Writing in Paint: An opinion of Bruegel

Recall, if you will, the not far gone days of high school. If your school was anything like mine you will remember that essentially everyone fell into some sort of clique. There were the jocks, the nerds, the goths, the rich kids and many more. Cliques however transcend far beyond those awkward years; surprisingly cliques can hold historical relevance when examining great artists. In his piece, Pieter Bruegel: Painter for Poets, Donald Burness addresses the issue of what artistic “clique” that he believes Pieter Bruegel the Elder should be considered a part of. In his opinion, Burness suggests that Bruegel should not be shoved into the category of either an Italian or a Flemish Renaissance painter, but that he is a special type of literary artist. Bruegel’s distinct difference of views with both Italian and Flemish painters, his attitudes towards man, and his use of literary subjects all aid in strengthening Burness’ argument.

During the period referred to today as the renaissance, two distinct schools of artistic approach were flourishing. One of the schools was Italian, and was characterized by a focus on man’s greatness as well as overall unity in the world. The other school was Flemish; realism was the driving factor for artists of this region. In his lifetime, from 1525 to 1569, Bruegel was exposed to both worlds of artistic expression as he made noted travels to the respective regions. Yet the majority of Bruegel’s work relays very little influence from either of the dominant schools. In fact, as Burness highlights, Bruegel’s art shows a distinct “unwillingness on his part to associate with either” discipline (Burness, 157). Burness suggests this aversion has its roots in the overall rejection Bruegel had of the optimistic themes found in Italian art. And while the Flemish were notably more macabre in their works, Bruegel simply resisted falling into this mold by never truly settling in his themes. It is true that a good majority of Bruegel’s best known paintings revolve around critical satires of human action, yet if he chose to, he could produce works devoid of his signature skepticism. This variety is notable in Hunters in the Snow, which somehow captures an untainted view of “an entire community in all its diversity” (Burness, 161). Again he earns the title of a “literary” painter as his work tells a whole story in a single scape.


Bruegel's Hunters in the Snow


The true heft of Bruegel’s catalogue of masterworks highlights his rather misanthropic view of human nature. As this pessimism is most notably shared by literary figures of the time, Burness asserts that Bruegel was truly a “literary artist.” To Bruegel, man was not a thing to be gilded and praised; no, mankind was naturally carnal and cruel. In many of his works, the viewer can truly almost feel the venom with which the artist painted his scene. Many of Bruegel’s works can seem at first to be jovial and even mellow, but often with a second look into the scape there is a much more dire attitude. Such is the case with Peasant Dance, which appears to be a community enjoying a festival and dancing merrily. With a closer examination however, it is clear that a fight is occurring in one corner of the scene, and faces that may have seemed merry become all too menacing. This negativity was not mirrored by other artists in his time, but was strikingly similar to texts by many noted renaissance writers. As Burness notes, Bruegel found “kindred spirits in writers of his age, such as Montaigne and Erasmus,” uniting him much more with the literary sect than either of the artistic worlds (Burness, 157).

Further Burness places Bruegel into a category as a “literary” painter by the fact that the central subjects in many of his works were from stories and aphorisms. But Bruegel does not simply paint pictures to go along with the stories that he drew from; rather, he takes characters and creates whole new stories through his own art. In this aspect, the artist is writing with his paintings as he makes the old tales his own. This is the case with one of his most well-known paintings, The Fall of Icarus. Bruegel takes the infamous figure of Icarus and adds a new view to his unfortunate flight. He makes the tragic fall of Icarus a very small part of the painting, barely more than a side note really, and focuses on the normalcy of the surrounding town. As he adapts the tale of Icarus, Bruegel again shows his symmetry with the literary pessimism of the age; no one in the countryside chooses to acknowledge the fallen boy. And now in the 21st century, Burness asserts that things have truly come full circle for Bruegel as an artist of literature. As Bruegel first drew on elder stories for his art, an incredible variety of today’s poets turn to Bruegel’s paintings for their inspiration.

Burness crafts a strong argument for Bruegel being typed as a “literary” artist. The painter’s rejection of both Italian and Flemish styles, his opinion of mankind and his tendency to select characters from literature all provide solid evidence that no other category can truly capacitate the stance of Bruegel’s art. I have always been a fan of the way Bruegel injected a bit of black humor into his paintings and this article by Burness did indeed provide me with a new view of his works. I can identify the sense of rebellion against the standard schools in Bruegel’s work and it is not difficult to see how his paintings can tell a story all their own. Burness certainly has a good point in his assertion that Bruegel was a literary artist, and for now he has made me a supporter of this position.




Sources:

Burness, Donald. "Pieter Bruegel: Painter for Poets." Art Journal 32.2 (1972): 157-162. Web. 20 Nov 2010. .

Picture: google.com/images