Two Views Of “The Storm,” Pierre Auguste Cot

27 01 2008

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?





Painting (Sorta)

11 11 2007

after storm 1

Every once in awhile I get a wild hair and drag out the old Photoshop Elements. I’ve never really dug into this application very deeply, so my skills are quite limited with it. Occasionally I get something interesting. The above image is derived from a photo that I have took back in March of this year (shown below). All I did was apply the “dry brush” filter, and then manipulate the image until I was happy with the result. I won’t go so far as to claim any artistic ability…it’s a computer program that merely emulates the sort of thing that a real artist would be able to do with talent and ability, and does so in the broadest and most liberal sense of the word “emulate” at that. The original picture is quite striking, and I DO feel a bit proud of myself for having snapped it (although it was really more of a happy accident). But this altered version seems to have an added quality that I am having trouble putting into words. I think it is that the original picture has a little too much detail. It doesn’t leave as much open to the imagination as the “painted” version. The photoshopped version seems to capture more of the mood of the moment…what I was actually feeling when I snapped the picture. The original photo merely shows you what I saw. I don’t often ask for comments on these posts, largely because it is a bit embarrassing when no one responds, but if you read this, drop me a note in the comments section and tell me which you prefer, the original photo, or the “painted” version. Maybe somebody who actually knows something about art could explain to me why I feel the way that I do about the “painted” version.after original





After The Game

19 01 2007

Click On Photo For Larger Image

This turned out okay. It’s a family photo, with effects done in Photo Studio 2000. I’m not real big into photo-art stuff, but every once in awhile I get bored and something semi-cool results. I would say that my current ratio is about one decent image for every ten that I attempt. An “attempt” is defined as the length of time I can goof around with a picture before I get sick of the whole process and click it all away.