Graphic Design

Graphic design (or visual communications) is the way of communicating an idea or a message through simple text, colors, shapes, symbols and image to produce a clear idea to people. As writers produce text to communicate their ideas to the readers and photographers or artists use the medium of visuals, so the graphic designer uses a combination of the two to convey his ideas to the world.

Ideally, the message should be understood immediately or at least spark an interest whereby the observer may have to delve a little deeper to discern the message (which also could be the designer’s intention).

But is it a really new idea? Or is it one that is old as the passage of time itself? Can graphic design be compared to the writings of the ancients who used symbols and simple drawings to communicate their message?

Certainly throughout history various concepts and forms have existed which could be considered ‘graphic design’ such as Hieroglyphics, and even the before in ancient Mesopotamia. But graphic design as it is known today was introduced by the American book designer William Addison Dwiggins in 1922.

Various forms of graphic design exist in the world today, in posters, logos, brochures, pamphlets, signs, book covers, packaging, DVD & CD covers, magazines, graphics for web pages, trademarks, advertisements, pens, mugs, t-shirts, stickers and so on. The list is endless.

A good design will always capture the imagination, it will always strike the eye and make the observer sit up and take notice. It should be balanced between simple and complex and convey whatever message is required. A good design will stay long in the mind and whenever a person sees it again, they should instantly be able to identify with whatever the message is.

However, with good must always come the bad, and there is a lot of bad graphic design out there. I should know, I’ve produced a bit of it myself!

Examples of bad graphic design include the 2012 Olympic Games logo which looks like Lisa Simpson bending down and um… (I know this was in the article, but I instantly thought of it as a bad design before even reading the article, and it’s that bad that it has to be included even if it costs me points). That design apparently cost £14k! Easy money.

Another truly awful example of a logo is the BP shield that has been changed to a washy yellow and green flower thingy. I can’t describe it as anything else; it certainly doesn’t pertain to what its product is in any way, shape or form. The old green shield with yellow lettering was far better, and far more appropriate.

Having said that, perhaps by having such a poor logo, it has helped, in that when it first was introduced in the early millennium, it certainly got people talking, and as they say any form of advertising is good advertising. BP certainly needs that right now!

The first logo I have chosen as an example of good graphic design is the Hush Puppies logo. This logo is interesting for a start because it has not been designed using vectors. The vast majority of logos that are constructed have been done with sharp, precise and clear lines - vectors. In contrast, the Hush Puppies logo is an extracted photo of a good ol’ faithful, comfortable Bassett hound.

Why was this chosen? Well, I imagine because a Bassett hound portrays a sense of comfort (like the shoes), is dependable (like the shoes), is warm and welcoming (like the shoes), and his colors are largely neutral, browns, tans and whites. He provides a very homely image which has been attached to the product. Or perhaps Basset hound skins were used as material for the shoes when the company first started. Perhaps not.

Now that the product is extremely well established worldwide, whenever you see a Bassett hound, even not in relation to shoes, instantly thoughts are of Hush Puppies. The Bassett hound symbolizes Hush Puppy shoes in the same way the Statue of Liberty symbolizes freedom. Well maybe not to that extreme.

The typeface used for Hush Puppies is very classy, further enhancing the feeling of a luxury, quality product. From the attached image, we can see the colors utilized on various forms of packaging, the bag and the box. On the box, we can see a monochrome version of the Bassett and the Hush Puppies typeface blended in with the word ‘Outside’, making it a quite versatile logo. And a versatile logo is fun for both the end user and the designer alike.

The second logo selected is from Pentech Pencils, and is very different in design from the Hush Puppies. It is a more dramatic and ‘in your face’ type design with a fist clenched bursting through something holding tightly onto the pencil. This is a typical vector type image that is more usual in logo design.

And whoever knew that a pencil could be made to appear so exciting?

The logo itself is yellow and red, two of the three primary colors, and black. Well, McDonalds too have used red and yellow on their logo and it works for them, so why not? Ok, a Big Mac may taste nicer than a pencil (just), but even so, the real experts are at McDonalds, so why not follow their lead?

This logo also lends itself well with the packaging used, with its funky design, obviously aimed at the younger generation.

The logo incorporates the actual use of the pencil too, with the hand holding it, which tells the purchaser what the item is for very quickly.

However, since choosing this logo, I have discovered that Pentech have changed their design, so either it wasn’t doing a good enough job, or they just fancied a change. Who knows? But it is certainly nowhere near as exciting and funky as their old one; maybe their target audience has changed as their new one is quite mechanical and higher tech.

So, in conclusion, graphic design is a very complicated concept and industry whereby the simple seems to say a lot more than the complex at times and it is often very hard to say what will work and what won’t. Sometimes the designs which look like they will do well don’t and the one’s that look bad do good.

The Renaissance Man and Woman

Renaissance is the rebirth of the mind, of learning, of education. This intellectual revolution began in the early part of the 14^th century, most notably in Florence, Italy. The time of Renaissance had arrived. It was a literary movement among the learned and mostly upper class that sought to recapture the classical past of Rome and to recreate it. The Greek civilization was later considered very important too.

Petrarch was the early pioneer who was fascinated by the language, literature, architecture and art of the ancient classical civilization. He put forward a study of humanity called studia humanitates (meaning liberal arts) that formed the philosophy of humanism.

It was a gradual revolution that slowly spread throughout Europe, France, Germany and Spain by the end of the 15^th century and into England by the start of the 16^th.

Its philosophy was in direct contrast to the previous centuries where group effort and team work was the fundamental basis of civilization. Now with the Renaissance, a new concept of individualism was being introduced and these were based on the talents and hard work of the individual. Artists began painting self portraits and signing them with their own names, writers would create autobiographies and give themselves the credit and they believed all these new works as caused by individual genius.

Key to all of this was education, and they believed it to be vital to not only to the individual, but to society as a whole. In this day, this belief still holds true, and so our education systems and sources of information and knowledge all can trace their roots back to the Renaissance.

Part of their new intellectual thinking was in creating ideals for human behavior. As they pondered and developed these ideas, the conclusion was that the ‘ideal’ Renaissance man came out to be quite different to the ‘ideal’ Renaissance woman. This essay shall explore some of those differences and show what the ideal man and ideal woman is.

We begin with three visual elements to consider. Firstly, the self portrait of Albert Dürer in 1500 shows a sturdy well kept man giving the illusion of strength, confidence and purpose. His fur coat makes him appear rich and is well made.

The so called Simonetta from the workshops of Botticelli around 1444 – 1510 shows the profile image of a lady of the age. She appears very dainty, beautiful and well dressed. Her hair is platted and very well kept.

And thirdly, Andrea del Verrocchio’s sculpture of General Bartolommeo Calleoni shows a proud and strong man ready for battle in his armor. His stance is one of power and authority (as it should being the leader) and he appears to be looking out surveying the battle field.

The Renaissance was primarily about enlightenment, a new understanding, and so education proved to be the foundation and key.

Within 13 years of one another, two letters were written by humanists to nobles indicating what type of learning would be required by men and women.

For the men, the letter to Ubertinus of Padua written in 1392 by Peter Paul Vergerius indicates what is important for men to learn. Firstly, history was the most important “on grounds both of its attractiveness and of its utility, qualities which appeal equally to the scholar and to the statesman.” Moral philosophy is the second important subject in order “to teach men the secret of true freedom.”

The logic of the first two subjects was that together “…one shows what men have said and done in the past, and what practical lessons we may draw therefrom for the present day.” With men still being the dominant sex in leadership and headship, this type of learning is very important.

The third discipline to learn is eloquence “which indeed holds a place of distinction amongst the refined arts.”

In contrast, although women should learn history, it is in a different context. The letter from Meonardo Bruni to Lady Baptista around 1405 suggests that history be learned simply “to understand the origins of our own history and its development; and the achievements of Peoples and of Kings.” There is no responsibility in that learning, simply the knowledge will suffice, no need to apply it as men should.

Bruni believes that the primary discipline for women is learning religion and the literature that goes along with it “affords her the fullest scope for reverent, yet learned inquiry”. Again, there is no responsibility in the learning; it is there for her to learn in order to continue to be subjected to the man.

The final discipline for a lady is poetry and poets.

Already, it is apparent that the two sexes have very different roles within Renaissance society and accordingly, the subject matter of both is quite different.

In terms of behavior and demeanor, Baldassare Castiglione had the following to say in his ‘manual’ for each sex from The Courtier 1508 – 1516.

The men were to be of arms, meaning to “be known among the others as bold, energetic, and faithful to whomever he serves.” He is to be well educated and to be conversant in both Latin and Greek because there is much to learn from literature written in both. The logic in these studies was to make him confident and fluent and thus a strong person. Despite these many learnings and behaviors he was to undertake, he must also essentially be modest.

In contrast, women were to be less bold and strong, they were to be tender, sweet and graceful amongst other things. Effectively, she was to be subservient to the man and apparently for his pleasure. She should be educated in order to provide conversation to entertain a man.

For a ruler, in Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince in 1513, he describes the appropriate behavior and learnings of a ruler. Although history, once again is a common discipline to learn, in this context it is the learning of great men and leaders in the past who were successful in warfare and applying these principles. This leads onto the primary learning of the ruler, and that is the art of warfare and its associated teachings. If a ruler was to lose sight of this, he will most likely lose his state.

He should therefore also try to attain the respect of his followers, preferably through one of fear and love, but if love is not possible, then it is safer to be feared. If he is to lead his army into battle, he will need to do it with his men obeying him for the right reasons.

Leon Battista Alberti’s autobiography sometime after 1460 tries to present himself as the ‘ideal’ Renaissance man. He appears very learned and dedicated in literature (which he calls letters) and when he needs a break from this delves into art where he strove to become a big name. In fact he states that “His genius was so versatile that you might judge all the fine arts to be his”, which is in direct contrast to Baldassare that “in this as in everything else, to be cautious and reserved rather than forward…” So Alberti is coming across as rather boastful, which would probably explain why he proceeds to talk about how resented he is within society.

However, he had a sense of humor by writing a funeral oration for his dog!

Polydore Vergil’s Anglia Historia around 1540 portrays King Henry VII of England as the perfect Renaissance ruler. He is described as being a very attractive and slender man, who was wise and prudent. Brave when tough challenges came his way, but gracious, generous and just. Despite preferring peace, he was also successful in war.

Good Queen Bess, Queen Elizabeth I was the complete opposite of how an ideal Renaissance woman should have been. Daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Bolyen, she had a hard beginning to her life, and for her to inherit the throne, it looked an extremely unlikely event. Henry was obsessed with siring a male heir and when he finally begat one, the reign of this son lasted only 6 years before death took him. Elizabeth finally took the crown and became one of the longest serving monarchs in English history. Her rule was not only long, but overall very successful and strong. The restoration of Protestantism to the English church, the start of the colonization of the Americas and defeat of the Spanish Armada were some of the highlights in a very accomplished reign. It wasn’t dubbed the Golden Age for nothing.

Her father Henry would no doubt have been proud of her accomplishments, but perhaps still disappointed that his long planned dynasty had failed in the very next generation. Elizabeth was never to marry, she was married to her country so great was her devotion. She was the Virgin Queen and one of the strongest rulers England had ever known.

Two years before her death, she addressed her parliament for one last time in what would become known as The Golden Speech. In it are examples of how strong she was, and how this strength shows how unlike the ideal Renaissance woman should be. Richard Cavendish in the November 2001 History Today magazine in an article called ‘Queen Elizabeth I’s Golden Speech’ describes her as “Highly intelligent, maddening, and enchanting, she staged a one man show in which, beautifully costumed and blazingly bejeweled, she created a starry image for herself as Gloriana, Spenser’s faerie queen, as the ‘chaste and fair’ Diana, virgin and huntress of the moon, as Astraea, the personification of justice or ‘Albion’s golden sun.”

Certainly these words from her Golden Speech highlight this wonderful description, “There will never Queen sit in my seat with more zeal to my country, care to my subjects and that will sooner with willingness venture her life for your good and safety than myself.” Ideally, these would have been the feats and words of a king, not a queen and it is in this way that Elizabeth was not the ideal Renaissance woman. She was the ideal man.

To conclude, the time of the Renaissance was a period where mankind reawakened to himself. After nearly 1000 lost years after the rule of the Romans, mankind has rediscovered the direction and momentum that perhaps should have followed the Romans. Instead man and society in the west had fallen back and now was being restarted again.

Men and women alike found for themselves that education, culture and the sciences led to a more civilized society and so this developed into ideals and standards by which each sex should strive to attain. The documents examined do provide us with those standards, and perhaps a few of them are overzealous in their writings in that they portray certain figures as being absolutely perfect, which of course it is not possible for man to be this way. And so, a more objective and general outlook must be applied to such documents in order to obtain a clearer picture.

However, the Renaissance led to better standards and provided men and women alike a goal in which to aim for, and these goals and ideals pave the way for growth to become a better and more informed race.


Grade A

The Return of Martin Guerre

Under the kingship of François 1^er around 1527 in the region of the Basque, South West France close to the Atlantic Ocean, a young boy and his family make the slow trek inland towards the region of Languedoc just to the south of the city of Toulouse and north of the Pyrenees. Their final destination, a small village called Artigat where they plan to settle and live. This young man’s name would be the subject of a great scandal with events to occur later in his life. His name was Martin Guerre.

This scandal has intrigued historians and people alike in the centuries since. Several books and movies based on the events have been written on it, and the legend is still very much alive with locals in the region today.

However, the two works that this essay will investigate are a film and a written work. The two are closely linked, in that the consultant historian working on the film went onto produce the written work. She felt that the film had not been faithful to the true story, and so she researched further to seek the truth. The film was produced in 1982 under the title Le Retour de Martin Guerre (The Return of Martin Guerre) and starred top French actor, Gérard Depardieu. The book of the same English title and was written by the said historian, Natalie Zemon Davis a year later.

As with many book to film productions (or film to book in this case), many discrepancies are normally found. When the production is based on history, discrepancies between what’s portrayed on film or book can also be found.

The basic premise of the histoire (the story) is one of impostor and identity theft. The film begins in 1542 with the marriage of Martin Guerre and his bride, Bertrande de Rols. They both appear to be in their late teens, perhaps 16 or so. After their wedding ceremony and Bertrande’s dowry had been sorted, the pair is blessed in their wedding bed so that they may have many children together. Once the blessing has occurred, instead of following the usual practice of the wedding night, Martin rolls over, shunning his new wife.

The film shows the arrival of a Councillor from the Parlemant de Toulouse, Jean de Coras. He questions Bertrande over a series of events that have occurred since the disappearance and reappearance of her husband. At this time, we are unaware of why this questioning is taking place. She explains to him what happened and how events unfolded. She tells of how her husband Martin was teased and tormented by the villagers because he couldn’t father a child, how he was very much dominated by his father and then how they finally came to be with child after 8 years without.

The film shifts us back in time to where Martin is accused by his father of stealing some grain. This is probably the straw that broke the camel’s back, and Martin disappears with no trace and we see his father pining away awaiting his return each and every day. Eventually Martin’s father and mother die, leaving Martin’s uncle Pierre as family head. During this period, Pierre had also married the mother of Bertrande to try to keep the family together.

For 8 years, Martin was away and had not sent any word, but in that entire time Bertrande was loyal and she was virtuous.

Then one day a man arrived at the village. Martin Guerre, il eut retour (he had returned).

Everyone was pleased to see him (despite their torment of him many years earlier), he reminded them of the past times, and even his family, after being initially perplexed, took him in. The following scene he is reunited with his wife, Bertrande, and then together with his son Sanxi.

Throughout the next portion of the film, we see Martin tell stories of his travels, where he’s been, the war in the north and we see him reminisce with old friends and acquaintances within the village.

We are brought back to the questioning where we discover Martin and Bertrande had another two children together (although one died) and then Coras asks a curious question, “When did the doubts first begin?” Betrande answers and we are taken back in time to when some vagabonds had arrived in the village and claimed that Martin Guerre was not in fact Martin Guerre, but on fact a man called Pansette. The first seeds of doubt are cast.

Martin then questions his uncle regarding his inheritance and demands his portion. Pierre is quite shocked and angry that after Martin being away for so long, he should dare make such demands, and especially as Martin threatened court action very early on in the debate. However, we see Pierre back down shortly after and make arrangements with Martin for him to collect his money in a barn. What with the vagabond’s claim and money demands of Martin, Pierre is suspicious and the collection is in fact a double cross. Martin is beaten up and almost killed, but for Bertrande flinging herself dramatically in front of a fork that was destined for Martin’s chest. She was ready to die for him.

Coras asked if she had any doubts over his identity, she claimed she wavered for a little, but restated her claim that he is in fact her husband. In the meantime, the villagers are split between whether he is who he says he is, or an imposter. And this is what Coras is in the village for, to discover the truth.

By now, this Martin is under arrest with Pierre his chief accuser, but Martin responds in his defence that Pierre is trying to cheat him out of his inheritance. Coras calls the village together and after a few questions, pronounces Martin not guilty of imposter and orders Pierre to pay a fine.

He is free, for a while at least. After taking to bed with his wife, he is arrested the following morning and taken away to Toulouse. A document signed by various people, apparently including Bertrande, has been produced, and this is seemingly enough evidence for the arrest to take place.

The following sequences show further questioning by Coras to Martin and various villagers are also questioned regarding Martin’s physical appearance and features. Finally, we discover that Bertrande didn’t sign the document that caused Martin’s second arrest, because in fact she can write (this Martin had taught her) and so would have signed using her own name, rather than the cross mark that was there.

Pierre’s attack was dented, but the trial would still go ahead.

The trial consisted of more questioning, Martin defended himself to the hilt, he is able to talk about the past in precise detail, and he is adamant that he is who he says he is. Various witnesses are called, some back him up, others deny him, and the court has to conclude that the only humane thing they can do in the absence of absolute proof is to declare him not guilty.

Just as his innocence is to be declared, proceedings are halted in favour of one more witness. A man with a wooden leg and crutches enters the court and marches across to the counselors and claims to be… Martin Guerre. Gasps and shocks all round around the courtroom, and so he is questioned and claims he knows the defendant as Arnauld du Tilh, otherwise known as Pansette. The defendant claims never they have never met before.

Pierre and his wife declare the new man to be the true Martin Guerre and the defendant counters by claiming that Pierre paid the man to say these things against him as a last resort. And so a test between the two, back and forth seeing who remembers things from the past. Strangely, the new Martin’s memory isn’t as good as the defendant’s who remembers things so much better.

And this is what trips the defendant up. On being questioned regarding a certain object, the defendant gets irritated and insists that he had told the new Martin Guerre about it. However, just before, the defendant claimed never to have met him before. And so, the imposter has made his fatal mistake and is shown for the charlatan he is.

The game is up, the defendant has been proven not to be Martin Guerre and is eventually sentenced to death. Bertrande privately indicates to Coras that she knew the truth all the time, but in the end knew it was hopeless to be with Arnaud, which is why she went to her original husband once the game was up. Even though he was an imposter, the film makes it clear that he truly loved Bertrande.

After hearing his confession, Arnaud, the false Martin is led to the gallows where he is hanged. The year is 1560.

We are finally told of Coras’ continued involvement in that he was to write a record down of the case. Twelve years later he was murdered as part of the St Bartholomew’s massacre of the Protestant Reformists, plotted by Catherine de Médicis in Paris.

This was the basic storyline of the film, and it led to the film’s historian (Davis) to delve deeper and research more as she was not happy about how the film makers had portrayed the events inaccurately.

The immediate thing to notice about the film compared to the book is that the book is far more detailed and in depth. This is true for the majority of book and film comparisons. The Green Mile, The Good, the Bad & the Ugly, Stand by Me and the Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and the Shawshank Redemption can all testify to this. Each are relatively short in book form, yet still manage to reproduce on film well in excess of two and a half hours and they still don’t include everything in despite being quite true to its original. In contrast, Martin Guerre, although not adapted from book form, still approaches the two hour mark in comparison to a little over 100 pages in the book, and yet leaves out so much.

Although the basic story is the same for both book and film, there are many details that are different, some of these are key to the development.

To begin with, the book provides us with far more detail and background information. Whereas the film begins with the marriage of Martin and Bertrande, the book starts in 1527 and gives us the background of Martin and his family, where they originally came from and how they came to be in Artigat. The dates of the marriage are different, the film dates it as 1542, the book tells us it took place in 1538 which falls in line with the report written by Coras. The book informs us Martin was no older than 14 and Bertrande even younger than that. In the film, they appear much older and in fact, checking the ages of the actors portraying these two characters at the time of filming, they were both in their early 30’s!

The reason for that is likely that showing two children in marriage on film especially with the suggestion of intercourse (particularly in the early 80’s) would have caused a fair bit of controversy. From the film’s point of view, their ages are not critical to the storyline so it is more sensible the route the filmmakers took, whereas in the book, it is critical to the accuracy and authenticity of the history.

There are many other discrepancies in the film, such as the way the fraudulent Martin was exposed (which I personally enjoyed), the fact there was just the one proper trial (the first trial was more of an informal judgment in the film). Also, the initial judgment in the film was not guilty, in the book he was guilty and the reason the case was heard in the Parlement de Toulouse was in appeal to the original judgment. The epilogue telling us that Coras was hanged for his Protestant beliefs along with 100 of his friends at Parlement de Toulouse after the St Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572 was another innaccuracy. Raymond A. Mentzer’s ‘Blood & Belief: Family Survival and Confessional Identity among the Provincial Huguenot Nobility’ tells us he was murdered in prison following the aforementioned massacre. Why that truth couldn’t have been told at this point, who knows?

The book also goes into detail regarding the shift of many people at the time from Catholicism to Protestantism, which was quite significant to the development of what was happening. It is plausible that Bertrande really knew the truth that this Martin was not her true husband, but for a variety of reasons was to her advantage to conceal the truth. The Protestant church would certainly have been far more tolerant of the situation compared to the Catholic Church. After all, hadn’t the King of England just created a new religion from Protestantism for much the same purpose in 1534? In contrast, the sole mention of this religious strife in the film came at the end with the inaccurate telling of the death of Coras, previously mentioned.

Despite these and many other inaccuracies, the film does well in bringing over the point of the story – how a man can convince so many people that he is someone when he actually he is not. It successfully shows that not only would his memory have had to be extremely good, his persuasive powers and his own belief in himself in order to carry the deception out must have been something extraordinary. Perhaps he carried off the deception and lies so well, that he had himself convinced so much that he was actually Martin Guerre and that he was telling the truth.

‘A translation of the main text of Coras, Arrest Memorable’ by Jeanette K Ringold of Virginia University in 1982 has proved to be invaluable to deciphering the accuracy of the film and the book. Although it should be noted that the translation is not perfect, French in those days was quite disjointed, (most of the population did not speak the language, rather their own dialects which are still very strong today from region to region) so we are reliant on the skill of the interpreter, not only in the translation of words, but also in the translation of the logic, the context and message the writing is trying to portray. And of course we have to take into account Coras’ own perception of events, his own judgment on who was speaking the truth and who not as well as his own biases. Nonetheless, this translation of source material is still an extremely useful tool in comparing the authenticity of the film to book.

One part the film was accurate on is when talking about how Arnaud du Tilh came to know so much about Martin Guerre. Now while this is also speculation on Coras’ part, it does feature in the film, towards the end when Arbaud is confronted by Martin. To quote the above translation “And the said du Tilh, as is likely, being comrade in arms of the said Martin Guerre, heard from him (under pretext of friendship) several private and personal things about him and his wife.” The book also highlights this point, also with conjecture, although the film is rather more direct in its interpretation of this.

In my opinion, the film blends the history with entertainment well. It does take many liberties and ignores a lot of historical fact, but the basic message and essence of the history is there. Perhaps adding more fact would have slowed the film down and made it unnecessarily long, in my opinion a film should last not much longer than 2 hours, it is a good length and unless absolutely necessary or spectacular, shouldn’t go on for much longer. As it stands, it is close to two hours in length. In terms of set and location, it looked and felt real. Whether the costume or customs of the day are that closely reproduced is hard to say, but they did use real buildings from long ago, and most certainly the church part of the film was set in was real. I have visited many churches and cathedrals in my time in France and England from a tourist perspective, and the feeling I received from the film was the same as the memory I have from visiting those places. The footsteps echoing inside, the reminder of the chill always felt inside those large stone structures like that, to the architecture, the stonework and the size.

Also, the village felt real. It was real mud and grass, the barn, the straw, the tools in the background and there being no special effects either added to the authenticity. The villagers looked the part, their activities, their clothing and so on. However even today in rural Languedoc, the French there is very difficult to understand; even the French from other regions have trouble with the dialect. But of course, the actors involved are no doubt from various other regions throughout France and of course trained to speak clearly and losing their regional dialect, so the French was too good. With the aid of subtitles, I was able to pick out most of the words in French relatively easily, which is very unusual for me. I have recently spoken with French friends regarding this film and they have assured me that there was very little in the way of Languedoc dialect within it. Not so much a problem for non French speakers, but for the French perhaps it would spoil its realness a little.

So, the film was good in a visual sense to gain an understanding of the past, to see how certain activities were carried out, to see how they lived and under what conditions, to see some of things they wore, to gain a sense of the isolation they would have been under as other villages would have been a trek away. But for the deeper meaning and understanding of the time, it didn’t do as much. The book gave me a much a greater understanding and along with imagination, a greater sense of what actually happened. A film will always be hard pressed to achieve that, not even with the greatest CGI a film maker could ever come close to replacing the imagination. But Le Retour de Martin Guerre did a good job on the visual aspects in a historical sense.

The main points that struck me in the film regarding artistic license or liberties were with Bertrande learning to write (which was how she proved that she didn’t sign that document to send Martin back to court) and in the confrontation between the two Martins where Arnaud claimed never to have met Martin and then a couple of minutes later tripped himself up by saying “it was me who told him these things”. These two aspects did enhance the film, but of course they didn’t happen in reality. The book tells us there were hundreds testifying in this case, to reproduce this on film would have been difficult and ultimately rather boring for the viewer, so highlights or snapshots were used to show the opinions of the people regarding the case.

I found the book didn’t have much bias in it, but on reading other people’s reviews and essays of Davis’ thoughts towards Bertrande and how she portrayed her as a strong (modern) independent woman, I can see where they’re coming from. It’s not something I picked up on originally, but perhaps these writers are correct in their opinion on this. Regarding the film, I felt the bias was very much in favour of the fake Martin. Throughout I felt myself hoping he would win through (despite already knowing the ending), and I have put this bias down to the film makers perhaps pandering to their star actor, Gérard Depardieu.

In conclusion, one has to wonder how the film would have turned out had Davis penned the book before the film was created. It would certainly have made life easier for the director as he would have had a clearer overall picture in his mind as to how events occurred.

Nonetheless, personally, I have always viewed films based on history as a shop front, a glossy image of how a certain past unraveled. They serve to entice, to give a taste of snippets of a far greater history and to gain an overview of it. And from there to be able to take it further by reading the source materials and other writings in order to really find out what happened and finally to explore the differences and to wonder why the director decided to choose the path he chose.

The Return of Martin Guerre is no different. Primarily the film is there to make money, so the makers have to make it accessible to as many people as possible. To keep too true to history, sometimes does make a drab story, and so artistic license is needed to add extra spice to the story. In this format, I believe it doesn’t hurt too much, but in written format, it doesn’t work as well, and yet the true story has more impact. I enjoyed reading both the book and the film, and in my opinion both worked well within their respective formats. Reading the book before the film helped flesh out the film some more, especially the background stuff like what Martin was doing while away, his early background and the events of the church that were occurring at the time. Of course all are necessary for an authentic accurate writing, but for film in this case, they are not essential to the plotline.

And that’s essentially the difference. Both are telling the same story but with different aims. The point of the film is to provide an entertaining tale from the annals of history with a twist. The point of the book is to provide an accurate and authentic factual work, a proper record of historical events.


Grade A

Théodore Géricault

Théodore Géricault was a French romantic fine art painter who lived a sadly short life from September 26 1791 to January 26 1824. He was born to a middle class family in the city of Rouen about 130kms north east of Paris.

Spending much of his childhood in Rouen, he followed his father to Paris in order to complete his studies with Pierre-Narcisse Guérin. His early influence was from the painter Sir Peter Paul Rubens, but he also heavily studied the works of Michelangelo when he spent a couple of years in Florence and Rome between 1816 and 1817.

A passionate horse lover, in 1812 he had already completed his first major work, ‘Officier de chasseurs à cheval de la garde impériale chargeant’ (The Charging Chasseur). This picture won him gold prize at the famous ‘Salon’ in Paris. It now hangs in the Louvre, Paris.

In 1819, he produced his masterpiece, ‘Le Radeau de la Méduse’ (The Raft of Medusa), an enormous oil on canvas painting that shows the horror of the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse. While a spectacular piece, at the time it was greeted with much skepticism and disdain due to the politics at the time. This piece, along with The Charging Chasseur shall be discussed in greater detail later in this essay.

With the disappointment of the reception of The Raft of Medusa, Géricault spent a couple of years in England where he was able to produce lithographs, water colors and oils of jockeys and of course, his favorite subject, horses. The Derby at Epsom (1821) was another famous work of his and also hangs in the Louvre today.

On returning to France he befriended Etienne Georget, a pioneer of psychiatric studies. This inspired him to paint a series of paintings of insane people.

At the age of 33, he succumbed to a tuberculosis infection and passed away after suffering a long illness.

His tomb can be found in Pére Lachaise cemetery on the west side of Paris amongst many other famous peoples such as Chopin, Rossini, Jim Morrison, Oscar Wilde, Moliére and Bizet to name a few. His tomb is very prominent with a bronze statue of him on top and a reproduction of The Raft of Medusa that was created by the sculptor Antione Etex.

I shall now be considering three of Géricault’s best known works, The Charging Chasseur; Evening: Landscape with an Aqueduct and The Raft of Medusa. For each, I shall attempt to provide a brief history of what was happening around at the time and how it relates or affects the piece, and then lead into a formal analysis of it.

The Charging Chasseur

Quick facts:

This piece can be seen on fig 3 and it currently hangs in the Louvre museum in Paris. It measures 11’ 5” x 8’ 9” and is oil on canvas. It was completed in 1812.

History:

The Charging Chasseur was first exhibited at the Salon, Paris depicting a Napoleonic cavalry officer on his rearing horse. At the time, Napoleon was an undefeated general in his wars across Europe. This status would change by the end of the year, as a massive defeat in Russia left his forces greatly diminished. The painting however, shows a proud and powerful officer upon his steed before Napoleon’s crushing defeat.

Formal Analysis:

Painted in the style of Peter Paul Rubens, Géricault gives us a stark piece and shows his love of horses. It is a representational piece and naturalistic, and because of this, most shapes appearing are organic.

Immediately, the eye is drawn to the central figure of the officer, and we follow his gaze via an imaginary line to the bottom left of the picture to the soldier he has just slain. The rearing of the horse also follows this same line, giving an almost symmetrical balance across this diagonal plane of the painting.

The piece is very well lit, we can clearly see the expression of the officer and it is also quite a colorful piece, certainly in comparison to some of his other works. The strong blue of his uniform, the bright red of his sashes and belt brings him forward from the neutral beige background. On the right of the painting, we see the light of fire, which flows over the top of the painting, turning into thick black smoke, providing a frame.

Amongst the background, we can also see debris, more fighting in the distance and this further enhances the content of the painting and what we are seeing and provides us with the feeling of time and motion.

Evening: Landscape with an Aqueduct

Quick facts:

This piece can be seen on fig 4 and it currently hangs in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. It measures 8’ 2” x 7’ 2” and is oil on canvas. It was completed in 1818.

History:

This painting was supposed to have been one of a series of four paintings depicting different times of the day. Only three were completed, Morning, Noon and this one, Evening. The Metropolitan Museum of Art tells us that “Gericault painted these landscapes at a moment of personal turmoil: his uncle's second wife was about to give birth to a child whom Gericault had fathered” and uses this to suggest why a fourth was not completed.

Formal Analysis:

We can see a slight shift in style from The Charging Chasseur, Géricault has developed his technique under the influence of Michelangelo’s work. This piece exhibits very precise work, almost photographic, making it both naturalistic and representational. Our eye is drawn from the bottom right of the picture, past the two figures, up along the river until it reaches the aqueduct. From there, the eye is drawn to the right to take us into the small hamlet and beyond.

Much of the foreground is in shadow with the sun setting in the bottom left. His use of value here is superb and makes the painting dark, yet inviting through the fading sunlight which strikes a thin edge of the cliff on the left hand side, highlighting a tree on the bottom right after passing under the aqueduct. The colors used are very neutral and thus low in intensity, a lot of beige and dull greens, but this generates a lot of warmth.

The composition is very balanced, but not quite symmetrical. Interestingly, I do not believe it uses the rule of thirds, as the horizon line, the aqueduct is exactly in the centre of the piece.

We are looking at the piece from slightly above the aqueduct and also, we have a two point perspective in looking at the scene.

The Raft of Medusa

Quick facts:

This piece can be seen on fig 5.1 and it currently hangs in the Louvre museum in Paris. It measures 16’1” x 23’ 6” and is oil on canvas. It was completed in 1819.

History:

The Raft of Medusa caused great controversy when it originally went up for display in the Salon in Paris in 1819. The Medusa was an ill piloted ship that had run aground and its survivors left to survive on a small makeshift raft.

It is a protest piece. H.W. & A.F. Janson’s History of Art tells us “Géricault painted his most ambitious work, The Raft of Medusa, in response to a political scandal of epic proportions. The Medusa, a government vessel, had foundered off the West African coast with hundreds of men on board.” Britannica follows this on by stating “The shipwreck had scandalous political implications at home—the incompetent captain, who had gained the position because of connections to the Bourbon Restoration government, fought to save himself and senior officers while leaving the lower ranks to die—and so Géricault’s picture of the raft and its inhabitants was greeted with hostility by the government.”

Interestingly, Géricault took his work to England the following year where it was received with great enthusiasm and pleasure. Perhaps this had to do with the great rivalry that existed between the two nations at the time, not long after the English had finally defeated Napoleon.

Formal Analysis:

The painting is clearly a representational piece, as well as being naturalistic. The characters can easily be recognized and the level of detail is astonishing. It is an excellent example of a fine art, and critics even described it as being too realistic. It owes much in style to the Greek and Roman inspired model of art that was so prevalent at the time.

It uses imaginary lines that take the viewers eye from bottom left of the painting and leads it through the main body towards where the group on the top right of the raft are looking, into the distance to their salvation – a ship.

The subject matter is reflected by the darkness of the painting itself. Because it is very large too, it does bring about an overwhelming emotional feeling of oppression and of imminent death and decay. The use of shadows and darkness within the painting really emphasizes this feeling and the analogous colors of browns, yellows and beiges with splashes of red here and there only adds to the depressing subject matter.

Carlo L. Ragghianti in his book, Great Museums of the World suggests that “the whole composition has a severe pyramidal structure that was roundly denounced by many contemporaries.” The first would include the group of men from the bottom left laying in their death and disease and includes the sail. The second can be drawn over the group of men at the top right looking out to sea and perhaps seeing their salvation.

There have been satirical uses of this painting over the years, The Pogues used this painting for the cover of their album ‘Rum, Sodomy and the Lash’, and had pasted members of the band’s heads over the originals.

Conclusion

It is perhaps fitting to conclude with a tribute to Géricault by some of his fellow Frenchmen some 143 years into the future. Goscinny and Uderzo, the creators of the Asterix the Gaul series satirized the Raft of Medusa in their comic book, Asterix the Legionary.

Within the adventures of this Gaulic comic hero, Asterix would from time to time come into contact with a group of pirates, and he would always win and the pirate ship always destroyed.

In this particular scene, we see the pirates on the same raft, waving goodbye to their ship and generally looking very miffed. To further enhance the joke, we see one of the pirates exclaim, “We’ve been framed, by Jericho”, which is both a send off and I imagine also a tribute to Géricault himself.

Asterix is as much a French treasure as Géricault is, and it is likely that Géricault would be happy in his grave knowing that his fellow citizens still remember him fondly.

Grade A 

Philadelphia Museum of Art Visit March 2011

Artists Name: Unknown

Artist’s Nationality: French

Dates of Artists Birth & Death: Unknown

Museum’s Method of Acquisition: Purchased with funds contributed by Elizabeth Malcolm Bowman in memory of Wendell Phillips Bowman, 1928

Work’s Title: Portal from the Abbey Church of Saint-Laurent

Date Work Completed: c 1120 - 1150

Medium and technique: Architecture. Stone masonry.

This entrance to an old French abbey was brought across for display in the Philadelphia museum and no doubt will be well preserved. Had it stayed in France, it would have continued to be exposed to the elements and over time perished, just like many other churches in France. Having said that, I was very surprised how dirty it was, especially in comparison to the photos showing it quite clean and white. No doubt this is due to people touching it and feeling its texture.

Personally, I find it very interesting to note the materials used and style of architecture. My home in France is about half a kilometer away from a church similar in age to this. Yet, despite my home being approximately 150kms away from the original position of this portal, the style of architecture and materials used between the two are very different. This is no doubt down to materials available within both regions.

In terms of design, the Philadelphia Art Museum website describes it perfectly. “It displays bold abstract patterns on round arches and capitals with complicated intertwined branches, leaves, and birds characteristic of Romanesque architecture. The style seen here was inspired by that of the most influential Benedictine monastery in Europe, Cluny…” This also supports the reason for different architecture compared to the church near me, as Cluny is nearer the heavily influenced Roman architecture of the south of France. It is less apparent the further north in France you go.

Construction would have been a team effort, with many skilled artisans employed over the long period of building it took.

It is nice to get up close to this work, to be able to feel its texture and wonder how many other people would have touched it too throughout its long history.

Artists Name: Pietro Berettini (Pietro da Cortona)

Artist’s Nationality: Italian

Dates of Artists Birth & Death: 1596 - 1669

Museum’s Method of Acquisition: Gift of the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, 1959

Work’s Title: Tapestry showing the Sea Battle between the Fleets of Constantine and Licinius

Date Work Completed: 1635

Dimensions: 16’8” x 23’4”

Medium and technique: Tapestry, woven

This very large tapestry was created in order to complete a set of tapestries given to Cardinal Francesco Barberini by Louis XIII of France. It depicts yet another Roman civil war, this time between Emperor Constantine I (ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire) and Emporer Licinius (ruler of the Western Roman Empire). It shows Constantine’s forces overcoming those of Licinius.

We see a very packed image on this tapestry, framed by an almost symmetrical pattern. The designer has used mainly primary colors in the piece, the sky, sea and the uniforms of Licinius’ men all in blue. Constantine’s men are in red, and then gold (close to yellow) for the remainder of the image, for the boats and the standards.

The piece is representational, although the characters are depicted in slightly simpler form than real human beings. We can see straight and curved lines throughout the piece, predominantly on the ships, but also on the standards too.

There are two focal points to the image. The first is on the left, the ship of Constantine (we know this is his ship, because the standard bears the Christian cross and Constantine was the first Roman emperor to become a Christian). The second is the ship of Licinius, with the standard SPQR of Rome. The eye is drawn to both in succession. The two focal points bring the piece into a fine balance.

The other interesting thing to note is the proportions. The men on the ships appear to be too big for the ships. This is to let us know that the battle is the important thing to focus on, the ships are merely there as vehicles to bring the men to the fight. The artist successfully conveys what he is trying to get across, the forces of Constantine are clearly winning the battle, his ship is afloat, while that of Licinius is ablaze, plumes of smoke showing in the background of it.

Artists Name: Pierre Auguste Renoir

Artist’s Nationality: French

Dates of Artists Birth & Death: 1841 - 1919

Museum’s Method of Acquisition: The Henry P. McIlhenny Collection in memory of Frances P. McIlhenny, 1986

Work’s Title: Les Grands Boulevards

Date Work Completed: 1875

Dimensions: 20 ½” x 25”

Medium and technique: Oil on canvas

This impressionist painting of a Parisian scene encapsulates the essence of Paris.

Because it is an impressionist painting, the forms in it are very much simplified and thus idealized. For color, Renoir has focused on colder colors, blue skies, green trees and there can be seen flashes of reds or oranges here and there. There is a great deal of white (the buildings and horse) which gives a very fresh and clean feel to the scene.

The artist has used one point perspective and the focal point is the horse drawn carriage on the right side of the picture. We are at road level in terms of viewpoint and everything is in scale and at the right proportions. Most of the shapes are organic, with the building the most geometric of all the shapes.

When it was painted, it was a view of modern day Paris. This section of the city was brand new and had been designed with wide avenues, and a precise road network. Indeed, if you look at an aerial view of the streets coming off of the Arc de Triomphe, you will see that the roads come from it like segments of an orange. It is in this area that Les Grands Boulevard is situated. The artist has captured the essence of Paris so well, that it is still recognizable even in today’s Paris.

Conclusion

Viewing art in real life is a very different experience than looking at an image of it in a photo, book or poster. This is especially so if one is very familiar with the work, but never seen it in real life. I think the first thing that comes to mind is how different it actually is.

I recall seeing the Mona Lisa for the first time. While it is far from being my favorite work of art, I was staggered by how much I enjoyed seeing it in real life. The sense of history, of age, and of dimension, all this comes through even though it is not possible to view close up and being under a thick layer of protected glass. Since seeing it in real life, whenever I see it in print, it appears even more of a flat image than before.

For the three pieces at the Philadelphia Museum of Art I saw, the first thing I felt was they were not the size I imagined. For the church entrance, I was expecting something smaller, as the description mentioned it was from a small abbey. For the Renoir painting, I was expecting something larger, and for the tapestry, while I was expecting it to be large, I was not expecting the colors to be so vibrant, nor the piece to be so clear.

Compared to just viewing the works in a book where you have no real idea of size, the true colors, texture and so on, viewing in real life is naturally superior.

Grade A