A CLOSER Look at Realism

In class, in addition to looking at paintings by Realist painters, we talked about the response to Realism by looking at excerpts from Baudelaire’s Prose Poems.  In our transition between Flaubert and Baudelaire, we watched this clip discussing notions of Realism from the 2004 Mike Nichols film, Closer.  

This scene is between Clive Owen and Natalie Portman at a photography exhibit entitled “Strangers”–the two characters are discussing the photograph of Natalie Portman’s character, “Alice.”

 

 

We discussed this clip in relation to Flaubert’s short story, “A Simple Heart” and how it might criticize that text, as well as how this clip relates to Baudelaire’s take on Realism.

Here, again, any additional comments that were or weren’t made in class, or that you would like to add here, are very welcome.

 

–Daphne

Realism on the Canvas

As we have been discussing in class, the literary and the painterly go hand-in-hand in the Modern period.  So, here’s a recap of the paintings that we looked at in class to illustrate a bit of what’s being put forth in the way of Realism by Flaubert in his short tale “A Simple Heart” and to get a better sense of what a visual representation of Realism means.  Though we understand that one movement doesn’t immediately stop and another begins, we discussed in class the emergence of Realism as a reaction against Romanticism.  As such, Realism is meant to illustrate a shift from the subjective idealization that is often associated with Romanticism and towards a depiction of everyday life in the middle and lower classes, in which the environment plays an integral role. 

 

Gustave Courbet, A Burial at Ornans (1849-1850)

The first painting that we looked at is Courbet’s A Burial at Ornans.  We looked at this painting in comparison to some of those representing the Romantic period in class as a way of thinking about the formal shift in the way that the paint is being applied in Realism in contrast to the Romantic period.  A lot of comments were made regarding Courbet’s painting as being nearly photographic in nature, that it was reflecting a moment that we could believe occurred.  But there was a sense that there wasn’t a definitive sense of centrality about the painting (i.e.: that there isn’t something that we’re meant to focus on exclusively), and that it did seem to represent a snapshot of a moment.

Jean-François Millet, The Gleaners (1857)

The next Realist work that we looked at was Millet’s The Gleaners, which many of you made some great observations about, namely that we’re unable to see the faces of the workers in the foreground and that there is still the notion of the “slice of life” depiction that is brought by Courbet in the above painting, but that this is consciously focusing upon a different kind of life, that of the rural peasant.

Honoré Daumier, The Third Class Carriage (1863-1865)

With Daumier’s The Third Class Carriage, a lot of you were quick to point out that within this realist painting we see a real and intent focus upon the members of the third class carriage, these three figures in the foreground, and the emphasis that is put upon class.  You all made some really great points about the contrast that was drawn between the differences in attire here, the women in the foreground who are sketchily painted, along with the young boy in shadows, in contrast to those in the background who are dressed in top hats, clearly indicating a difference in class.  When we discussed what we thought Daumier might be suggesting with this painting, a number of you pointed to the idea that Daumier was being empathetic with the situation of the poor here.

Wilhelm Leibl, Three Women in a Village Church (1878-1881)

This painting by Leibl is from the German Realist school (as opposed to the French, which the above paintings represent), but he was a great friend and admirer of Courbet–so these “schools” of painting are relatively transferable.  In class we talked about  the presence of these women in a village church, and how that might be linked to a discussion of Félicité in “A Simple Heart” in her sense of devotion, but also in this idea of the village church.  There was also some attention upon the attire of the women and the differences in the way in which they’re dressed–the older women in black and the younger woman in the foreground in clothes that appear to be more decorative.  In relation to this observation, we talked about potential differences in stations of the women–that their attire could represent differences in the places that they worked (or whether they were working).  Though, the most substantial conversation regarding the painting was on the large size of the women’s hands (I’m pretty certain the word “freakish” was used in relation to the size…)–and given our previous conversations about class, we talked about how the size of their hands MAY represent the idea of work, and manual labor as essential to their lives.

Henry Ossawa Tanner, The Thankful Poor (1894)

Finally, we looked at Tanner’s painting, The Thankful Poor, as a way of rounding out our discussion on Realism in painting.  There were some great observations made here–that the child is sitting on a crate instead of a chair, that they have very little food on the table and yet they are so thankful (which we may read from their body language–it looks almost as if they’re saying a pre-meal prayer).  Looking at this American painting in the context of the other paintings that are Realist here, we looked back through at the subject matter of the involved paintings and discussed a little bit that the focal point within Realism (true of Flaubert as well) is often the poor or the peasantry, and that many of these works comment on the admirable stature of these people within the paintings.

As always, I know that there were many more comments than those that I put up here, and I would love for you to please add anything that you might have said in class that I forgot to post here, or that you’ve thought of since then about the content of the paintings, their relationship to Realism, their relationship to Flaubert, or anything else that you think is relevant here!

–Daphne

No man.

“A Simple Heart” is about a servant who lives a traumatic life because of her accepting and passive life. Her passive and selfless personality is the reason why people take advantage of her. After she loses the dearest people in her life, she still continued to live on. My love for her is bittersweet, when reading this story, I wanted to help and smack her at the same time. Passive people really gets me agitated because I see what people do to them, and they don’t do anything about it. After all the pain and suffering, I would think she would change. Especially when she loses her parrot, the only thing that didn’t take advantage of her.

Once I read about how Felicite worshipped the stuffed parrot, I knew she was crazy. But as the story continued, I saw how Feicite connected the parrot to Christ. I found it quite sad. Because Felicite’s life was entirely based on connections and relationships, when the parrot died, she wasn’t able to let go. I also noticed religion was predominant in the story and I know Christ is preached about concerning forgiveness. The idea that “no matter what we do, Christ would always still love us at the end” is very forgiving. . I think Felicite saw the parrot as Christ because she unconsciously wanted forgiveness. Unlike all the other deaths, it was Felicite’s fault that the parrot died; she left the parrot out in the cold. By worshipping the parrot, Felicite is asking for forgiveness because of her tremendous guilt. Hell, I would do the same too (not stuff the parrot, but pray for them every night for forgiveness)!

This story reminds me of the movie “Yes Man” starring Jim Carrey. The movie is about how the main character Carl lives a lonely life because he rejects any and every offer that comes his way (a “no man”) after his divorce.   It is not till his best friend Nick persuades him to take a motivational seminar. The motivation seminar called “yes!” convinces him to say yes to everyone and anyone, and by doing that, there’s a guarantee he wont be lonely. In a way this reminds me of Felicite’s story, just without all the comedic stuff. If Carl says no, bad luck leans toward his way. It is like god is trying to convince Carl to always say yes. The idea is saying yes=good. Soon Carl couldn’t stop himself from saying yes, as if it was a permanent habit. I think Felicite has that idea in her head. Saying yes is what makes people happy and even though there are a lot of downsides for Felicite, she cannot find it in her heart to say no. I think the thoughts she have is if Felicite starts saying no to people, she would end up lonely.

I learned that there are always going to be people who have similar characteristics like Felicite. The author showed Felicite’s pushover personality in extremes. I don’t know whether to pity it or detest it. Everything from her lost love to the death of her beloved parrot is just very. .. depressing. But, it is nice to hear she died happy at the end of the book, as weird as it sounds …