French writer Hugo in his "Les Miserables", shaped a poor family - Dana first. Full of fraud and evil, this is the state of poverty in cold interpersonal relationships, which makes people feel the horror of poverty even more. In fact, poverty has another taste, just like what our traditional Chinese thought says, the spirit of being poor and happy. From the point of view of modern people's concept of living material, this kind of spiritual experience is really too much. However, the unique warmth of poverty is not available in other material states. I think this is why Sakyamuni abandoned the worldly enjoyment, and many talents were willing to be in poverty and put their lives into creation. Here, the life practice of French painter Miller is a good proof. When he was young, Miller followed his parents to plough the fields, mowing grass, sunning grain, ploughing, and sowing... His loving and religious grandmother said to Miller something that influenced his life: "You must follow the will of God and live frugally. Life." God, this painter may not have seen it before, and the simple life is accompanied by almost his whole life, which is the comfort he chooses.
Jean-François Miller was born on October 4, 1814 in a village in Normandy, France, and died on January 3, 1875. The great painter was born and died on a very ordinary day, and the man looked so ordinary, like a typical French peasant in the 19th century. The French writer Romain Rolland wrote a book, Miller the Painter of the Land, in which he described Miller in this way: "Miller's art has been recognized as the poem of country life . . . Compare the work with Hesid's poems, in which the mysterious abstractions of the ancient Greek poet and thinker were discovered by surprise in later generations, along with his "Almanac of the Good Peasant." Some of Le's works are reminiscent of those medieval calendars in which Catholic printmakers and French and Flemish bookbinders painted with tireless interest the grandeur of rural life. It's just that Miller's 'almanac' is a calendar without festivals, it's just a portrayal of labor and a gospel of farm life."
As a peasant painter, Miller enthusiastically created paintings with the theme of peasants in the 19th century, and almost became the spokesperson of peasant life. Here, as evidenced by Miller's "Farmhouse", poverty is almost a beautiful landscape here. The scene shown by the painter: the couple is in the dim light, the man is weaving, the woman is sewing, this is a hard and poor way of life. But what the painter reflects is his own psychological state, there is an unknown creation, or a creation that does not need to be known. In this painting, the back and side of the two figures, the daily necessities and the spatial expression of the room all seem to set off the lighting in the prominent position of the picture. Miller's unique expression of light shows his strong and simple personal style, from which we can well experience his psychological state and silently exude a warm atmosphere. We can also realize from the painting that this is also a kind of psychological satisfaction of the painter, a creative attitude of escapism. I don't have to tell you all about my comfort. Maybe this is Miller's solitary thought, lingering in his chest for a long time, and at this time he will never think of the question of being famous.
Miller came to Paris, the capital of art, to study painting when he was young, under the tutelage of the painter Dela Roche. The hedonism prevails in this prosperous city, full of works that are sluggish, pretentious, and flashy. In order to support his family, he had to paint some Rococo-style fragrant paintings that imitated Poussin and Fragonard, and sold them in painting shops. In fact, this is incompatible with Miller's frugal character. He realizes that he does not belong to Paris. As the son of a peasant, he prefers to use his own brush to depict the simple and industrious image of French peasants.
It was also a coincidence. At the turn of the spring and summer of 1849, a plague broke out in Paris. Miller, his wife and children left Paris and went to the countryside 90 kilometers away in Barbizon. It is surrounded by the beautiful Fontainebleau forest on one side, and wide fields on the other three sides. At this time, Barbizon was still quite desolate, and the farmers there were as simple as Miller's hometown. The painter was a little excited and couldn't help saying: "I have found my home!" The house he rented was a tall old house made of stone. The bedroom and kitchen in the house were simply furnished, and there was an iron stove in the center of the studio. , a few wooden cabinets and a small bed are placed in the corner. The stone walls outside the house are covered with plants such as ivy and frangipani, exuding the unique atmosphere of the country. Miller really spent the last 27 years of his life here.
In the early days of his residence in Barbizon, he had to work in the fields every morning to make a living, and only picked up his brushes in the afternoon, so that the villagers mistakenly thought that he had made trouble in Paris and came here to avoid trouble. There are also records that on cold days, he was thinly dressed, had no food in his stomach, shivered in a house without a fire, and had to rely on charitable relief to survive. That is to say, in such difficult days, Miller painted a series of classic works such as "The Sower". Whether it is the style of thought or the tempering of performance techniques, his perspective is original, but his dejected mood can not be seen at all. . As far as the work "The Sower" is concerned, it was praised by Victor Hugo when it was exhibited at the Paris Salon, and repeatedly praised by the younger painter Vincent van Gogh, who also copied this painting more than once. The masterpiece has become a classic of realistic painting in the history of art.
The characters in Miller's paintings are not very detailed, the facial features are blurred, and only large outlines with great expressiveness are drawn with thick lines. He uses this generalized shape to create a touching simplicity that permeates the tranquility of the countryside and the tenderness of people in this atmosphere. The painting "Bird's Feeding" has the fullest expression. Three children are sitting in sequence on the threshold, looking very innocent, waiting for their mother to feed them spoon by spoon. It can be said that this is a very life-like scene, handled by Miller uniquely and warmly, full of human brilliance. Anyone who is a parent, watching this picture, will surely forget the annoyance between them bickering over trivial matters. Anyone who has not yet become a parent, watching this painting, must suddenly feel the lack of his life.
A simple way of life and a warm living atmosphere are the keynotes of many of Miller's works, but he also has powerful masterpieces. If Chopin's music is a cannon among flowers, then Miller's "The Gleaners" is difficult for small daisies. Covered heavy artillery. The artist's most famous painting, with its simplicity and beauty, became a declaration of social injustice.
After The Gleaners was exhibited at the Salon of 1851, it aroused widespread concern and controversy in the public opinion circles. On the one hand, conservative critics attacked The Gleaners as a metaphorical work in which the painter contained political leanings, and peasants protested. An article in Le Figaro even luridly said: "Behind these three gleaners standing out in front of a cloudy sky, there are knives and guns of popular uprising and the guillotine of 1793." And on the other side, liberals The illustrious work was vigorously defended, and the young art critic Castania praised the painting as a "true, great naturalistic masterpiece".
Julie Castanelli, one of Miller's art apologists, explained The Gleaners more thoroughly: "Modern artists believe that a beggar in broad daylight is indeed more beautiful than a king on a throne; . . . As the owner's cart full of wheat moaned under the weight in the distance, I saw three stooped peasant women picking up the harvested fields, and it was more painful than seeing the martyrdom of a saint grabbing my The mind. This oil painting is a terrible apprehension. It is not a passionate political speech or a social treatise like some of Courbet's paintings. It is a work of art, of a very simple beauty, its subject Very moving, yet so frank and precise. It rises above ordinary partisan debate, so that without lying or exaggeration, it presents that true and great chapter of nature, like Homer and Virgil's Psalms."
In 1859, Miller completed The Evening Bell. This painting profoundly reflects the spiritual life of a peasant couple. After a day of hard work in the fields, the mist of dusk has shrouded the earth. The church bell in the distance rang, and the couple habitually bowed their heads and took off their hats to pray. The painter focuses on depicting the devotion to fate of these two figures, who thank God for the grace of their day's labor and ask for blessings.
When Miller continued to send these oil paintings on the theme of rural life to the Paris exhibition, even his former teacher Dela Roche could not help but praise the achievement of the student! At this time, he may have forgotten the rustic words he once rebuked the student. One more thing to say here, as long as a person truly loves art, there are subjects suitable for his temperament waiting for him to discover. When The Evening Clock was exhibited at the Salon, it was quickly purchased by a Belgian government minister, Van Praet. Later, almost the whole world knew about the work, it changed hands several times, the price continued to rise, and thousands of reproductions of the oil painting appeared all over the world. However, Miller is still Miller. Although his material life has improved, he is always in embarrassment, and sometimes even a few sketches can only be exchanged for a pair of children's shoes. After the painter's death, France spent more than 800,000 francs to buy back the painting "Evening Clock", which the artist could never dream of in his artistic dream anyway. For the painter Miller, this is really a bit too cruel black humor.
While "The Evening Bell" and "The Cow and the Peasant Woman" were exhibited at the Salon, the other "Death and the Woodcutter" was not selected at the Salon. This is a symbolic work with profound meaning. At the edge of the forest, an old man gathering firewood met the god of death. It carried a scythe for mowing grass and an hourglass that symbolized time. The difference is that the god of death is often a black cloak. , the painter expresses it as white, is this showing its nobility? There was also a popular saying in Europe at the time that the rioters were hiding in the forest. The painting caused great disagreement among the Salon jury and was eventually rejected. During this period, the members of the Salon selection committee included a group of authoritative figures such as painter Ingres. In this regard, Miller's enemies and friends thought it was the jury's disrespect to the artist, because the impression of Miller's works in people's hearts was already a representative of social moral force.
If we pay a little attention, we will find that many of Miller's paintings use the flag colors of the French Republic, which is often overlooked. The painter contains his own political attitude in it-the peasants are the cornerstone of the republic? Or did the Great Revolution not change the fate of the peasants? Or both, we can't go into details. This is a question worthy of in-depth exploration in the history of art.
When creation is a necessity of a person's life, not for a better material life, but indeed for psychological needs, that is a real creation. Miller would be troubled by the hardships of life during his lifetime, but he still devoted his life to painting, which may be the pleasant feeling that others do not want to experience, or that they cannot experience.
%20(29).jpeg)