Introduction

Chapter 1. The art of realism during the French Revolution

Chapter 2. The work of Jacques Louis David before the start of the French Revolution

Chapter 3. Creativity of the master during the revolution. Thermidorian coup

Conclusion

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

When David rose above the horizon of art like a cold luminary, a great turning point occurred in painting. Charles Baudelaire, 1825

French art XIX century represents an era of realism, inextricably linked throughout almost the entire century with the events Great Revolution. Founder this direction, who carried out his artistic activity at the end of the 18th century, and who takes his origins from there, is considered to be Jacques Louis David.

ABOUT this master A sufficient amount of literature has been written, but, objectively speaking, researchers of his work disagree on how truly unique his contribution to world art is. Some researchers believe that David’s work is magnificent, his works are flexible and beautiful in color and composition, rightfully taking their place on a par with the Great Masters. Others, in turn, come to the conclusion that David’s art is only purely political and social, and, in general, in fact, the artist practically did not create anything outstanding, while others take a neutral position, noting that his work is characterized by first and second.

Thus, below we will try to figure out which of the authors adheres to which point of view.

The book “Artists of Modern Times” by the famous Italian art historian L. Venturi covers the work of the greatest masters west European painting the first half and mid-19th century, characterizing their work and assessing their artistic activity, including the work of David.

The author does not describe a detailed biography of the artist, but gives only a general description, simultaneously speaking about the main directions of art of the 19th century. The author pays special attention modern master historiography and art criticism. Thus, the work characterizes not only creative look the master himself, but also the environment in which he created.

The special advantage of L. Venturi’s work lies in the fact that in addition to revealing the historical and artistic process, the evolution of the master’s art, he also raises the question of the artistic value of certain works. In addition, in his work the author gives excellent analysis paintings, always taking into account the underlying philosophical and ethical ideas. At the same time, he pays a lot of attention to the nature of the pictorial expression of these ideas, to the very execution of the painting.

However, it should be noted that throughout the entire work of L. Venturi, the author’s conviction runs as a guiding thought that specific historical phenomena and ideas of a particular era did not play any decisive role in the development of the artistic creativity of the great masters, which we, of course, cannot agree with him.

Speaking directly about David’s work, the author notes that “David’s personal contribution to the development of artistic taste lies in the rigor of the decision, confidence, accuracy graphic technology, in the denial of the independence of art, in the conscious transformation of art into a political and social instrument.” Thus, in his opinion, "he prepares the way for Courbet, but does not have any influence on the two most important artists of the first half of the century - Corot and Daumier." In addition, the author is convinced that “Goya is a pitiable courtier, Constable is a villager with conservative views, David is a regicide. However, it is David who does not participate in that genuine revolution in art, in that conquest of freedom in painting, of which the 19th century is proud and which Goya and Constable had the courage to begin. Therefore, David appears to be as revolutionary in politics as he is reactionary in painting. This means that life itself interested him more than art. That is why he was unable, or succeeded only in rare cases, to create genuine works of art.” Thus, we see that the author is quite critical of the master’s work.

V. Knyazeva adheres to a different point of view in her monograph “Jacques Louis David”. Revealing the biographical details of the artist’s life and work, the author speaks with admiration of David not only as an excellent artist in the political aspect, but more so as a master who also left us images of a small “human comedy” in portraits of his loved ones, in portraits of those who became rich officials, impressive military men, diplomats, political exiles, many of whom are not finished. They, in her opinion, “reveal to us the secrets of David’s mastery. In their spontaneity, at least in appearance, they captured their time even better than finished works.”

However, the author, of course, pays tribute and public works, but says that, despite the fact that David, more than any of his contemporary artists, was associated with the political life of his era, and his creative triumphs and failures are associated with the revolution, at the same time he carried out the revolution in areas of artistic style. And already around 1780 he confidently headed the “grand style”, combining politics and art: “A witness of his era, David captured it in his works, introducing orderliness and a certain style into its display. And vice versa, David’s somewhat artificially strict neoclassical style is softened and revived updated due to the requirements of a realistic reflection of life. It is in this continuous interaction of nature and style that David’s genius comes to light.”

And if we talk about the author’s attitude to David’s art in general, it will be necessary to quote the following words: “David’s speeches and letters speak of what a passionate fighter he was for the new art. Its extensive literary heritage testifies to the high demands that he placed on art. His works are imbued with a sincere, ardent belief in the great national significance of art.”

A.N. adheres to a similar position. Zamyatin in the work of the same name “David”. The author also reflects in sufficient detail the creative and political path of the artist, however, a huge advantage of this work, in our opinion, is great amount links to the original source - the speeches and letters of David himself. That is why this work is given a very significant place in our work.

The author herself, speaking about David’s revolutionary art, very warmly notes that the very reason why David met these demands of the revolution speaks of his political insight and deep understanding of the social tasks of his art. In her opinion, David was able to determine not only the direction of work, but also the choice of the type of art that for a given historical moment acquired leading significance. In other words, despite the constant rushing of the master in search of an ideal - initially in antiquity, in the events of the revolution, and subsequently in Napoleon, the author is firmly convinced that it was thanks to the constant influence of his idols that David’s skill reached unprecedented heights.

But the most complete work, reflecting all the smallest details of the master’s life and work, was A. Schnapper’s monograph “David is a witness of his era.” It was in it that we found not only all the most outstanding events that determined the trends in the development of David’s work in one direction or another, but also a number of seemingly insignificant details that somehow played their role in the master’s art. This work is also based on primary sources and testimonies of contemporaries, it presents an in-depth study of the topic, and also provides an excellent analysis of many works.

The book by J.F. turned out to be very interesting in terms of philosophical understanding of David’s works. Guillou "Great Paintings". The author characterizes the master’s work as “three parts of a grandiose series of works created by David, telling about a hero who sacrifices himself for the happiness of his people: the cycle of myth, the cycle of revolution and the cycle of peace, sealed by an oath that became the basis of a new order.” In addition, the work provides a very in-depth analysis of the works, and distinctive feature its focus is not on stylistic features, but an attempt to penetrate into the essence of the theme of each of the cycles, characterizing the role and essence of the hero in them.

Two more works that should be mentioned are “David. Death of Marat" and "J.L. David." Both tell about the creative and personal life of the artist, with the only difference that in the first work the emphasis is on the most famous works, and the second work is replete with many small biographical details that could only be found in A. Schnapper. Both works are based on the works already listed above, but they include many gorgeous illustrations.

If we talk directly about historical era, That big role the books of I.N. Mikhailova helped to understand those events. and Petrashch E.G. “Art and literature of France from ancient times to the 20th century”, N.A. Dmitrieva " Short story art" and " General history art" edited by Yu.D. Kolpinsky.

All works give an excellent description of the events of the period of the revolution, but N.A. Dmitriev, among other things, is also directly characterized by the art of this era itself.

Speaking about revolutionary classicism, she mentions Rousseau's theory of closeness to nature. The concept of “fidelity to nature” in art in general, in her opinion, is a polysemantic and flexible concept; it should never be taken too literally. There is a lot inherent in nature, and people, depending on their ideals and tastes, tend to absolutize and especially highlight one or the other of its features, which this moment attract and seem the most important. This is how art is created - a wonderful fusion of objective-natural and subjective-human. After all, people themselves are part of nature and, even without wanting to imitate it, they still do it. On the other hand, even if they want to follow it exactly, they inevitably transform it in their own way. That is why the works of artists of the era french revolution seem “artificial” to her. She says that “there is little natural in their allegories, pompous gestures, in the statuesque nature of the figures, in their tortured rationalism.”

Thus, there is a sufficient amount of literature on our chosen topic. However, trying to bring all points of view together, in our opinion, is enough actual problem, that is why purpose our work was an attempt to display creative path the artist through the eyes of many art historians and art critics. For the most complete disclosure of the topic, we set the following tasks:

1. reveal the main trends in the art of the period of the French Revolution;

2. trace the artist’s creative path until the beginning of revolutionary events;

3. identify the main directions in David’s work during the events of the revolution, as well as after the Thermidorian coup.

In this work, we used methods of analyzing scientific literature and the biographical method. The object in this case is the art of the period of the French bourgeois revolution, and the subject is the work of David.

CHAPTER 1. THE ART OF REALISM DURING THE GREAT FRENCH REVOLUTION

France became the first large country on the European continent where the revolution led to the defeat of the feudal system. Bourgeois relations here were established in the most pure form. At the same time, in France, which went through four revolutions, the labor movement acquired the character of militant actions earlier than in other countries. Tense struggle masses against the feudal aristocracy, then against the ruling bourgeoisie, active participation in the struggle of the proletariat left a special heroic imprint on the course of history, which is reflected in art France XIX century. Acute political conflicts, in which artists were witnesses and sometimes participants, brought progressive art into close connection with public life.

Revolutionary ideas become fundamental in the development of the culture of this time, determining revolutionary orientation art, and first of all revolutionary classicism. To identify civil ideals, artists turn to antiquity “to hide from themselves the bourgeois-limited content of their struggle, in order to keep their inspiration at the height of the great historical tragedy.”

In other words, the artistic expression of the French Revolution was not free expression. A much larger role here was played by an ardent desire for the public good, a desire that led to the predominance of political and civic values ​​over artistic ones. All the artists more or less valued by Napoleon made sacrifices to the god of practicality: they were denied “the right and even the opportunity to find satisfaction in the abstract sphere of beauty” and were charged with “the duty of doing things that could be put to useful use in accordance with positive interests and the practical institutions of the nation. Art aims to benefit, not a narrow circle of privileged individuals, but the entire nation and rather the masses than educated people" As in Greece, “art today must become a rational institution, a silent, but always eloquent law, elevating the thought and purifying the soul. What could be more beautiful than such service? .

Therefore, it is natural that the great attention that was paid to art during the Revolution, invariably emphasizing its propaganda role - it is now viewed not as “a simple decoration on a state building, but as component its foundation." Hence, the main duty of both the government, municipalities and individuals is recognized collaboration over the awakening and development of aesthetic feelings: much attention is now paid to teaching drawing in schools and organizing museums.

Thus, during the period of the French Revolution, there were two concepts of art: “pure and indifferent neoclassical beauty” (Winckelmann’s concept) and “expressive, useful, social art”, required by the political life of the revolution and the empire, whose ideals were absolutely opposite.

Nevertheless, paradoxically, for example, Jacques Louis David and his school did not distinguish between these ideals, asserting the correctness of one or the other, and depending on the topic, they used either classicistic or expressive techniques. E. Delacroix wrote about this in his diary: “David represents a peculiar combination of realism and idealism. He still reigns today in a certain sense, and despite noticeable changes in tastes in modern school, it’s quite obvious that everything comes from him.” . But as A.N. correctly notes. Zamyatin, the connection and interaction of the elements of realism and idealization in David’s work is a phenomenon historically determined by the trends of the bourgeois-democratic movement of this era.

And this was not only a feature of David’s personal biography, but also of the entire movement of classicism, so vividly represented by him. The borrowed ideals and norms of classicism paradoxically accommodated opposing social ideas: rebellion against tyranny, worship of tyrants, ardent republicanism, and monarchism.

The art of bourgeois classicism repeated in miniature the evolution of the ancient Rome it revered - from republic to empire, preserving the stylistic forms and decorative system that developed under the republic. In contrast to Rococo, classicism, imbued with the ideas of Rousseau, proclaimed simplicity and closeness to nature. Now the slogan of “return to nature”, “naturalness” seems strange in the mouths of classicists, because their works are somewhat far-fetched. Nevertheless, the ideologists of classicism were confident that, by imitating antiquity, art thereby imitates nature. They revered “simplicity and clarity,” not noticing that their clarity was as conventional a form as the pretentiousness of Rococo. In some respects, classicism retreated from “nature” even in comparison with Rococo, if only in that it rejected the pictorial vision, and with it the rich culture of color in painting, replacing it with coloring.

If we mention that classicist trends were transferred to things and accessories, then we can mention the words of Wiegel, who wrote in his memoirs: “One thing was somewhat funny about this: all those things that the ancients had for ordinary, home use , among the French and among us they served as one decoration; for example, vases did not store any liquids with us, tripods were not smoked, and lamps in the ancient style, with their long spouts, were never lit.” Wigel unmistakably grasped the element of inorganicity in the classicism of modern times. It was no longer an organic big style, like the styles of the past.

And yet, in essence, all these areas represented special, certain stages of development realism XIX century, that is, the realism of the era of capitalism, whose characteristic feature, as already mentioned, was the growing desire for a concrete historical reflection of reality. Whatever themes the artists addressed, they sought to identify national features: both in progressive romanticism, and even in such a more abstract direction as revolutionary classicism, an appeal to antiquity was associated with modern history.

Subsequently, all these trends become even more acute and are reflected both in topics that come closer to the surrounding reality, introducing into it critical assessment, and in artistic embodiment. The conventional features characteristic of classicism and romanticism are overcome, and real world is finally affirmed in the concrete forms of life itself.

The new painting techniques found carried a semantic, emotional load, allowing the artist to create a bright, impressive image. Achievements French painting provided assistance in this area big impact on European painting.

However, along with revolutionary classicism, which paid tribute to unity with nature, forms of art were also spreading in which the thoughts and aspirations of the people could more directly be embodied, without losing the organic connection directly with classicism. Among such phenomena it is necessary to name mass holidays, the greatest master and which was also organized by Jacques Louis David. The fact that he loved his work very much is evidenced by the fact that David’s response to the government appeal to him as the organizer of the festivities was: “I thank the Supreme Being that he gave me some talent for glorifying the heroes of the Republic. Dedicating my talent to such a purpose, I especially feel its value.”

People's temperament manifested itself in national dances of different provinces, which sometimes preceded official ceremonies. There was a lot of spontaneous behavior in the celebrations, which came directly from the people, but the official programs of the ceremonies sought to introduce strictly regulated solemn harmony into the festivities. For example, in the project for the Federation holiday one can literally read the slogan of classicism: “... the touching scene of their unification will be illuminated by the first rays of the sun.” Among the ruins of the Bastille, “a Renaissance fountain will be erected in the form of the personification of Nature” and further: “the scene will be simple, its decoration will be borrowed from nature.”

Enormous funds were allocated for the festivities, and the scripts provided a new concept of public celebration. The composition was not determined central figure the demonstrated hero and passive spectators, but with the active and equal participation of everyone. In organizing the masses, the goal was, first of all, to emphasize universal equality, while at the same time highlighting the individual characteristics of the members of this society of equals.

Thus, the pathos of struggle, the desire to embody the revolutionary spirit of the people, inherent in progressive art, which developed under the most severe resistance from official circles, largely determined the originality of French art and his national contribution to the history of world art.

CHAPTER 2. THE WORK OF JACQUES LOUIS DAVID BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE GREAT FRENCH REVOLUTION

TO early XIX century, the generally recognized leader among artists was Jacques Louis David, the most consistent representative of neoclassicism. He began his artistic education in the Vienne workshop, from 1766 he studied at the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, and in 1771 he successfully participated in the competition for the Rome Prize with his painting “The Battle of Minerva with Mars” (1771; Louvre). The painting was painted in the spirit of the academic style of that time, however, the success of the painting did not provide David with the desired reward. Professor Vien, perhaps offended by the fact that the student spoke without first informing him, for the purpose of pedagogical influence, rejected the prize under the pretext “that for the first time David can consider himself happy simply because his judges liked him.” Respectful to his elders, David kindly explained the professor’s action this way: “I think that Vien spoke so for my benefit, at least I cannot imagine any other purpose on the part of the teacher.” The next two attempts to achieve what he wanted were also unsuccessful, and when in 1774 David, for the painting “Antiochus, son of Seleucus, king of Syria, sick with the love with which he was imbued with Stratonice, his stepmother, the doctor Erasistratus discovers the cause of the disease,” finally achieved the long-awaited awards, the news of the victory shocked him so much that he fainted and, coming to his senses, openly exclaimed: “My friends, for the first time in four years I breathed easily.” Those stylistic changes that are noticeable in this picture in comparison with “The Battle of Mars and Minerva” are not a manifestation creative individuality David, but only reflect the changes that are taking place in official art. The dominant Rococo style is becoming obsolete in the ephemeral revival of academicism and in the return to classical traditions 17th century: the nature of the plot of the competition painting is a historical anecdote, but the methods of its development remained essentially the same.

Thus, only in 1775 did a trip to Italy take place, where he went as a fellow of the Academy together with Vienne. The journey was the beginning of a new period of discipleship for David. Until now, he has been solidifying the techniques of depiction; now he is learning to perceive the impressions of artistic images in painting and sculpture. Italy opened David's eyes to the ancient world. David liked to associate his appeal to antiquity with the name of Raphael: “Oh, Raphael, divine man, you, who gradually raised me to antiquity... You gave me the opportunity to understand that antiquity is even higher than you.”

David wanted to study again, but in the opposite way, based not on studying techniques without relation to the content, but mastering these techniques as a means of expressing content, which can be endlessly fascinating and which one must be able to tell in the language of painters. Alexandre Levoir describes David’s behavior this way: “He wrote no more; like a young schoolboy, he began to draw eyes, ears, mouths, legs, hands for a whole year and was content with ensembles, copying from the best statues ... ".

Creative ideas were already arising in David’s head, in which he strove for such an ideal: “I want my works to bear the imprint of antiquity to such an extent that if one of the Athenians returned to the world, they would seem to him the work of Greek painters.”

And already in the first picture, shown upon his return from Italy, “Belisarius, recognized by a soldier who served under his command, at the moment when a woman gives him alms” (1781; Lille, Palace of Fine Arts), he tried to implement his plan. It is significant that David now takes not a mythological plot, but a historical one, although covered in legend. David's art style in this picture has already emerged quite clearly.

However, it is important to note that another work by David was exhibited in the same Salon - a portrait of Count Potocki (1781; Warsaw, National Museum). The reason for painting the portrait was a life episode: in Naples, David witnessed how Pototsky pacified an unbroken horse. Let Pototsky’s gesture greeting the viewer be somewhat theatrical, but by the way specifically, with all the characteristic details, the artist conveyed the appearance of the person being portrayed, how he deliberately emphasized the carelessness of clothing, how he contrasted the calm and confidence of the rider with the hot, restless disposition of the horse, it is clear that the artist was not interested in transmission is alien reality in its living concreteness. From then on, David’s work seemed to go in two directions: in historical paintings on ancient themes, the artist, in abstract images, strives to embody the ideals that worried pre-revolutionary France; on the other hand, he creates portraits in which he affirms the image of a real person. These two sides of his work remain separated until the revolution.

Thus, in 1784, David wrote the “Oath of the Horatii” (Louvre), which was David’s first real triumph and which, undoubtedly, was one of the harbingers of the Revolution. In “The Oath of the Horatii,” David borrows a plot from ancient history in order to embody the advanced ideas of his time, namely: the idea of ​​patriotism, the idea of ​​citizenship. This picture, with its call to fight, to accomplish a civil feat, is one of the brightest manifestations of revolutionary classicism with all its stylistic features. The soldier's triviality of taking the oath, the melodramatic pose of the father, and the mannered languor of the women make it difficult to see the artistic merits of this work. But at the same time, no one can forget that in this work for the first time, visual rhetoric is expressed with such simplicity, with such an ability to emphasize the contrast between the strength of warriors and the weakness of women.

As if making up for the lack of an individual, specific moment in the artistic structure of their historical compositions, David paints portraits of Mr. and Mrs. Pécoul (Louvre). If in “The Oath of the Horatii” the artist gives idealized, somewhat abstracted images, here, on the contrary, he resorts to affirming the material world without any idealization of it. The artist shows the ugly hands of his models with thick, short fingers, and in the portrait of Madame Pécoul, an obese neck, the skin of which hangs over the pearls. Thanks to the costume and type of this woman, nothing of classicism is felt in this portrait. From the study of the classical form, David gleaned only a powerful construction, which, on the one hand, emphasizes the vitality of the model, and on the other, its vulgarity.

David in his portraits represents what he directly observes in reality and, perhaps even without wanting it, creates images of people who are satisfied with themselves, with their wealth and willingly flaunt it.

The portrait “Lavoisier with his wife” (1788; New York, Rockefeller Institute) was painted in a slightly different manner. The beauty of linear contours, grace of gestures, grace, elegance and sophistication of images should convey the charming image of the scientist and his wife. A critic contemporary to David wrote: “... Lavoisier is one of the most enlightened and great geniuses of his century, and his wife, of all women, is most capable of appreciating him. In his painting, David conveyed their virtue, their qualities.” The concept of “virtue” is embodied here in living, concrete images.

If we talk about the artist’s style of writing in this first pre-revolutionary period, then we can note that already in 1784 he reached full maturity in the craft of art. The evolution of his style continues until the end of his life, but the basis - his virtuosity remains unchanged. However, David's first works were not yet classicist and bore the stamp of that 18th-century mannerism, the largest representative of which was Boucher. However, already in his first works, David reveals some insensitivity to color and a keen interest in conveying facial expressions. An excerpt from the memoirs of Etienne Delecluse clarifies this: “You see, my friend, what I called then untreated antiquity. Having sketched the head very carefully and with great difficulty, I returned to my room and made the drawing that you see here. I cooked it with a modern sauce, as I called it at the time. I frowned her eyebrows slightly, emphasized her cheekbones, opened her mouth slightly, that is, I gave her what modern artists call expression and what today I call a grimace. Do you understand, Etienne? And yet we have a difficult time with the critics of our time - if we worked exactly in the spirit of the principles of the ancient masters, our works would be found cold.”

Already in 1807, David understood that pure imitation of the ancients was cold and lifeless. And he departs from ancient models and introduces expression into the drawing.

But the path from conveying expression to realism is not far. The same perseverance of the master that David showed in imitation of the ancients, he put into the transfer of objects of the surrounding world. In “Distributing Banners,” one of David’s contemporaries admired the veracity of the depiction of the soldiers: “The face, height, even the thighs... are characteristic of this type of weapon: a squat infantryman, fit, with short legs, which distinguishes the people selected for these regiments.” But this was superficial realism, an accurate representation of visible reality, without the participation of imagination and with very little feeling. Hence the accusation against David of his lack of love for people, which was repeated several times in the future. But David's technique was crucial. Blanche believes that this technique is art: “art that is immediate, despite its apparent tension, a realistic, skillful craft of a conscientious worker ... something well made, modest, but resorting to crude effects.” And indeed, this realism of David, far from art, was unusually virtuosic and similar to classicism, which sought to create pure beauty. Only the depicted objects changed - an antique statue or living nature. But the process of depiction in both cases was identical, the virtuosity of the imitation was perfect and confident.

The consequence of this in David’s work was “courageous and powerful prose,” as Delacroix characterizes one of his paintings. But still prose, not poetry, was strengthened in relation to art as a means, not an end, as a means to achieve moral, social and political ideals.

CHAPTER 3. CREATIVITY OF THE MASTER DURING THE REVOLUTION. THERMIDORIAN COUP

At the Salon of 1789, which opened in an atmosphere of revolutionary tension, everyone's attention was drawn to the painting of David, exhibited under the title Brutus, First Consul, on his return home after condemning his two sons, who had joined Tarquin and were in a conspiracy against the Roman freedom; the lictors bring their bodies for burial" (1789; Louvre). The power of influence of this rhetorical picture of David on his revolutionary contemporaries seems to be explained by the fact that, taking a plot from ancient history, David again showed a hero for whom civic duty was paramount.

Revolutionary events gave a direct impetus to the further development of David's work. Now patriotic themes there was no need to look at all in antiquity; heroism invades life itself. David begins to work on a work that captures the event that occurred on June 20, 1789, when in the Ballroom the deputies took an oath “Under no circumstances will they disperse and gather wherever circumstances require until such time as a the constitution of the kingdom was established on solid foundations” (Louvre). In this picture, both of David’s tendencies noted above could merge together. Here the artist had the opportunity to express the idea of ​​citizenship in the images of his contemporaries. Apparently, this is exactly how David understood his task when he completed forty-eight preparatory portraits. And yet, when the drawing with the general composition was exhibited at the Salon of 1791, the artist wrote an inscription that he did not pretend to be a portrait resemblance. David wanted to show the revolutionary impulse of the people. A strict logical structure of the composition, pathetic gestures - all this was characteristic of David’s previous paintings. However, here the artist strives to make the audience feel the excitement and convey the feeling of a thunderstorm that really swept over Paris on the day of this significant event. The fluttering curtain brings an intense dynamism that is no longer characteristic of early works David. In addition, the feelings of each citizen are now not only subordinated to general enthusiasm, but are also marked by certain individual traits. This is David’s first work depicting a modern historical event, and in it he already speaks a slightly different language than in his paintings on ancient subjects.

More and more often, artists are beginning to be required to depict modern life. “The kingdom of freedom opens up new possibilities for art,” writes Quatremer de Quincey, “the more a nation acquires a sense of freedom, the more zealously it strives in its monuments to give a true reflection of its way of life and morals.”

Several paintings with revolutionary content were exhibited at the Salon of 1793. David responds to the tragic event of his era. He writes the murdered Lepeletier, a hero of the revolution who, like David himself, voted for the execution of the king and was killed by the royalists on the eve of the execution of Louis XVI. In everything, David remained faithful to the principle of classicism - the artist did not so much want to present a portrait of the murdered Lepeletye as to create the image of a patriot devoted to his homeland. The meaning of this painting is revealed by David himself in a speech delivered at the Convention on March 29, 1793, when presenting the painting: “A true patriot must diligently use all means to educate his compatriots and constantly show them manifestations of high heroism and virtue.” The picture has not reached us. Only Tardieu's engraving, based on David's drawing, has survived.

In the painting “The Death of Marat” (1793; Brussels, Museum), David took a different approach to depicting the murdered man, although the task remained the same - to influence the viewer’s feelings, to give him a lesson in patriotism. But another tendency in David’s art was organically combined with this task: the desire for a specific, individual characteristic that was inherent in his portraits.

When the news of Marat's murder came to the Jacobin Club, David, who was the chairman at that time, greeted the citizen who detained Charlotte Corday with a kiss. To the exclamation of one of those present: “David, you passed on to posterity the image of Lepeletye, who died for the fatherland, you only have to make one more picture,” David laconically replied: “I will do it.” He was deeply shocked and worked on his work with feverish speed. It was completed three months later, solemnly presented to the Convention and placed together with Lepeletier's portrait in the meeting room with a resolution "that they cannot be removed from there under any pretext by subsequent legislators."

David portrayed Marat as he imagined him at the moment of death: the feeling is preserved that Marat has just died, that an irreparable bitter injustice has just ended, the hand holding the pen has not yet unclenched, and the suffering wrinkle on his face has not yet been smoothed out, and at the same time the picture sounds like a requiem, and the figure of the murdered man sounds like a monument to him. David portrayed Marat in real life home environment, but the master rose above everyday reality and in this sense gave a sublimely heroic work. The artist found a synthesis of emotions of the momentary and the eternal, which is so rarely achieved. “A tragedy full of pain and horror” - this is what C. Baudelaire said about his work.

Appointed as the organizer of the funeral ceremony, David stated: “I thought that it would be interesting to present him as I saw him - writing for the sake of the happiness of the people.” For an analogy with David’s work, it is interesting to read the protocol message about his visit to Marat. “On the eve of Marat’s death, the Jacobin society instructed More and me to inquire about his health. We found him in a position that shocked me. In front of us stood a wooden stump on which ink and paper were placed. The hand, sticking out of the bathtub, wrote the last thoughts about the salvation of the people.”

“In this picture there is at the same time something tender and something grasping for the soul; in the cold air of this room, on these cold walls, around this cold and ominous bath, you can feel the breath of the soul,” wrote Charles Baudelaire. David never again rose to such artistic heights.

During the revolutionary years, David created a number of wonderful portraits in which he wanted to tell about his thoughts and the thoughts of his contemporaries. The search for greater expressiveness, the desire to convey the spiritual warmth of a person - this is the path of the artist’s further creativity in the field of portrait art. Increasingly, the artist presents his models against a smooth background in order to focus all the attention on the person. He is interested in a variety of psychological states. Calmness and serenity are palpable both in the facial expression and in the free, relaxed pose of the Marquise d'Orvilliers (1790, Louvre); in the feminine appearance of Madame Truden (c. 1790-1791, Louvre), hidden anxiety and seriousness are expressed. The pencil is sharply expressive The drawing is a portrait of Marie Antoinette (Louvre), made before her execution; it borders on caricature, revealing the artist’s powers of observation and ability to capture what is most characteristic.

Creative activity Before the Thermidorian coup, David was inextricably linked with the revolutionary struggle: he was a member of the Jacobin Club, a deputy from Paris in the Convention; he was a member of the commission on public education, and then on the arts, and was also a member of the Committee of Public Safety.

After the counter-revolutionary coup, David renounced Robespierre, but was still arrested and imprisoned. While in the Luxembourg prison, from its window he painted a poetic corner of the Luxembourg Gardens (1794; Louvre). Calm is spread throughout the landscape. And, on the contrary, in the self-portrait (1794; Louvre), also written in prison, and which remained unfinished, a completely different mood reigns. You can read confusion and anxiety in David’s gaze. Anxious sentiments are quite understandable for an artist who experienced the collapse of his ideals.

Simultaneously with the self-portrait, David creates other images. In the portrait of Serizia and his wife (1795; Louvre), the artist depicted people living easily and thoughtlessly. In the portraits of this time, David was primarily interested in social characteristics. With these works he seemed to show the complexity and inconsistency of that time.

In the same 1795, he conceived the painting “The Sabine Women Stop the Battle between the Romans and the Sabines” (Louvre; 1799), with which he wanted to show the possibility of reconciliation of parties standing on different political platforms. But the idea of ​​this painting was false, and it resulted in a cold, academic work. From this time on, the gap between the historical picture and the portrait, which could be observed in the work of David before the revolution, is again noticeable. In portraits, David vigilantly peers at his models and, along with similarity, strives to convey character, looking for the most suitable means of expression. It is interesting that some portraits of David at the end of the century were made in a new manner, as evidenced by the portrait of the young Ingres, unexpectedly soft and picturesque (c. 1800; Moscow, State Museum of Fine Arts named after A.S. Pushkin).

In the portraits of David, we can always guess the artist’s attitude towards the model, which was very clearly reflected in such works as “Bonaparte at the Saint-Bernard Pass” (1800; Versailles) and the portrait of Madame Recamier (1800; Louvre). One cannot help but admire this unique monument from the Consulate era, which reflects the aesthetic tastes of that time like a mirror. Turning to antiquity is now just an excuse to create special world, far from modernity, a world of purely Aesthetic admiration.

The unfinished portrait of Bonaparte, 1897 (Louvre) is distinguished by its vitality and dramatic expressiveness. In this work there is neither a predetermined idea nor the usual completeness of the picture for David.

In a completely different way, David paints an equestrian portrait of Bonaparte, “Napoleon’s Crossing of the Alps.” David now saw in Bonaparte only a victorious hero and accepted the order to portray him calm on a rearing horse. However, Bonaparte refuses to pose: “Why do you need a model? Do you think that great people in ancient times posed for their pictures? Who cares whether the similarities are preserved in the busts of Alexander. It is enough if his image corresponds to his genius. This is how great people should be written." David fulfills this desire and paints not a portrait, but more like a monument to the victorious commander. He seems to personify famous phrase Napoleon “I wanted to give France power over the whole world.”

Tore, in 1846, described this portrait as follows: “This figure on a horse has been reproduced thousands of times in bronze and plaster, on mantel clocks and on village chests, with an engraver’s chisel and pencil, on wallpaper and fabrics - in a word, everywhere. The piebald horse, rearing up, soars over the Alps like the Pegasus of war.”

In 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte became emperor, and David received the title of "first painter to the emperor." Napoleon demands praise of the empire in art, and David, on his orders, painted two large compositions, “The Coronation of the Emperor and Empress” (1806-1807; Louvre) and “The Oath of the Army to Napoleon after the Distribution of Eagles on the Champ de Mars in December 1804” (1810; Versailles) .

The portrait remains the strong point of David’s work until the end of his life; as for compositional works, they, having lost their former revolutionary pathos, turn into cold academic paintings. Sometimes he strict style gives way to pretentious sophistication and beauty, as, for example, in the painting “Sappho and Phaon” (1809; Hermitage).

In 1814, David completed the painting “Leonidas at Thermopylae” (Louvre), begun in 1800. In it he also wanted to express a big idea, as he himself said about it, “love for the fatherland,” but in reality it turned out to be a cold academic composition. Classicism of the late 18th century, which replaced rocaille painting and responded to the revolutionary ideas of that time, was now becoming obsolete, turning into official art, and progressive artists were looking for new forms of expression, striving for passionate, truthful art. David objected to this new art: “I want neither movement imbued with passion, nor passionate expression...” However, new trends penetrated more and more persistently into David’s portrait art.

The years of reaction followed, and in 1814 the Bourbons came to power. David is forced to go into exile, but despite this, in Paris his students continue to honor the cult of the maestro and await his return: “Your oldest students still love you...” - they write to David. During the period of emigration, along with inexpressive compositional works, such as, for example, “Mars disarmed by Venus (1824; Brussels, Royal Museum visual arts), he creates a series of portraits painted in different manners. Elaborate details characterize the portraits of archaeologist Alexandre Lenoir (1817; Louvre) and actor Wolf (1819-1823; Louvre). And, on the contrary, works are written in a generalized manner that can be called portraits of people who have lost their illusions.

Thus, all of the artist’s work during the revolutionary period can be called idealistic, since the glorification of political values ​​and civic duty towards one’s homeland reaches incredible heights. But, despite his such passionate love for her, the master ends his days without returning home. And as E. Delacroix would later say, “Instead of penetrating the spirit of antiquity and combining its study with the study of nature, David clearly became an echo of an era for which antiquity was only a fantasy.”

CONCLUSION

Summing up the results of this work, it should be noted that in his work David embodied the main stages in the development of the aesthetic consciousness of France in one of the most heroic periods of its history, which determines the special place of his art in European culture generally.

However, David was not only a famous painter. Having witnessed great historical events, he became an active participant in them, outstanding figure Jacobin dictatorship and the Convention, a representative of the Bourbon monarchy that crushed the Bourbon monarchy and the “third estate” that established its power, which created its own artistic style, the first outstanding master and head of which was David.

David's work is art inextricably linked with a clear ideology, with a conscious desire to create a new artistic system corresponding to a new era.

And although the origins of David’s art go back to the repertoire of creative forms and subjects characteristic of the second half of the 18th century, the master, in his new version of classicism, embodies with utmost clarity the abstract civic ideals of the era of the bourgeois revolution. At the same time, it was he who laid the foundations of modern realism, mainly in portraiture.

During the revolution, David's work was inspired by the advanced ideas of his time, which played a major political role in the history of France. Inspired by these ideas, David served the ideal of the revolution as a citizen and painter, setting an example of the organic and inextricable unity of creative and social activities artist. In those best years of his life, David created works that glorified his name in the history of world art, and, on the contrary, we see how his art declined after the Thermidorian revolution.

True to his class, which has already experienced a revolutionary upsurge, David renounces his revolutionary past, and in this renunciation the limitations of the entire revolution as a whole emerge. Having unconditionally sided with Napoleon, seeing in him his new ideal, David, however, tries in vain to achieve with the help of mastery alone what could only be created by inspiration drawn from great events. And no matter how hard the master tried, the “first painter of the emperor” was never able to equal the “first painter of the revolution.”

And, nevertheless, if we characterize all of David’s work, we can do this in the words of T. Gautier, who noted that “David, whose glory for a moment was eclipsed by the clouds of dust raised around the 1830s by the battle of the romantics and classicists, seems to us from now on, a master whom no encroachment can diminish.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Venturi L. Artists of modern times. M.: Foreign publishing house. Literary, 1956. p. 34-41;

2. General history of art. Art of the 19th century / Ed. Yu.D. Kolpinsky, N.V. Yavorskaya. T.5. M.: Art, 1964. p. 21-32;

3. Guillou J.F. Great paintings. M.: Slovo, 1998. p. 150-157;

4. David. The Death of Marat / Ed. N. Astakhova. M.: White City, 2002. 48 p.;

5. Dmitrieva N.A. A Brief History of Art. M.: Art, 1991. p. 250-252;

6. European painting of the XIII-XX centuries / Ed. V.V. Vanslova. M.: Art, 1999. p. 128-130;

7. European art of the 19th century / Ed. B.V. Weinmarn, Y.D. Kolpinsky. M.: Art, 1975. p. 22-28;

8. Jacques Louis David / author.-comp. V. Prokofiev. M.: Illustrate. Isk-vo, 1960. 60 p.;

9. Jacques Louis David / author-comp. E. Fedorova. M.: White City, 2003. 64 p.;

10. Zamyatina A.N. David. Ogiz: Izogiz, 1936. 124 pp.;

11. History of foreign art / Ed. M.T. Kuzmina, N.L. Maltseva. M.: Art, 1984. p. 258-260;

12. History of art of Western countries Europe XIX century. France. Spain / Ed. E.I. Rotenberg. St. Petersburg: DB, 2003. p. 111-112;

13. Kalitina N.N. French portrait XIX century. L.: Art, 1985. p. 11-56;

14. Knyazeva V. Zh.L. David. M.-L.: Art, 1949. 36 p.;

15. Mikhailova I.N., Petrashch E.G. Art and literature of France from ancient times to the 20th century. M.: KDU, 2005. p. 250-261;

16. Tsirlin I. French artists in the struggle for peace and democracy. M.: Art, 1951. 44 pp.;

17. Schnapper A. David is a witness of his era. M.: Illustrate. Isk-vo, 1984. 280 p.

Venturi L. Artists of modern times. M., 1956.

Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Jacques Louis David short biography French artist are outlined in this article.

Jacques Louis David biography briefly

Born 30 August 1748 years in the family of a wealthy businessman. The boy was left without a father early on; he was raised by his mother. Having become interested in drawing, in 1766 he entered a prestigious institution - the Academy of Art and Painting. Thanks to his teacher, the master of ancient art, Joseph Marie Vien, David was engaged in a detailed study of antiquity in the period 1775-1780. At the Academy, he became interested in the masters of the Renaissance, and this is noticeable in his creations.

He met his first love in 1782. She was Charlotte Pécoul. She eventually became his wife, with whom 4 children were born.

In 1784, Jacques Louis became a member of the Academy of Painting and from this year his successful career as an artist began. His long-time dream has come true - David begins to exhibit his paintings and his first fans appear.

At this time, revolutionary movements begin. And they take over young artist. He has been actively involved in them since 1792. Even paintings painted during the revolutionary period are political in nature. After the Thermidorian coup, Jacques Louis, along with the rest of its participants, was arrested. The family was very worried about him. The artist was soon acquitted and released.

With Napoleon's rise to power, David became his supporter. He soon won Napoleon's trust and became Bonaparte's sole and personal artist. After Napoleon's power fell, the artist fled to Switzerland with his wife and children. From there he moved to Brussels, continuing to work on new paintings.

Jacques Louis David was born on August 30, 1748 in Paris. And in 1857 he began studying at the College of the Four Nations on a course in rhetoric.

But when David was 9 years old, his father, a young wealthy businessman, died in a duel. Louis's mother took him out of college and gave her son to relatives to raise. Francois Buron and Jacques Demaison immediately noticed the child's artistic talent. They served as architects and wanted to pass on to him their craft, which provided a good income. But my nephew was not interested in the architecture. He drew enthusiastically, but looked at the drawings indifferently.

Buron took Louis to the famous Parisian artist Francois Boucher, and he, seeing David’s drawings, immediately gave the sixteen-year-old boy a letter of recommendation to Vienne, the main court painter.

Great Rome Prize

David became a student at the Royal Academy of Painting. He worked with great zeal and rapidly moved towards mastery. The dream subject of any academy student is the Great Rome Prize. Having received it, the artist had the opportunity to work calmly in Italy and study alongside renowned masters.

Without warning Vienne, David provided his work to the Academy's authorities. After a few months of training, he was allowed to participate in the competition. The first painting in his life, “The Battle of Mars with Minerva,” brought Louis only the second prize. David was disappointed.

David participated in the competition four times. Others received the award three times. Perseverance and skill acquired over the years saved them from despair. In 1774, the painting “Antiochus, son of Seleucus” brought David a long-awaited victory. He painted the picture in a new way: he arranged the figures in a row, abandoning the traditional pyramid.

David gradually became fashionable. There was a lot of work. Court ladies and high society ordered portraits.

Italy (1775 – 1780)

In Rome, David received permission to visit galleries that were closed to ordinary art lovers. In the Vatican he studies paintings by Caravaggio and Raphael. Makes pencil sketches with antique sculptures. There was no room left in his room for completed works. The drawing became simpler and stricter. Sometimes it took a day to accurately depict the smallest detail figures.

He liked to paint strong, muscular torsos. The artist saw support for his search for a strict composition in the majestic beauty of the ancient heroes.

Louis wrote a lot on the streets of Rome. His “The Triumph of Pavel Emil” (1778) was highly appreciated by the Academy.

Homecoming. "Belisarius"

David spent five years in Italy. For his return to the Academy, he prepared sketches for his future painting “Belisarius”.

In order to exhibit his paintings in salons, David needed to receive his first academic title, to be “ranked to the academy.” All the artist’s thoughts were focused on the painting, where he first decided to publish the ideas born of a painstaking study of antiquity. Belisarius in the painting of David sits on a stone. He is blind and does not see the world, but only listens to it.

The Academy Council unanimously approved the picture, and Jacques Louis became “admitted to the Academy,” which he persistently sought.

In August 1781, an art salon opened in the halls of the Louvre, where eight works by David were exhibited. Among them: “Holy Rock”, “Funeral of Patroclus”, “Portrait of Count Potocki”. For the first time, paintings told not about the love affairs of the gods, but about the sad roads of fate, kindness, and fidelity. Diderot himself wrote with delight about the young artist’s paintings.

The painter's fame grew. Aspiring artists came with requests to become his students.

In 1782, Louis met the daughter of an influential and noble nobleman, Monsieur Pécoul. And in May, the marriage of Margarita Charlotte Pecoul and Jacques Louis David took place.

"Andromache" and "Oath of the Horatii"

Life in France has changed. The center of political events moved from Versailles to the living rooms of aristocrats and bourgeois. David is working on a new painting, “Andromache Mourns the Death of Hector.” The painting completely captured the artist’s thoughts. But here from royal palace An order arrived for a series of paintings “The Good Deeds of Kings,” which was impossible to refuse.

David is looking for a plot in which he could, without departing from the ordered topic, realize his thoughts. This is how the painting “The Oath of the Horatii” was born. Three sons in battle garb stretched out their hands to their father. The old man blesses the oath of his sons and admonishes them before the battle.

“Andromache” brought David the title of academician, and “The Oath of the Horatii” brought him world fame. The news of the extraordinary painting instantly spread throughout the city, and crowds of fans besieged Louis's workshop. Rumors about the painting reached the Pope himself, and Pius VI conveyed a request to the French painter to bring “The Oath” to the Vatican.

Revolutionary Artist

The French Revolution captured David. He actively participates in the revolutionary movement.

1790 David becomes a member of the Jacobin Club and writes the Ballroom Oath.

1791 He organizes the ceremonial transfer of Voltaire's ashes to the Pantheon.

1792 David was elected a member of the National Convention.

1794-1795. The artist is imprisoned. Creation of paintings: “The Greengrocer” and “View of the Luxembourg Gardens”.

1800 Creation of a portrait of Napoleon.

1803 Awarding David with the Order of the Legion of Honor.

From 1803 – 1807. David - the emperor's first painter

1815 Napoleon meets David. Presentation of the Commander's Cross of the Legion of Honor. Expulsion from France.

1825 Death from cardiac hypertrophy.

The French authorities banned David's funeral in his homeland. He was buried in Brussels. Only David's heart, thanks to numerous requests, was buried in the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris.

Some of David's works have been lost, but the surviving paintings are evidence of the colorful life of the painter, the world's first famous artist who became a revolutionary.

Text: Alla Mistyukova

David Jacques Louis(David, Jacques-Louis)

David Jacques Louis(David, Jacques-Louis) (1748-1825), French painter, an outstanding representative of neoclassicism. He studied with Boucher and began working in the Rococo style, but after studying in Rome (1775-1780) and under the influence of the art of Ancient Rome, David developed a strict epic style. Returning to France, David found himself at the head of a movement that became a reaction to the “liberties” of Rococo and sought to express heroic freedom-loving ideals through the images of antiquity, which turned out to be very consonant with the public sentiment that reigned in France at that time. He created canvases that glorified citizenship, fidelity to duty, heroism, and the ability to self-sacrifice.

David was brought to fame by the painting “The Oath of the Horatii” (1784), depicting three twin brothers who, according to legend, won a duel with the three twin brothers Curiatius in a dispute about the power of Rome. David shared the ideals of the French Revolution and took an active part in political life. He was an active figure in the revolution, a member of the Convention (1789-1794), organized mass public festivals, and created the National Museum in the Louvre. In 1804 Napoleon appointed David "first artist". David glorified Napoleon's deeds in a number of paintings that signal David's transition from strict classicism to romanticism.

After the restoration of Bourbon power in 1815, David was forced to leave for Brussels. Since that time he has withdrawn from public life. David had many students, the most famous of them being Ingres. David's work had a huge influence on the subsequent development of European painting.

Paintings by Jacques Louis David:

1784

1800

Marina FROLOVA,
MHC teacher,
Khodyzhensk Krasnodar region

Works of Jacques Louis David

Target: trace how ideas are reflected in various types of art.

Tasks:

• Education of citizenship.
• Development of reader's interest.
• Formation of a moral position.
• Development of communication abilities.
• Self-determination on the subject of personal values.
• Aesthetic development of students.
• Speech development students.

During the classes

1. Generalization of previously studied material

The teacher invites students to look at the table.

Baroque	Classicism
Common features
Both styles are rhetorical. A writer, an artist influence the viewer, convincing him. General system of genres. General aesthetic categories (category of taste, educational function of art, desire to combine business with pleasure)
Differences
Opposite ideas, themes, things, phenomena, concepts coexist. Comic and tragic, high and low styles side by side, paired	Removing one thing from a pair (the contrast “high - low”). Classicism abandoned the inconsistency of the Baroque, stretched its bizarre forms into a straight line, and became the logical conclusion, but only of one part of it, which was now not opposed to anything
Mixes styles, is amazed by contradictions, admires them. The artist is not only a master, the idea of ​​divine inspiration, divine madness is alive	He does not mix styles, is not amazed by contradictions, but accepts them as a given. The idea of ​​divine inspiration disappeared. The master of the era of classicism continued only one tradition - the attitude towards art as a craft
	The imitation of nature continued. Imitating nature, the classicist sought to surpass it, focusing on a generalized image of beauty. The aesthetics of the ugly, which was in Baroque art, has disappeared. Classicism chose the “right” material from nature
The spiritual world of man is complex and tragic	Classicism recognized only harmony. The inner world of man ceased to be perceived tragically, the conflict from the internal (the struggle between sin and virtue) was transferred externally (feeling - duty)
Art is polysemantic, symbolic, every phenomenon of the world is connected with many others by a network of secret meanings. Nothing exists on its own, everything is a mystery, a mystery.	An unambiguous relationship between sign and meaning. There is no place for mystery - only reason
He who has not broken the rules is not a poet	Art no longer flows imperceptibly into life, and life no longer strives to resemble art. Everything was given a complete, strict form, and this was done according to strict rules.

2. Conflict between the individual and the whole that embraces him classical tragedy. Conversation

Teacher. At all times, people have been concerned about the place of the individual within the framework of the whole that embraces it. Antiquity has already recognized the right of an individual to his own voice, to his own truth. The Renaissance brought the idea of ​​the absolute self-worth of the individual. The value of an individual has finally ceased to be correlated with the position of this individual in society. But as time passed, the Renaissance idea of ​​the individual’s right to unlimited freedom also revealed its limitations. It turned out that due to the imperfection of human nature unlimited freedom for one becomes boundless lack of freedom for another.

And so the 18th century brought to the world a system of values ​​that was reflected in art through the aesthetics of classicism. One of its central ideas is “the mind has only one road.” You just need to find this best road of all possible. Fundamental to this system is the idea of ​​the absolute priority of the general over the particular. A hierarchy arose that claimed to be inviolable: above all the state, then the clan, at the very bottom - individual, which in itself is petty and pitiful, but is capable of acquiring some meaning only as a particle of a great whole. And what kind of person he is can be judged first of all by what kind of subject he is.

The basis of a classic tragedy is, as a rule, an insoluble conflict between feeling and duty. The stronger the suppressed feeling, the more honorable the victory over it.

Consider the tragedy of Pierre Corneille “The Cid”.

Exercise : retell the work based on the text.

Students. Before us spanish city. Two lovers live in it: Rodrigo Diaz and Jimena. Everything goes to a happy ending. And suddenly - a conflict between the fathers of the heroes: Father Rodrigo Don Diego was granted the position of mentor to the royal son. Jimena's father, Count Gormas, is unhappy with this:

No matter how exalted the throne is, people are all alike,
Even kings are capable of making mistakes,
And this choice is completely proven,
That real labor is at a low price...

As a result, Jimena's father slaps Rodrigo's father and then says:

Goodbye! Let the young prince, looking for an example in his homeland,
Reads the chronicle of your high life.
This is the price to pay for the insolence of a chatterbox
It will be decorated to a great extent.

Young Rodrigo faces a choice: on the one hand, passionate love for Jimena, on the other, the duty of revenge on her father:

I'm committed to an internal war
My love and honor in an irreconcilable struggle,
Stand up for your father, renounce your beloved!
He calls for courage, she holds my hand.
But no matter what I choose - to replace love with grief
Or vegetate in shame, -
Both there and here there is no end to the torment.
O evil destinies of treason!
Should I forget about the execution of the insolent?
Should I execute my Jimena's father?

But in the end, he makes the only right choice for the hero of a classic tragedy:

I owe it to my father more than to my beloved.
Will I die in battle, will I die, tormented by melancholy,
I will die with pure blood, just as I was born.
My already excessive carelessness.
We run to take revenge.
And putting an end to the hesitation,
Let's not commit treason:
Does it matter if the father is insulted?
What an insult was Jimena's father!

Rodrigo passionately loves Ximena, and this feeling is not at all destroyed by the decision made to take revenge. Victory over him is not at all a victory of the high over the low, but a victory of the high over the high.

Rodrigo eventually takes revenge and kills the offender. And now Ximena is faced with a choice: she has love for Rodrigo, but her duty to her father forces her to demand death penalty. Finally she decides:

To save your honor and find peace,
Send him to execution and die herself.

And only at the behest of the king the execution is not carried out.

Exercise

The tragic plot that formed the basis of Corneille’s tragedy “The Cid” has deep roots in world culture. In this regard, we can recall Shakespeare's tragedy Romeo and Juliet. Compare these tragedies. What do you find in common between them? Why such different outcomes? How can this be explained? What is the difference between the moral concepts of classicism and the Renaissance?

3. David. "Oath of the Horatii"

Work with text

Teacher. Let us turn to the work of the great French artist Jacques Louis David, and in particular to his famous painting “The Oath of the Horatii”. It was created under the impression of the tragedies of Corneille. This is no coincidence: we have already said that in the Age of Enlightenment, the theater played the role of a tribune and had a huge influence on minds.

The artist worked on the painting in Rome, the city where the events depicted took place. It was in Rome, as David later wrote, that “an inspiration came to him,” and he felt that “the very foundations of his manner were wrong.” It was in Rome that “the first steps along a new path” were taken. David studies the great heritage of the old masters, discovers the beauty of the lines and forms of their incomparable masterpieces.

But he still had a lot to change his mind, a lot to learn before “developing his own view of things,” before moving away from academic traditions and understanding that works of art must conceal “feelings and thoughts, strict and moral,” before finding own style of writing and go off the beaten path.

Did the great Italian painting, and primarily Raphael, influence the artist’s work? Yes, no doubt. Was he fascinated by the art of the ancients? Of course, especially since relatively recently, before the astonished eyes of David’s contemporaries, the quarters of Herculaneum and Pompeii, awakened from a centuries-old sleep, appeared and all of Europe was reading Winckelmann’s book dedicated to the treasures of ancient art. In ancient history, in ancient art artists were now increasingly finding themes and actions in tune with modernity. David studied ancient architecture and ancient plastic arts with delight.

Exercise: read an excerpt from A. Varshavsky’s text “Pelik with a Swallow.”

Text

(reworked for lesson)

...The Roman consul Junius Brutus, having learned that his sons had entered into a conspiracy against the republic, demanded their execution. With my own hand he signed the death warrant.

“The lictors bring the bodies of his sons to the house of consul Brutus” was the title of David’s painting.

In deep and sorrowful thoughtfulness, it depicted Junius Brutus, the republican Brutus, the one “whose firmness is indestructible,” as the poet Andre Chénier would later write about the image created by David, “who is more a consul than a father.” He fulfilled his duty, he severely punished those who planned evil against the fatherland. But he is also a father... After all, these are his sons, his flesh and blood...

The wife, who was unable to get him to cancel the sentence, is overcome with grief, and her daughter is in despair.

As if petrified, completely in the grip of the unfolding tragedy, Brutus sits, a man who remained faithful to high principles to the end. And the bodies of his dead sons are brought into the house for the last farewell.

Things from days gone by? Glorification of the distant past? But the pathos of the paintings was in love for the motherland, in the readiness to sacrifice personal feelings in the name of civic duty - everyone understood this. David addressed the minds and hearts of his compatriots, and something completely different from the conflict between Brutus and his sons arose in the minds of those who saw his work. Freedom, homeland, the fight against tyrants - this was the life of France, which rose from its knees, and the courageous painting of David told people a lot.

But there is no doubt that David was familiar with the books of the encyclopedists, which sounded like an alarm bell in the dark night of the absolutist monarchy throughout France. By birth, connected by blood with the bourgeoisie, striving for political power, leading the struggle against autocracy and class privileges, the artist could not help but sympathize with this struggle.

Freedom-loving ideas, no matter how hard the absolutist government of Louis XVI tried to destroy them, gained more and more supporters, and fewer and fewer defenders remained with the old order.

...He paid tribute to both mythology and classicism in his early works.

But already in 1781, David brought the painting “Belisarius Begging Alms” from Rome. The drama of its content made a strong impression. Civil motives permeated this canvas, dedicated to the commander, slandered, demoted and blinded by his emperor.

In antiquity, David looked for his heroes, but his creations were inspired by modern ideas.

So, a year later it was the turn of the “Oath of the Horatii.” As a matter of fact, it all began with the presentation of Corneille's tragedy about the heroic Romans. Last scene performance - an old father appeals to the people with a request to protect his son, who defended the honor and freedom of his native city - made a strong impression on the artist. Immediately, without delay, he made a pencil sketch.

Paris applauded the Horaces, and applauded the one about whom Voltaire said: “Cornel, the ancient Roman among the French, created the school of greatness of soul.”

And it was true.

At first, David decided to depict the final scene of the play that amazed him, but then abandoned this plan. For it was not at all the main thing in the history of the Horatii that she revealed. He saw something more important, more significant. He wanted to talk about actions that were in tune with his rebellious and turbulent era, to remind that people should be faithful to public duty, to find - even in antiquity - role models.

Did he already know at that time the words of Diderot addressed to contemporary artists: “You must glorify and immortalize great and beautiful deeds, honor virtue, stigmatize vice ...” - words that awakened hope and called for struggle? There is no direct data on this matter. But the idea that art does not exist for the entertainment of the nobility, the ideas about the social purpose of art, undoubtedly, were already close to him in those days.

...The legend said: in a difficult moment, when the fatherland was in danger and the question of whether Rome should be free or enslaved was being decided, three young heroes, the three sons of Horace entered into a mortal duel with the enemy.

Three for three. Against your friends, against your relatives. And they won, although the two Horaces were not destined to return home.

The most highly moral moment of this legend, told by the Roman historian Titus Livius, is chosen by David: the oath of the heroes before the battle, the oath to the father, the oath to the homeland. However, to be precise, he is speculating. For Livy does not have a word about the oath in the house of the Horatii. But is it really that important? Doesn’t the artist have the right to generalize and think out things?

Nothing superfluous, nothing distracting, dissipating attention, leading away from the main thing - this is how David saw the composition. The stern simplicity of feelings and the greatness of the moment must be matched by the stern simplicity of the design, reminiscent of antique designs.

He carefully studies costumes, hairstyles, weapons. He is looking for the most accurate solution: he is not satisfied with the initial sketch, in which the old father hands swords to his eldest son - both of them have their hands down, and it turns out that only the younger and middle brothers take the oath.

In Italy, in Rome he completes the picture.

And when David exhibited it in 1785 at the Salon, Paris gasped. She immediately became famous.

Three people - and a single impulse. Three people - and one will. In the name of their homeland they swear to win or die. Their faces are decisive and courageous, their arms are strong and muscular, and the defenders of freedom bring their faithful and valiant hearts to the altar of the fatherland.

Neither the tears of a mother mourning her sons going to mortal combat, nor the sadness of a sister engaged to one of the opponents, nor the grief of the wife of one of the brothers, the Curinatii sister, bending over her little daughter - nothing can turn the Horatii from decision taken. And the old father raised their military weapons high, as if blessing his sons for a feat of arms.

Freedom or death! Win or die!

In the appearance of his heroes there was an all-conquering and all-pervasive faith in man. Their impulse was pure and noble.

Little did David imagine then that just a few years later the battle cry would be “Freedom or Death!” - will sound over the entire rebellious France? That participants in revolutionary battles would be inspired by the images created by his inspiration? That before going to the front, the soldiers will look at the Horatii in excitement"? That, along with the Marseillaise, his painting will become one of the symbols of France rebelling against autocracy?

Assignments to the text

1. What legend formed the basis of the plot of the picture?
2. Which artist’s work prompted David to paint the picture?
3. How would you formulate the main idea of ​​the picture? Define ideological
the relationship between the works of Corneille and David.
4. What kind of response did the picture receive in society?

Working with illustrations

Prove that David’s painting “The Oath of the Horatii” belongs to classicism. ( Strict compliance with the genre - historical picture, allegorical and edifying plot, strict trinity of the composition: three groups of heroes, space divided by three arches, balance of the composition with the central figure of the father, antique paraphernalia.)

5. “The Death of Marat.”

Conversation

Teacher. So, let's turn to the last words of Varshavsky's text: “Could David have imagined then that just a few years later the battle cry would be “Freedom or death!” - will sound over the entire rebellious France? That participants in revolutionary battles would be inspired by the images created by his inspiration? That before going to the front, soldiers will look at the Horatii in excitement? That, along with the Marseillaise, his painting will become one of the symbols of France rebelling against autocracy?

He saw it with his own eyes.

What kind of events happened in France in the second half of the 18th century, which were a direct continuation of the Enlightenment philosophical views? (I asked the guys to prepare messages on this topic in advance.)

Students.

- Since 1774, France was led by King Louis XVI, who had absolute power. He was not a tyrant. He was strongly influenced by the idea of ​​an “enlightened monarchy,” according to which the ruler must first of all take care of the interests of the state and the welfare of the people. He tried to do it as best he could. France was a prosperous state. The entire population of the country was divided into three classes. The first two - the clergy and the nobility - were considered privileged. The third group included most of the population: peasants, artisans, workers, entrepreneurs. It was the third estate that paid most of the taxes. At the end of the 18th century, taxes became a real disaster for the country's working population. In addition, the peasantry still had to bear many duties that had survived from the Middle Ages. His situation was dire.

On July 14, 1789, the rebel Paris besieged and took the famous royal prison, the Bastille. It was a revolution in which the decisive role was played by the very third estate to which David belonged. On August 26, 1789, the Constituent Assembly adopted the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.” It said, in particular: “People are born and remain free and equal in rights.” Thus, the third estate secured political rights for itself.

The situation in the country became tense. The Constituent Assembly was split into various political factions. Austria and Prussia moved their troops to Paris. On January 21, 1793, the guillotine knife cut off the king's head. The chronology and names of the months were changed. A dictatorship was established inside the country, which faced fierce resistance. Many of the French, who sincerely welcomed the revolution of 1789, did not want to tolerate a revolutionary dictatorship. In July 1793, Charlotte Corday stabbed Marat with a dagger, considering him the main culprit in reprisals against opponents of the dictatorship.

Teacher. Who is Marat and what is his role and position in revolutionary Paris?

Students.

- Marat published the newspaper “Friend of the People.” In one of his articles, he wrote: “Start by capturing the king, the dauphin and the royal family, put them under strong guard, and let them answer for everything with their own heads. Then, without any hesitation, cut off the heads of the counter-revolutionary generals, ministers and former ministers... Now that you have unwisely allowed your inexorable enemies to plot and accumulate their forces, it may be necessary to cut off five to six thousand heads. But even if you had to cut off twenty thousand, you cannot hesitate for a single minute.”

Marat was treated differently. On the one hand, he was devoted to the cause of the revolution. On the other hand, it was with his name that all the horrors of revolutionary terror were associated.

Teacher. Marat called for terror during his lifetime, but his death served as the impetus for the “great terror.” The term “enemies of the people” appeared. The vague definition of “enemies of the people” was used to destroy not only the conspirators, but also popular politicians, everyone who threatened the new government. Look at David's painting "The Death of Marat". Describe what you see.

Students. Marat lies back on the back of the bathtub covered with a white sheet, completely defeated. His right hand hangs lifelessly, and a quill quill is still clutched in his fingers, the tip stuck into the floor. In his left he holds a piece of paper - a letter from Charlotte Corday, with which she came to him. A strand of black hair escapes from under the towel with which he tied his head. Mouth half open. The face expresses suffering.

Teacher. Why did Marat receive a visitor in the bathroom?

Students. He was seriously ill, a bath eased his condition, so he worked in the bathroom.

Teacher. The artist painted this picture on behalf of the Convention. Subsequently he will say: “I heard the voice of the people, I obeyed.” A friend of the people who died for their happiness - this was Marat for David, who actively participated in the revolution. It takes him three months to paint his picture. It's almost document-accurate. Everything was as it was - the bath, and the mortally wounded Marat, and the piece of paper in his hand, and the wooden block next to the bath, and the inkwell, and the papers. And at the same time, the mournful grandeur of the scene shook hearts. The solemn requiem resembled a painting, stern and heroic. The picture deeply expresses the ideas of civic courage, selfless service to the cause, and love of freedom. Strict and simple colors. “Whoever dies for the fatherland has nothing to reproach himself with.” The paintings “The Death of Marat” and “The Oath of the Horatii” are connected with this idea.

Did David think that he captured the tragedy of the entire people on this canvas? The French are waiting ahead tragic events: brutal terror, then the execution of those who unleashed this terror. Before his execution, Robespierre will say: “The revolution devours its children.” Then Napoleon's empire, defeat in the war with Russia.

Such is the power of a true artist - in his work he always says more than is revealed to his contemporaries.

6. Generalization and conclusion

David's creativity belongs to two directions. If its first part is given to classicism, then the second is the beginning of a new direction, romanticism. It is closely connected with the era of the French Revolution, to which he remained faithful to the end: after the Bourbon restoration, the artist went into exile. He died abroad in 1825, and the French government flatly refused to allow David's body to be transported to his homeland. Only his heart was taken to Paris.