Rubens and Delacroix: Emotional
Innovators
“Do we admire? Not always. Can we remain unmoved? Scarcely ever.”
This quote concerns the work of Peter Paul Rubens, but could just as easily
apply to the work of Eugène Delacroix. Both were deeply emotional
painters, both used vibrant colour to good effect, and both aroused intense
emotions in their audiences.
Peter Paul Rubens was born in Westphalia in 1577, but would spend most
of his life (and be identified with) the country of Flanders. He was accepted
into the service of the Duke of Mantua, and his first style of painting,
understandably, was Italian. Mannerism dominated his very early work,
then he moved toward Baroque, influenced by Bassano and Veronese (also
a strong influence on Delacroix). He absorbed knowledge and style from
the Baroque and Classical schools, merging the two into his own unique
style. His diplomatic missions for the Regent of Netherlands took him
to Spain, Paris, and England—giving him the opportunity to learn
from the art of those countries as well.
All of this contributes to, but does not totally define, Rubens’
style. He was a master in his own right, who knew how to take the best
from others and make it completely his own. He developed a technique for
painting skin which gave it a luminescent, realistic glow; he revolutionized
the art of colour; he merged the love of the classical with a passion
for the romantic. All of this would greatly influence the art of Eugène
Delacroix, one hundred and fifty years later.
Eugène Delacroix was born in 1798, just one year before the French
Revolution. The political scene in France, while he was never active in
it, was very important to the work of Delacroix in three ways: his attitude
toward it, his choice of subjects, and the acceptance of his work by others—or
would non-acceptance sometimes be more appropriate? For Delacroix was
not universally loved during his lifetime, as was Rubens. His raw emotionalism,
slightly ahead of its time, was not always appreciated, and often offended.
The effect of politics on Delacroix is interesting, but needs a paper
of its own. Although he studied under the strict classical regimen of
Guérin’s school, he never embraced the classical style as
did others of his time, such as Ingres. Rather, he followed in the footsteps
of Théodore Géricault, preferring to paint intense dramatic
scenes portraying death or cruelty. Many of these paintings, particularly
Death of Sardanapalus, were quite controversial at the time and
were denounced by an outraged public.
However, having some amount of independent wealth, Delacroix was not
kept from painting as he saw fit. A trip to England enhanced his understanding
of how to use landscape to evoke emotion, and a trip to Morocco gave him
his perfect human model in the Moroccans—classical and dignified,
yet exotic and dramatic.
Many of his paintings are now masterpieces and have heavily influenced
Impressionism.
I would like to use a few of the works of Rubens and Delacroix to show
more extensively the similarities and differences in their styles. Delacroix
admired Rubens immensely, and learned much from his use of colour.
PORTRAITURE
Albert and Nicolaas Rubens (c. 1625) by Peter Paul Rubens (Colorplate
I)
Self-Portrait (1835-1837) by Eugène Delacroix (Colorplate
II)
I am sure that Rubens painted more famous portraits than this one of
his two sons, but it happens to be one of my personal favorites. Delacroix’s
portrait of Paganini is certainly more famous than this self-portrait,
but I think this one is more representative of his overall portrait style.
Albert and Nicolaas is painted sharply and realistically, with
the glowing skin tones so characteristic of Rubens. On the other hand,
Self-Portrait, while giving us a good idea of what Delacroix
looked like, is painted swiftly and without crisp delineation. Rubens
uses bright colours in his painting, particularly on the blue coat of
Nicolaas. Delacroix’s portrait is much darker, suiting the romantic
style, but he has utilized some of his knowledge of colour in the face
and hair, making himself look alive, but sickly—which he was.
Rubens’ portrait is intended both to tell us about his sons and
what they were like and also to make a commentary on the transitoriness
of youth (through the flight of the goldfinch held by Nicolaas, as well
as the expression on his face). Delacroix wanted us not only, and probably
not primarily, to know what he looked like, but about his thoughts, temperment
and personality.
MYTHOLOGY
Ganymede and the Eagle (c. 1611-1612) by Peter Paul Rubens
(Colorplate III)
The Bark of Dante (1822) by Eugène Delacroix (Colorplate
IV)
Delacroix depended more on current events and the literature of his
own time than on Greek and Roman mythology for his subjects; therefore,
his famous painting of Virgil guiding Dante through the Inferno was the
closest I could come to a mythological painting by Delacroix. However,
mythology was a huge inspiration to Rubens, as well as most other artists
of his time.
Ganymede tells the story of a youth, Ganymede, who was abducted
by Jupiter in the form of an eagle and taken back to Mount Olympus. The
skin tones here are, again, lovely. The composition is wonderful, with
the figure eagle carrying Ganymede echoing the lines of the youth’s
body. The angels on the left are done in soft, light tones, evoking an
airy and otherworldly sense, while Ganymede and the eagle are crisp and
well-defined.
The Bark of Dante was one of Delacroix’s early paintings,
strongly influenced by The Raft of the Medusa (Colourplate XI),
painted by his close friend Théodore Géricault. It is active,
horrifying, and intended to bring out intense emotions. Virgil and Dante
in the boat are dark-skinned and not very distinctive; the bodies of the
soulless men in the Inferno have a deathly pale to them.
It was in Dante that Delacroix made his first advances in the
field of colour, by putting the colours of the drops of water on one man’s
skin side by side rather than on top of each other. Rubens had used similar
techniques, and both men were the supreme colourists of their day.
Rubens’ painting has emotion through movement, and movement through
composition. Delacroix’s painting has emotion through colour and
subject. Rubens idealizes his youth in the classical-Baroque style, while
the men in Dante are little more than instruments to convey the painter’s
personal emotions.
MASTERPIECES
Descent from the Cross (1611-1614) by Peter Paul Rubens (Colourplate
V)
Death of Sardanapalus (1826) by Eugène Delacroix (Colourplate
VI)
Descent From the Cross was painted to be the centerpiece of
the altar at Antwerp Cathedral. Again, it shows Rubens’ skill at
composition, using the diagonal body of Christ to create movement and
dynamism. It is painted less distinctly than either Albert and Nicolaas
or Ganymede, with quicker and broader brushstrokes which are
easily visible in close-up.
Death of Sardanapalus, very controversial at the time, is now
generally accepted as Delacroix’s masterpiece. The story is paraphrased
from a Byron poem in which a king, in order to keep his court and harem
from falling into the hands of enemies, orders them all brought to his
chambers and killed, including himself, then burned. The painting is very
exotic, violent and romantic. The figures reflect one another in a well-planned,
but rather difficult to connect, composition.
Both of these paintings are quite emotional, though in very different
ways. Descent calls for emotions of sadness and loss at the death
and sufferings of Christ. One can almost feel the despair that the followers
of Jesus must have felt at that moment. Sardanapalus, on the
other hand, evokes feelings of horror at the actions of such a seemingly
heartless king and lover. Sardanapalus himself seems almost disinterested
in the whole orgy of violence. This is a commentary not only on the difference
between the worldviews of the two painters, but also between the philosophies
of the time period of each.
The colouring of both paintings is worth noting. Delacroix had obviously
learned a few things about painting flesh from Rubens. Several of the
dead and dying bodies in Sardanapalus carry much the same colouring
as does the dead body of Christ in Descent. Delacroix preferred
to paint either with these death-like tones or with the dark skin colours
of the Moroccans—both were more exotic and emotional than the softer
in-between tones.
One more thing: Descent is remarkable in its simplicity. While
there are many people, they are all involved in the same thing and there
is a unity of composition. Sardanapalus seems busy to me. There
are many things happening all over the painting, too much to look at and
too much to see. I get dizzy just looking at it. While I admit that it
is impressive and accomplishes its purpose of high drama and emotionalism,
I much prefer Rubens’ Descent.
ANIMALS
Lion Hunt (1621) by Peter Paul Rubens (Colourplate VII)
Lion Hunt (1861) by Eugène Delacroix (Colourplate VIII)
This set of paintings is particularly interesting because both painters
did a version of the same subject, even with the same title! Rubens’
is characterized, again, by that dynamic diagonal composition he liked
so much. Delacroix uses a loose figure triangle overall, made up of three
or four smaller ones at the corners. Both are very lively and full of
action, forcing our eyes to dart around quickly to absorb everything.
Both paintings have Arabs as characters, but Delacroix’s has Arabs
solely, while Rubens includes some Europeans as well, one of them in armor.
Rubens’ hunters are probably on a hunting trip abroad with Arab
guides, but Delacroix’s are Arabs hunting for their own benefit.
As usual, Rubens’ painting is fairly crisply delineated, but it
is rather chaotic to my mind. Delacroix himself said as much: “The
whole effect is one of confusion…”
His own painting is larger and less cluttered (contrasting with his Sardanapalus),
but still gives a sense of movement and violence. I prefer Rubens’
cleanness of line to Delacroix’s quick, instinct brushwork, but
I like Delacroix’s composition better than Rubens’ in this
set of works.
OTHER PAINTINGS
I would like to say a few words about some other paintings by Rubens
and Delacroix that do not have clear relationships to those of the other
artist. First of all, Rubens painted several landscapes later in his life
which are highly admired today (Colourplate IX). Delacroix painted virtually
no landscapes, except those that are backgrounds to other scenes. Delacroix
is said to have admired and learned from the noted English landscape artist
John Constable,
but while I see some similarity between Constable and Rubens, I see little
between Constable and Delacroix. Constable probably had some influence
on the lightness of certain Delacroix paintings, but there is none of
Constable’s sense of reality in nature in Delacroix. Rubens’
landscapes, on the other hand, are very realistic, and yet done with soft
brushwork.
There is nothing in Rubens’ work to compare with Delacroix’s
portrait of Paganini (Colourplate X). However, this is a good
subject to use to contrast their purposes in painting. While Paganini
is hardly representative of Delacroix’s overall portrait style,
it shows his movement toward Impressionism. Paganini is meant
not to tell us how Paganini looked: If we wanted that, we could look at
Ingres’ very capable sketch of him (Colourplate XII). Rather, Paganini
shows us what Paganini felt when he was playing the music he loved so
well. Rubens never had a thought in this direction. It probably never
would have occurred to him to paint someone other than how he looked.
Most of his works were commissioned, for one thing, with the patron wanting
the portrait to resemble him; but also, the very personal feeling that
Delacroix had toward his painting did not really surface until this romantic
period. I do not particularly like Paganini, but it is very important
in showing the difference in intention between Delacroix and Rubens. Rubens
intended to show objective reality, tinged with emotion and movement.
Delacroix intended to show subject feelings, tinged with emotionalism
and violence.
Also, just a quick word on Rubens’ influence on Delacroix. Obviously,
the colour thing. Delacroix gained much of his knowledge as a colourist
from Rubens, particularly the colouring of skin; though some of that was
culled from Géricault, as well. In Delacroix’s early paintings,
particularly Bark of Dante, the figures carry the same monumental,
muscular structure as do those in nearly all of Rubens’ paintings.
Rubens himself learned this from the great Renaissance artists such as
Michelangelo. Delacroix would move away from this style of bodies in time.
IN CONCLUSION
This basically sums up the two painters. Both used emotional subjects,
dynamic compositions and lively scenes. Both were revolutionary in their
use of colour. But Rubens gave us emotion, showing true feeling in real
or mythological settings. Delacroix gave us emotionalism, showing overwrought
feeling in exotic or literary settings. I get the sense that Rubens knew
who he was and what he was here for, but Delacroix was always searching
for truth and himself, but never found them.
“Do we admire? Not always. Can we remain unmoved? Scarcely ever.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Scribner, Charles III. Peter Paul Rubens. New York: The Easton
Press, 1989
Morrall, Andrew. The History and Techniques of the Great Masters:
Rubens. London: Chartwell Books, Inc., 1988
Lucie-Smith, Edward. Rubens. London: Spring Art Books, 1961
Prideaux, Tom. The World of Delacroix: 1798-1863. New York:
Time-Life Books, 1966
This paper originated as a term paper for Art Appreciation, Missouri
Baptist College, Spring, 2000.
©2000 by Jandy Stone
|