minniev Loc: MIssissippi

As we approach the season of Thanksgiving, here is a familiar painting for us to respond to. You may find it interesting to look at all the reproductions of this image. Of all the paintings we’ve featured on the Monthly Masters, I’ve never seen so many different versions of reproductions. One reproduction, much lighter/brighter than the original, hung in an ornate frame in my grandmother’s house.

Introduction
Born to modestly successful French peasants, Jean Francois Millet studied art in Paris. Like many artists, he supported himself with portraits, while attempting more serious works but spent much of his life in poverty. Millet portrayed the gravity, hardship, and dignity of common agricultural laborers. After decades of struggle, he was awarded a medal at the 1867 Exposition Universelle and received the Légion d'Honneur in 1868. Millet's portrayal of peasant life deeply impressed many painters, including Vincent Van Gogh.

In this painting, the artist returns to a childhood memory: “The Angelus was painted with the thought in mind of how, when labouring long ago in the fields, my grandmother would never fail, upon hearing the bell toll, to stop us in our work in order to recite the Angelus in honour of those poor dead souls”. The painting unites a couple of peasants in prayer, as the bell ringing out the evening Angelus announces the end of the day’s work. These two figures, standing in a field of potatoes, became the very embodiment of rural devotion.

Please share your own critical response to this artwork. Below are some questions to spur your thinking, and some links to further information about the painting and the artist.

Questions To Consider
1. What do you think of the painting in terms of composition? Subject matter? Use of color? Does it tell a compelling story? Does it have emotional impact, and if so, why?
2. This is a French painting of peasants in a potato field, and has no connection to the American tradition of Thanksgiving. Yet it strikes a familiar chord for many viewers. Does it for you? Why or why not?
3. Millet himself claimed that the primary motivation for the painting was a feeling of nostalgia. How does nostalgia impact how you view and create photographic art?
4. If you read the linked information, you’ll find various tidbits of information about the scene. Some consider it primarily a scene of humble thanksgiving for food harvested from the earth. The artist changed the original title from “Prayer For The Potato Crop” to “The Angelus” when he later added the church steeple in the background. Dali insisted that the painting was a funeral scene and some of the X-ray analysis does show an object painted over that resembles a small coffin. Does it matter? Why or why not?
5. If this were a photograph instead of a painting, some might consider the image to have been intrusive. Why are photographs of people engaged in such personal acts as prayer or mourning considered intrusive while paintings are not?
6. One of the You Tube videos linked above discusses the concept of "painting what you know". Does this concept apply to photographers as well? Do you feel your best work is "photographing what you know" or photographing iconic locations that you visit?

Links for Further Study
https://medium.com/@stevengambardella/the-saddest-painting-955f104c7168
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/paintings-analysis/angelus-millet.htm
https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/a/angelus-painting-by-millet.php
https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-francois-millet/the-angelus-1859
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/becoming-modern/avant-garde-france/realism/v/millet-l-ang-lus-ca-1857-1859
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Millet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpSVsXpNJ48
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Millet

fair use: https://uploads0.wikiart.org/00129/images/jean-francois-millet/the-angelus.jpg

(Download)

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Art History helps me appreciate this, outside of the prejudices of our own culture. Otherwise, I might say, "What a cornball, soppy image!" I would still like it, counting it among my "guilty pleasures," like some "lesser" rock and roll or classical music that I like.

However, it helps to know that his artist painted at a time when the previous style of "elevating, mythical" art was cast aside, for "romantic realism," where everyday life was celebrated in an emotional way. So, the humble were tied into what Millet thought of as realistic and, as for many at that time, religious aspects of life. The elites in our society tend to agree with a previous president who looked down on those who "get bitter...cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Of course, the elites also cling to their beliefs and look down on people who aren't like them. I don't know if we are more "tribal" this way than people were back then or not, but this painting would result in more divided in opinions today.

Anyway, liking it for what it is, and for its excellent technique and composition [see download] of asymmetrical balance and circular movement, here are my responses to minniev's questions.

1. What do you think of the painting in terms of composition? Subject matter? Use of color? Does it tell a compelling story? Does it have emotional impact, and if so, why?
Excellent in each area. We "get" the story right away. The subject matter is likely felt by some, nostalgic for others, and smirked about with others. The technique, low backlighting with figures and different natural and manmade forms along with atmospheric and geometric perspective is great.

2. This is a French painting of peasants in a potato field, and has no connection to the American tradition of Thanksgiving. Yet it strikes a familiar chord for many viewers. Does it for you? Why or why not?
No, as this was an everyday occurrence for these people, a part of the very fabric of their lives. We have lost most of this, I think.

3. Millet himself claimed that the primary motivation for the painting was a feeling of nostalgia. How does nostalgia impact how you view and create photographic art?
It has its place, but I prefer to look more deeply at the contemporary moment.

4. If you read the linked information, you’ll find various tidbits of information about the scene. Some consider it primarily a scene of humble thanksgiving for food harvested from the earth. The artist changed the original title from “Prayer For The Potato Crop” to “The Angelus” when he later added the church steeple in the background. Dali insisted that the painting was a funeral scene and some of the X-ray analysis does show an object painted over that resembles a small coffin. Does it matter? Why or why not?
Does't matter to me. The artist guided us to his meaning.

5. If this were a photograph instead of a painting, some might consider the image to have been intrusive. Why are photographs of people engaged in such personal acts as prayer or mourning considered intrusive while paintings are not?
Most likely because the camera is right there, at a moment that deserves total human respect and attention. The painting is done in a different time and place, with more general intent usually.

6. One of the You Tube videos linked above discusses the concept of "painting what you know". Does this concept apply to photographers as well? Do you feel your best work is "photographing what you know" or photographing iconic locations that you visit?
"Trick question"? Good technique and composition, for me, are a basic requirement for both kinds of shooting. The only really good shots for me, however, are those that reflect something of the human condition that is unusual or seen in a broadening and unique way.

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Congratulations on finding another interesting and thought-provoking subject for us. And thank you for your continued efforts.

The widespread appreciation of this work indicates that it must have a certain amount of widely acknowledged, generic value. That is what I would hope to find as I examine and contemplate it. The search for that basic ingredient can be simplified if we consider what the picture is free from, which IMO includes pretence, self-promotion and glamour. The scene is of humble people in humble circumstances offering a humble prayer, and despite the recurring theme of humility, the scene is also characterised with dignity.

That modest spark of a connection with divinity, which we can all aspire to, shines brightly against the not-so-radiant backdrop of their circumstances. The message is that we don't need ostentation or material abundance in order to shine with the same dignity and genuine worth that we see portrayed in this painting.

We may never know what the true story behind the painting is. Was it indeed a funeral, and after it became obvious that the commissioner of the painting wasn't going to collect it, the painter thought that a less sombre subject might be more suitable? For me it's interesting but not important because the portrayal of quiet dignity remains at the heart of the picture, regardless of what the scenario is. Perhaps the painter decided that appreciation for the potato crop wasn't as evocative a message as the praying of the Angelus as he remembered it. The narrator is entitled to decide which storyline he wants to use, but the underlying message remains the same.

Emotion is a subject that we all know from personal experience, and if our intention as a photographer or painter is to evoke some kind of emotion then we can claim that we are sticking with what we know. The same could be said of visual impact or visual interest. On the other hand the story-telling aspect of photography (and art in general) is more dependent on a specific skills base, which makes that aspect of art more ponderous and open to interpretation (and therefore misinterpretation).

The warning "Stick to what you know" is usually aimed at writers because in the world of story-telling, success depends to a large extent on the writer's ability to convince the reader of the believability of the tale. However, in the world of photography, our usual concern is the degree to which we evoke the desired feelings (emotion) or reaction (visual impact or visual interest) - a far simpler objective. Only when we steer into the murky depths of story-telling do things get more ponderous. It is often the case that a picture's story-telling is the main purpose of its creation, but above and beyond that, a picture's ability to evoke a reaction from the viewer can transcend its ability to convey the desired story. I believe there is an element of that in this painting. The story is secondary to the evoked reactions and it succeeds in that respect regardless of whether the viewer "gets it" as far as the actual story is concerned.

Whether it is a funeral, thanksgiving or solemn prayer, the depiction is the same - quiet dignity and solemn respect in humble circumstances.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Wonderful insights.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thanks, Bob, for a thoughtful and thorough consideration. Your overlay graphic is a great illustration of the composition. And I surely agree with you that even a nominal familiarity of art history can help us view art in context to its place and time. A lack of that knowledge doesn’t prohibit appreciation of an artwork, but we risk interpreting it to a current context that may be misleading.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, RG. Quiet dignity never goes out of style!

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

[quote=minniev]

I don't normally participate in these discussions. I know little about painting, painters, genres, etc. I have no background in art history and claim no particular knowledge other than my own personal reaction to a painting.

Questions To Consider
1. What do you think of the painting in terms of composition? Subject matter? Use of color? Does it tell a compelling story? Does it have emotional impact, and if so, why?

I think the "story" here is quite compelling. Whether it be a prayerful thanksgiving or a petition of poverty doesn't matter. The facial expressions on the participants in the scene exhibit (I think) an acceptance of their situation.

2. This is a French painting of peasants in a potato field, and has no connection to the American tradition of Thanksgiving. Yet it strikes a familiar chord for many viewers. Does it for you? Why or why not?

To me it's greater than what our Thanksgiving has become, but not perhaps than what it was originally. They are being thankful for little. And probably they do it daily.

3. Millet himself claimed that the primary motivation for the painting was a feeling of nostalgia. How does nostalgia impact how you view and create photographic art?

There is nostalgia in the clothing depicted which obviously takes us to a particular period. The darkness of the original painting also adds to this.

4. If you read the linked information, you’ll find various tidbits of information about the scene. Some consider it primarily a scene of humble thanksgiving for food harvested from the earth. The artist changed the original title from “Prayer For The Potato Crop” to “The Angelus” when he later added the church steeple in the background. Dali insisted that the painting was a funeral scene and some of the X-ray analysis does show an object painted over that resembles a small coffin. Does it matter? Why or why not?

When I first looked at the painting, I thought perhaps they were mourning the loss of a child at its burial. That potato fork could easily be a shovel, and the basket of potatoes could have been a small coffin box. Their faces are rather stoic, which would be characteristic of people of that era and that culture.

5. If this were a photograph instead of a painting, some might consider the image to have been intrusive. Why are photographs of people engaged in such personal acts as prayer or mourning considered intrusive while paintings are not?

Paintings are usually done of either people posing or a photograph. Either way, the people are 1) consenting to the depiction, 2) are probably posed and therefore not personally involved in the action, and 3) are being paid to "perform" in a certain way. When photographing people in actual scenes of sorrow or worship, we are seeing them actually doing this from their heart. I do believe that's rather intrusive. If I posed people to photograph them, it wouldn't be intrusive.

6. One of the You Tube videos linked above discusses the concept of "painting what you know". Does this concept apply to photographers as well? Do you feel your best work is "photographing what you know" or photographing iconic locations that you visit?

As was stated above that this applies more to writing than to photography. I get a bit ho-hum about the things I see every day and don't even consider them photo worthy. However, something new and different is quite photo worthy, even if trivial.

Iconic views are just that because of their beauty or character. It's something people like to look at. I'm frequently disappointed in my attempts at iconic scenes because the light wasn't right, or the clouds weren't right, or someone or something got in the way. Case in point, I saw an image taken of the chapel in Yosemite. My friend and I spent hours trying to recreate that view. Later we went back and studied that image and finally decided that it had to have been somehow contrived because it could not be as depicted. This was before the days of Photoshop! We contacted the photographer and he admitted that it was a composite image done in the darkroom.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

[quote=AzPicLady]
Insightful comments for me.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

[quote=AzPicLady]

Glad you jumped in and hope you will join the MM thread again! Nothing is required other than what you bring from your own eyes and and your own thinking. You picked up on the funeral motif that Dali did, so obviously your impressions are in good company!

Thanks for taking time to work through this image and share your reactions.

I’m interested in the responses we are getting re: the lure of iconic locations vs the exploration of the (sometimes boring) stuff we see around us every day. I think we’ll explore that concept a little more in a later thread.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Great idea. For me, it revolves around what is cliché and what is a much-seen place/idea given new life.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

There are several possible approaches to both concepts/philosophies, which is what might make for an interesting discussion.