In the Metropolitan Museum of Art lies two distinct pieces of modern masterpieces one tells a story a century after Isaac Newton still mired in the legacy of Greek Philosophers. On the other end sits another portrait from a Baroque legend, hailing from different periods the two are separated by respective art movements, religious and scientific symbolism. This discourse compares and contrasts Jacques Louis David’s portrait of French Noble’s Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794) and His wife Marie Anne Pierrette Paulze(1758-1836) and a self-portrait of Rubens, His Wife Helena Fourment (1614-1673) and their Son Frans(1633-1678). The paper further affirms the former as typifying the transition from Baroque period religious narratives to new age scientific symbolism.
Overview
Published on the cover of as ‘The Chemical Revolutions’ the commemorative booklet produced by the National Historic Chemical Landmark program of the American Chemical Society, is Jacques Louis David’s portrait of French Noble’s Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794) and His wife Marie Anne Pierrette Paulze(1758-1836). The double portrait of the two French chemist keens add the four elements of Aristotle earth, air, fire, and water into their commission. Contextual theories affirm that the medieval alchemist had added their own arcane jargon and symbolism in an age where chemistry did not qualify as a true science, unlike physics.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, Rubens, His Wife Helena Fourment (1614-1673) and their Son Frans(1633-1678) is layered religious symbolism. Reben focused most of his pieces on religious narratives and ancient mythology but would occasionally explore different themes. As the messages embedded in his piece from the symbol of the Virgin Mary thus an ideal mother figure, a parakeet on the top right corner all easily identified and recognized in the 1600’s. Perpetuating his interest in time, where he portrays himself as a middle-aged man with a gazed directing the viewer to the secondary subject, his second wife Helena.
Comparison.
A critique of the two art pieces along formal art criticism theories best exemplifies how the two pieces in the New York-based Museum compare. To begin with, they are both portraits whose subjects are romantically engaged and also happen to work together. The portrait of French Noble’s Antoine Rubens depicts the chemist and his wife Marie Ann, the official Parton of the piece. Rubens features his second wife Helena besides their son. Besides their love engagement for instance, after her marriage to Rubens on December 6, 1630, Helena became the model and inspirational paintings to his husband. As for the French Noble couple despite having commissioned their piece, they posed as lovers however much keen to include symbols hinting their working relationship as Chemists.
Contrast
The pieces two as separated by time are distinguished further by distinct themes that inspire each as investigated along expressive theories. For Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794) and His wife Marie Anne Pierrette Paulze(1758-1836) creatively incorporated into the painting was the scientific concept of Phlogiston. This was a dominant chemical concept of the 18th Century as it readily explained many chemistry notions at a glimpse. The scene reflected the deep chemical Heritage of Laurent Lavoisier. He showed an early inclination TO quantitative measurement On his part, Reuben typifies Baroque period art that was mainly patronized by the church hence sought most of its inspiration from religious allegories and thrived in sacred symbols. The Artist dwells on abstract themes as religion and romantic engagement, non the less the present composition was greatly revised as noted by the museum to shift the attention and emphasis from Reuben the dominant half of the courtly couple to Helena. They sought to portray her as the ideal wife and mother. The parrot a historic figure of the virgin mary hints to ideal motherhood while the caryatid, fountain, and garden setting further cement the theme by implying fertility.
Each typifying dominant subjects of the art movement that they distinctively belong to, for Laurent Lavoisier depicting one of the most pressing issues of in emerging sciences of chemistry and physics. Combustion was still unexplained and one of the dominant theories speculated that burning materials contained phlogiston coined from a Greek term for burn. On his part, Reuben reflective of dominant beliefs and attitudes in the 1600’s his composition was male-dominated, constrained and restricted to Christian dogmatic symbolism that characterised the Baroque period.
In conclusion, the two murals that sit in the Metropolitan Museum of Art are undoubtedly among the most priced and intrinsic pieces of art inherited from history. Unified by similar subject matters, mediums, colors, lines, as well as other elements of art. In addition to being unified by elements and principles of art, they both portraits whose subjects are romantically engages and also happen to work together. However, the two are separated by time periods worked are distinguished further by distinct themes that inspire each as investigated along expressive theories. Despite both being portraits, one expresses the optimism of18th Century scientific discoveries. The predecessor is reminiscent of 17th Century Christian society that is highly indoctrinated leaving little room for artistic expression beyond familiar themes depicted in even familiar symbols.
