I recently visited the exhibit “Capturing Nature’s Beauty: Three Centuries of French Landscapes” at the Getty Center in Los Angeles. There were more than 40 drawings from various artists, each unique in depicting French landscape tradition. I was intrigued by the contradiction of this exhibit because the artists depicted a realistic portrayal of natural beauty yet it was idealistic in its approach. Specifically, two different paintings each by a different artist caught my attention, for the better or for the worse.
The first painting that captivated me was “Landscape with a Bare Tree and a Plowman” by Léon Bonvin. Out of the entire exhibition, this was my most favorite painting. It was the contrast of colors that made it so appealing to the eye. When I initially saw this painting, it made me feel calm and content. The tranquil peach-ish sky melted into the dark musky ground. What was so odd to me was that a naked, scrawny tree was the center of attention. The farmer was so minute in comparison to this huge tree that I only came to realize that the plow boy was actually present after gazing at the painting for 15 minutes. It is only when you step a foot away from the painting that you can actually see the man. The first question that came to my mind was why is this less-than-perfect tree so important while the farmer is almost invisible? Is the artist highlighting the beauty of imperfections in nature as superior to the human life? I think Bonvin wanted his viewers to formulate their own answers and interpretations for these questions. The painting uses a variety of shades of browns and earthen colors. The setting of this painting is a dusky dawn in the middle of a simple and picturesque farmland. Bonvin uses brown ink and water colors for this painting. It was a very realistic landscape, but simultaneously the soft colors made the picture idyllic and charming.
Very different from the previous painting, “Ruins of an Imperial Palace, Rome” by Jean-Honoré Fragonard initially confused me. The drawing was cluttered and crowded,so it was unclear where to focus on. Without the title, I could not tell what the artist was trying to depict. The drawing was done in red chalk and the artist differentiated objects by using different shades of a rustic red color. For using only one color, the artist was very meticulous in the differentiating the details. I enjoyed the sharp contrast the artist was making between nature and the building itself.While the building was collapsing, nature was still left untouched, empowering the role of nature in the painting. However, I found this picture very bland and monotone. The lighting used made the setting seem stormy and gloomy. It definitely gave a vibe of destruction and despair. The artist used a low viewpoint, which made the overall outlook awkward and incomplete. Overall, this was my least favorite painting in the exhibition.
I really enjoyed looking at the paintings in the “Capturing Nature’s Beauty: Three Centuries of French Landscapes” exhibition. Each of them was unique and represented the painter's style and meaning. I am really into landscape paintings, so this was especially interesting to me. Also, another plus point is that it is at the Getty Center, which is an artwork in itself!
If you want to visit this exhibition, it is going on until November 1, 2009. I highly recommend you go!
