smARThistory.us

The Studio: A Real Allegory of Seven Years of My Life as an Artist, Oil on canvas, 1854-55, Musee d’Orsay, 11′10-1/4″ x 19′7-1/2″

Let’s begin with the title’s contradiction. The words “real” and “allegory” are opposed. “Real” as we have seen, is a rejection of the heroic and ideal in favor of the actual, even if that means a coarse and unpleasant truth tied to the era’s economic injustices and shifting notions as to the morality of the country and the corruption of the city. In contrast, the word “allegory,” means a story told by symbols. Is it possible that Courbet is using his title to alert the viewer that there are contradictions and double meanings in the image? Look, for instance, at the dim paintings that hang on the rear wall of the studio. These large landscapes seem to form a continuous horizon line from panel to panel. They dissolve enough so that we are not sure if they are paintings or perhaps windows that frame the landscape beyond. Is it real or a representation? Courbet seems to muddy the distinction and allow for both. Remember the title, “A Real Allegory….”

Lets take a closer look. The artist is immediately recognizable in the center of the canvas. His head is cocked back and his absurd beard is thrust forward at the same haughty angle that we saw in Bonjour Monsieur Courbet. But here he is assessing and just possibly admiring the landscape that he is in the process of painting. But like a renaissance painting, the central composition is a trinity (three) of figures. To Courbet’s right stands a nude model, note that her dress is strewn at her feet. There is nothing exceptional here, after all, this is an artist’s studio. However, there is something a littl unusual, Courbet does not look even look in her direction as he would if she were actually posing for him. He doesn’t need to. He is, after all, painting an unpopulated landscape. Oddly, the direction of the gaze is reversed. The model directs her attention to Courbet, not vis-a-versa. In the realm of the real she functions as the model, but as allegory, she is the muse of ancient Greek myth, a symbol of Courbet’s inspiration (this particular model may well have inspired the artist, they were lovers). The boy to the left is also a reference. He looks to Courbet’s creation with admiration. Here are the eye’s of innocence that see truth, unsullied by the illusions of adulthood. The boy represented an important goal for Courbet, to un-learn the lessons of the art academy, the sophistication’s of urban industrial life that, he believed, distanced the artists from the primal truths of nature. Above all, Courbet sought to return to the pure, direct sight of a child.

This distinction, between the corruption’s of the city and the morality of the countryside has been noted in the work of Bonheur, Millet, and Daumier and it is present here as well. In fact, the entire, rather crowded canvas, is divided into two large groups of people. Let’s begin with the group on the left. Here we see fairly rough types of people described. They are the cast of characters that Courbet would have come to know in his hometown of Ornan. Here is represented a woodsman, the village idiot, a Jew, and others. There are several other allusions such as the inclusion of the current ruler of France, Louis-Phillipe, but let’s focus on the themes at hand. Here then, are the country folk who Courbet faces and with whom he pointedly maintained contact. On the opposite side of the canvas are contrast a far more handsome and well dressed party. Gathered at the right of the canvas are Courbet’s wealthy collector’s and his urbane friends. In the back you can see the man who greeted Courbet on the country road, and in the canvas’s extreme lower right sits Charles Baudelaire, a very famous and influential poet who was a close friend of the painter.

Is this composition familiar? Does it ring a bell? Think back to your art history survey class. Where have you seen a painting where a large number of people are divided into two groups, one to the left and one to the right of a central figure? That central figure is, in this case Courbet, engaged in painting, or as we might say, he is creating a landscape. Think about what I just wrote for a moment, the words, “creating a landscape.” Could the reference be to God the creator of nature? As you may have figured out, the composition is directly related to the traditional composition of the New Testiment story, the Last Judgment. Do you remember Giotto’s Last Judgment fresco on back wall of the Arena Chapel in Padua from 1305-06 or Michelanglo’s Last Judgment painted on the far wall of the Sistine Chapel, 1534-42? The fit is awfully good. In those early paintings, the blessed (those that were on their way to heaven) were on the right side of Christ (our left) and the damned (those on their way to Hell) were shown on Christ’s left (our right). How does this compositional structure work in the case of The Studio…? Courbet has placed himself in the position of creator. But does he want us to use a capital “C”? What then of the model/muse? In the place of the blessed on the left are the country folk. Again, the morality of nature is referenced. On the painting’s right, in place of the damned are the urban sophisticates. Again, the notion of the corruption of the city are noted. And in the bottom right corner where Michelangelo placed Satan himself, we find Courbet’s close friend, the poet Baudelaire, author of The Flowers of Evil! Finally, you should note the crucified figure partly hidden behind the easel. Indeed, Courbet referred to himself as a kind of martyr, (look at such paintings as Self-portrait as Wounded Man) and he was satirized as a martyred saint because of his suffering at the hands of the critics.