Pierre Auguste Cot, 1837-1883, was a French painter who studied under, among others, William-Adolphe Bouguereau. I came across a print of his work, The Storm, at a local outlet and was immediately captivated by it. The image that follows is closest to the version that I have hanging in my living room.
It is worth noting that, at the time, I knew nothing about the print, neither its title nor its creator, and I mistakenly thought that it might be a representation of the Rape of Persephone.
That turned out to be wrong, obviously. I remember an entire Sunday spent scouring the Internet looking for the image, and/or information concerning it. Not an easy task, as I was (and still am) quite ignorant of such lofty phrases as Academic Classicism, and so forth. All I knew was that I loved the print, and wanted to know more about it.
As to why I love this image, I cannot put my finger directly on it. When I view the print, I am immediately drawn to the faces of the subjects. The young woman is exquisitely beautiful, and the fearful expression on her face compels me to want to reach into the painting and protect her in some manner, defend her from whatever threat is looming above and behind her.
The young man’s expression is utterly fascinating. Even as they flee (from what I did not then know; I suspected the girl’s father, having been in a few similar situations in my life) the young man continues to gaze at her with such longing, almost lascivious desire. I can well understand the young man’s feelings, as they are similar to my own as regards this beautiful young woman.
Of course, it begs the question: why did the artist depict her in such a sheer garment? There is an obvious delight (at least for me) in the tantalizingly vague presentation of this young woman’s body, but I am at a loss as to how it makes “story sense.” Did girls regularly wander around outside dressed in such flimsy attire? If so, I am Miniver Cheevy indeed, born far, far too late, because as “full figured” as this girl may be, she puts any of a thousand half-naked young women that you might see on any trip to a shopping mall utterly to shame.
It was in my online search for information about this print that I came across the following image. This one, found on Wikipedia, purports to be “a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art.” Clearly I would have to view the original painting to know for sure, but let’s for the sake of argument give Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt. If this is the original, then the above (which I own) must be some sort of reproduction, by some other artist. And frankly, I like the above version better than the purported original. The “reproduction,” if such it is, is much more dramatic. The young woman in the reproduction is far more alluring to me, and the expression on the face of the young man in the original has lost all trace of lust, passion, or desire. In the original he has more of a bemused look on his face, a little smirky grin, as if to say “Dadgum storm! Looks like I won’t be getting to know you in any biblical sense today!”
And the young woman’s faint smile (which I do not see in my reproduction) seems to reply “No, you certainly won’t. By the way, your thumb is touching my left breast.”
On a more serious note, I feel a greater sense of urgency in the reproduction. The characters seem to be straining forward. In the purported original it seems more as if the young woman is leaning into her lover, and away from me, the viewer. Finally, I just like the “atmosphere” of the reproduction better (which, I believe, adds to the dramatic tension that I referred to earlier). The original has an added warmth, obviously, and I am usually a fan of that classical sort of “spotlighting” technique, but in this instance I feel that it detracts from my study of the characters that are being portrayed. It does, however, seem to make the approaching storm more of a character in the painting, which I do not see in the reproduction above.
I would be interested in comments regarding these two views…which version do you like better (if you like either one), and why?
I am interested in information about the original painting of The Storm. I have a friend who is 95 years old, whose father owned an original painting of The Storm in the 1920’s and she is very interested in getting information on the original, how many were painted, if anyone knows the whereabouts of them or their value.
thanks
Kelly
The Storm is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
I remember there are 3 original versions (L, M and Small) of ‘The Storm’. Maybe that’s why we see different images now. The large version was first created in 1880, and other versions were created later.
The large version, which I believe is the copy you have, is owned by the NY MET now and it can be viewed by appointment.
The small version is owned by a collector in my home country (Taiwan). I was lucky enough to view both large and small versions in person.
Kelly, if your friend’s father did own one of the original paintings, then it has to be the small or median version. The large one had always been owned by the Wolfe family and was donated to the MET later.
I fell in love with this painting when I went to the MET and saw it and its comapanion, Springtime, next to each other (not by appointment). I regret now not taking a picture so I could compare it. I also came online to look for information and copies to print out, and found both versions, as well as this blog. I almost chose the brighter version, because I saw it as merely a better image, but when I read this post, I realized I agree. The first version is more intense in their gazes. I definitely prefer the first.
I have the painting of “The Storm” is about over 100 years old. I need to know who is the artist’s name A.D. Kenyon.
I have a signed print of “The Storm” which has to be over 75 years old. How valuable is it?
I recently bought the ‘reproduction’ version of ‘The Storm’ and I agree this version has some quality the second one lacks.
The girl’s eyes and the expression in them. I dont see fear but a kinda anger or something like ‘well! catch me if u can’ induced by the security of the guy’s arm? The young man’s eye expressing a sense of surrender. As if his whole world is jus the girl. A sense of adoration. May be its jus a personal choice, I find the face of the girl in the first pic more attractive than the second.
I saw this picture a year and a half ago, when I was in a posters shop in Jerusalem, Israel, looking for posters for my apartment. I imediately fell in love with the picture, mostly because both characters were so beautiful and perfectly shaped. I was more interested with the amazing boy, but of courae the woman is beautiful as well. By the way, both figures were based on a young boy model named Antonio corsi.
I was surprised to discover this picture 2 weeks ago at the MET museum in New York. It was like meeting an old friend. However, I must admit that the picture I fell in love with in the past was darker then the one I saw in the MET. I think I liked the version you liked, while the MET has the more “lighted” version.
The Wikipedia picture is not the original. I saw the original at the Met 2 weeks ago, and without any prior knowledge of this work, I was stunned immediately by it. Of course, the Met isn’t exactly lacking in masterpieces, but this particular painting really touched a chord with me…you have to see it in person. There is no digital photo I know of that has managed to capture the piercing gaze of the young girl, or the beautiful allure of her skin and body.
Truly a masterpiece.
I love this painting as well, although I believe Wiki got the reproduction and original backwards. I went to the MET recently, fell in love with this painting, and bought a little postcard reproduction in the giftshop. Now i’m gonna go on ahead and assume that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is legit on this postcard, and it matches the first first picture you posted not the second. I agree that the wiki one just doesn’t have the same whatever it is that makes The Storm so fascinating, and the couples’ expressions bother me in the wiki pic.
The artist is Pierre Auguste Cot. I took several pictures of this picture during a recent visit to the Met. Your print is closer to the shading of the original than the Wiki version. I can email you a photo of the original if you like. Luckily the Met lets you take pictures. It’s lovely – isn’t it? I can also email you my photo of the description of the paint the Met had beside it – it might provide you with some insight.
Scott I would love to see the photos you have. I realize that I am rather late in a response here…but if you happen back by, my email address is grealainATyahoo.com thank you for reading!
Did Cot do small paintings to sell larger commissioned ones?
I strongly agree with you in that the painting you have is far more interesting and eye catching. Although the first glance at each, they both look identical. The male in the painting is glaring at the beautiful woman with such desire and lust. The difference in their facial expression is quite a contradiction in that he is so invovled with what he is holding (the woman), and she looks frightened and helpless but at the same time angered in some way? She’s not so involved with him as he is with her.
Simply breathtaking,,
I love it.
Reply (: