By making his subjects appear well-fed and well-clothed (for peasants), I don't know that he is trying to make them more 'palatable' for the viewers. Rather, he seems to be portraying them them with dignity to avoid pity from the viewer. They are his people, after all.
One thing that also stands out is the stooped backs of these women (echoed and reinforced by the rounded haystacks in the background) and how painful such postures can be after only a few minutes. The woman on the far left even has one hand on the small of her back to try to minimize the discomfort. Their suffering, which is dramatic and harsh, is in stark contrast to the beauty of the soft colors and hazy romanticism of the scene. He draws you in, literally, beauty, and then confronts you with the poverty and suffering of these women.
Dont forget this is only these two people's opinions of what this picture represemts . Millet never said any of these things. It can be looked at from very different viewpoints.
I do wonder about this hazy soft quality for such a harsh subject.. Whenever I hear about gleaning, I think of the OT Israelites (especially Ruth and Boaz) - another marginalized, potentially disruptive population. I'm guessing they weren't on Millet's mind, though. This is bittersweet for me. I feel as though I'm gleaning in a sense but also very grateful that I'm not even close to it.
I have many unanswered questions. Would Millet have agreed with this interpretation? Are there any newspaper articles of the time which confirm that Parisians were fearful about the painting? Have the colors in the painting darkened over the years? The interpretation I have heard in the past is that Millet was depicting the "noble poor." There is no indication in the painting that these poor women were preparing for a revolution. I ask about the color darkening because of the woman on the right. She seems dark compared to the other two women. Is she a different ethnicity from the other two?
By making his subjects appear well-fed and well-clothed (for peasants), I don't know that he is trying to make them more 'palatable' for the viewers. Rather, he seems to be portraying them them with dignity to avoid pity from the viewer. They are his people, after all.
One thing that also stands out is the stooped backs of these women (echoed and reinforced by the rounded haystacks in the background) and how painful such postures can be after only a few minutes. The woman on the far left even has one hand on the small of her back to try to minimize the discomfort. Their suffering, which is dramatic and harsh, is in stark contrast to the beauty of the soft colors and hazy romanticism of the scene. He draws you in, literally, beauty, and then confronts you with the poverty and suffering of these women.
Don't say romanticism
A copy of this picture hung in my elementary school. I never dreamed what was represented there!
Dont forget this is only these two people's opinions of what this picture represemts . Millet never said any of these things.
It can be looked at from very different viewpoints.
@@axiomist1076What's your opinion on what the lives of gleaners were like?
It is the representative work of Millet along with 'The Angelus'.
Love the muted palette... very Chardinesque : )
Great comments, thank you.
How much is the painting worth today the GLeaners worth today
Reducing a painting to an amount of money someone might be willing to pay for it, is to miss its true value.
thank you so muchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
I do wonder about this hazy soft quality for such a harsh subject..
Whenever I hear about gleaning, I think of the OT Israelites (especially Ruth and Boaz) - another marginalized, potentially disruptive population. I'm guessing they weren't on Millet's mind, though.
This is bittersweet for me. I feel as though I'm gleaning in a sense but also very grateful that I'm not even close to it.
How could they not be on his mind?
@@jennifergersch9126cause he’s dead.
✌✌✌👍👍👍
I have many unanswered questions. Would Millet have agreed with this interpretation? Are there any newspaper articles of the time which confirm that Parisians were fearful about the painting? Have the colors in the painting darkened over the years?
The interpretation I have heard in the past is that Millet was depicting the "noble poor." There is no indication in the painting that these poor women were preparing for a revolution.
I ask about the color darkening because of the woman on the right. She seems dark compared to the other two women. Is she a different ethnicity from the other two?
They're wearing the colors of the Flag of France.
Jean-François Millet The Gleaners