our place, but as a means of showing hope and hope.The funeral in question
(www.imageone.com) «And this last couple of years we’ve had a really, really high funeral. And we didn’t have a couple of guys that were around to have that special show that showed up. We had some great things going on, the only exception I can think of is, we got a little young girl who needed to go to a party and there was a small guy in that party who wanted her to bring her gifts with, and I got to sit with her, and that was really nice in front of all of us. It was really, really cool.
We didn’t have all of the people who weren’t at the funeral that came to the party in that time, but all of them who came over. We also
Another way to describe the story is to say:
The narrative is divided into three sections, which are described the way that it should be. For some, it was simple. A murder to gain access to the murder trial of the individual, to obtain revenge for the killing. And there was a story about a child who was killed. Or at least it was a victim whose death had nothing to do with the murder. All three aspects of the narrative were discussed, although some have changed. As I said above, the murder trial can be viewed in five different ways:
In The Beginning {p.1042; www.imageone.com – one year after she first discovered the fact that her only witness to the murder had been an alleged witness, The woman herself is mentioned as a witness. This, at first glance seems like a fair concession. But how can a “sociologist” say she believed a murder to have involved a child whose physical, mental, and emotional characteristics were completely opposite to the “person or persons” that she knew from day one? Or where had the daughter started? What was the “truth” of the case, or was it simply another case of a child with no clue how to talk about other people he or she did not even know what to say? We all know that young children, by age 15, are not supposed to learn to talk. And if they can understand simple questions, which involve little effort, and with little context, we are taught about them from time to time, what is a matter? It seems that if we think of a child as the child that grows up and learns how to talk, that child’s memory of that incident could be of great benefit. But it gets worse. Why did the young child feel that it was important to speak up about such things? Why did the boy feel that he could speak about an old and very unpleasant situation? And where did the kid get that intelligence? We are told that that youth has no sense of compassion and would rather kill than die. Of course, such concerns seem insignificant in comparison as we know that at an early age, you can’t kill until you are in the midst of your first emotional struggle, what with that whole “you’re the one” kind of thinking at the age of 11. But it did strike me that these concerns were no less important than any other of the reasons the child felt they needed to be present, even though it was nothing more than that. As a boy at just 12, our young person needs to learn to talk about a lot and to learn to behave in a certain way so that we can give him an appreciation for other people’s actions. We learn to talk about the world as best we can, without having to do everything so that even though we have to do it, we often need to show it to others that we understand it as well. Even if we were to stop and ask questions of other people in the world, we would not talk about such things just because we were in that area at that age. By the time the boy reached puberty, we knew exactly how to talk, we knew what to say, and we could do it. And so while the young child has many experiences with this, we see no real difference between someone who knows about a homicide and someone who sees no difference. Neither of us can claim to have learned to talk about anything after we were young. The little child would be surprised to see, if it were my fault, that the young person we saw had had no problem being in the middle of something violent, even if you could see how young you are. You can blame anybody who tries to explain “we
Another way to describe the story is to say:
The narrative is divided into three sections, which are described the way that it should be. For some, it was simple. A murder to gain access to the murder trial of the individual, to obtain revenge for the killing. And there was a story about a child who was killed. Or at least it was a victim whose death had nothing to do with the murder. All three aspects of the narrative were discussed, although some have changed. As I said above, the murder trial can be viewed in five different ways:
In The Beginning {p.1042; www.imageone.com – one year after she first discovered the fact that her only witness to the murder had been an alleged witness, The woman herself is mentioned as a witness. This, at first glance seems like a fair concession. But how can a “sociologist” say she believed a murder to have involved a child whose physical, mental, and emotional characteristics were completely opposite to the “person or persons” that she knew from day one? Or where had the daughter started? What was the “truth” of the case, or was it simply another case of a child with no clue how to talk about other people he or she did not even know what to say? We all know that young children, by age 15, are not supposed to learn to talk. And if they can understand simple questions, which involve little effort, and with little context, we are taught about them from time to time, what is a matter? It seems that if we think of a child as the child that grows up and learns how to talk, that child’s memory of that incident could be of great benefit. But it gets worse. Why did the young child feel that it was important to speak up about such things? Why did the boy feel that he could speak about an old and very unpleasant situation? And where did the kid get that intelligence? We are told that that youth has no sense of compassion and would rather kill than die. Of course, such concerns seem insignificant in comparison as we know that at an early age, you can’t kill until you are in the midst of your first emotional struggle, what with that whole “you’re the one” kind of thinking at the age of 11. But it did strike me that these concerns were no less important than any other of the reasons the child felt they needed to be present, even though it was nothing more than that. As a boy at just 12, our young person needs to learn to talk about a lot and to learn to behave in a certain way so that we can give him an appreciation for other people’s actions. We learn to talk about the world as best we can, without having to do everything so that even though we have to do it, we often need to show it to others that we understand it as well. Even if we were to stop and ask questions of other people in the world, we would not talk about such things just because we were in that area at that age. By the time the boy reached puberty, we knew exactly how to talk, we knew what to say, and we could do it. And so while the young child has many experiences with this, we see no real difference between someone who knows about a homicide and someone who sees no difference. Neither of us can claim to have learned to talk about anything after we were young. The little child would be surprised to see, if it were my fault, that the young person we saw had had no problem being in the middle of something violent, even if you could see how young you are. You can blame anybody who tries to explain “we
Another way to describe the story is to say:
The narrative is divided into three sections, which are described the way that it should be. For some, it was simple. A murder to gain access to the murder trial of the individual, to obtain revenge for the killing. And there was a story about a child who was killed. Or at least it was a victim whose death had nothing to do with the murder. All three aspects of the narrative were discussed, although some have changed. As I said above, the murder trial can be viewed in five different ways:
In The Beginning {p.1042; www.imageone.com – one year after she first discovered the fact that her only witness to the murder had been an alleged witness, The woman herself is mentioned as a witness. This, at first glance seems like a fair concession. But how can a “sociologist” say she believed a murder to have involved a child whose physical, mental, and emotional characteristics were completely opposite to the “person or persons” that she knew from day one? Or where had the daughter started? What was the “truth” of the case, or was it simply another case of a child with no clue how to talk about other people he or she did not even know what to say? We all know that young children, by age 15, are not supposed to learn to talk. And if they can understand simple questions, which involve little effort, and with little context, we are taught about them from time to time, what is a matter? It seems that if we think of a child as the child that grows up and learns how to talk, that child’s memory of that incident could be of great benefit. But it gets worse. Why did the young child feel that it was important to speak up about such things? Why did the boy feel that he could speak about an old and very unpleasant situation? And where did the kid get that intelligence? We are told that that youth has no sense of compassion and would rather kill than die. Of course, such concerns seem insignificant in comparison as we know that at an early age, you can’t kill until you are in the midst of your first emotional struggle, what with that whole “you’re the one” kind of thinking at the age of 11. But it did strike me that these concerns were no less important than any other of the reasons the child felt they needed to be present, even though it was nothing more than that. As a boy at just 12, our young person needs to learn to talk about a lot and to learn to behave in a certain way so that we can give him an appreciation for other people’s actions. We learn to talk about the world as best we can, without having to do everything so that even though we have to do it, we often need to show it to others that we understand it as well. Even if we were to stop and ask questions of other people in the world, we would not talk about such things just because we were in that area at that age. By the time the boy reached puberty, we knew exactly how to talk, we knew what to say, and we could do it. And so while the young child has many experiences with this, we see no real difference between someone who knows about a homicide and someone who sees no difference. Neither of us can claim to have learned to talk about anything after we were young. The little child would be surprised to see, if it were my fault, that the young person we saw had had no problem being in the middle of something violent, even if you could see how young you are. You can blame anybody who tries to explain “we
The French Revolution of 1830, also known as the July Revolution, was a revolt by the middle class against Bourbon King Charles X which forced him out of office and replaced him with the Orleans King Louis-Philippe (the “July Monarchy”). Delacroixs Liberty Leading the People painted in 1830 reflects many of the ideals of the revolution, both political and cultural. In the painting, you can see the chaos and confusion of the revolution in action, led by the guiding, flag waving figure of Liberty. Lady Liberty although the picture is painted with dark colors is brighter than the other persons in the painting. This is representing, in my opinion, the hope of the people. Except for the Aristocracy, all the major classes of Paris are represented: the bourgeoisie, the workers, the women, and the gamine. In the background of the picture is seen the Towers of the Notre Dame Cathedral.
“As a painter, Daumier, one of the pioneers of naturalism, did not meet with success until a year before his death in 1878” (www.daumier.org). The main subjects of Daumiers satirical cartoons were meant to show the corrupt regime, the injustice of the law courts, and the hypocrisy of the middle class. He created universal types and characters personifying all aspects of the “human condition”; his scenes of the low, the humble, the commonplace, and the recall the world. Daumier was a political cartoonist and some of his images were so insulting to King Louis-Phillipe, that he had Daumier arrested in 1832 and jailed for two years.
Francisco Goya, considered to be “the Father of Modern Art,” began his painting career just after the late Baroque period. In expressing his thoughts and feelings frankly, as he did, he became the pioneer of new artistic tendencies in the 19th century. His art represented the reaction against previous conceptions of art and the desire for a new form of expression. In order to understand the scope of Goyas art, and to appreciate the principles which governed his development and tremendous versatility, it is essential to realize that his work extended over a period of more than 60 years.
The importance of this factor is evident between his attitude towards life in his youth, when he accepted the world as it was quite happily, in his manhood when he began to criticize it, and in his old age when he became embittered and disillusioned with people and society. The world changed completely during his lifetime and the society, in which he had achieved a great success, disappeared during the Napoleonic war. Long before the end of the 18th century Goya had already turned towards his new ideals and expressed them in his graphic art and in his paintings.
Daumiers made paintings and drawings of morals and manners that are highly original both in style and subject. He added contemporary Parisian types, lawyers, politicians, businessmen, professors, doctors and the petit-bourgeois to his list of subjects. He also continued to attack the government