The Gleaners

The Gleaners - Jean François Millet - 1857

Jean François Millet, 1814–75, was born into a poor farming family. An award In 1837 enabled him to go to Paris to study with Delaroche. 1849 saw him settled in Barbizon, where he executed such celebrated works as The Gleaners (1857) and the Angelus (1859), both now in the Louvre. His association with members of the Barbizon School was more by proximity and friendship rather than by his stylistic approach or treatment of subject; as a painter of melancholy scenes of peasant labour he has been considered a social realist. His paintings are particularly noted for their power and simplicity of drawing.

The Gleaners was first exhibited in 1857 when it met with mixed reviews within the art world; a few commentators attacked its depiction of the rural peasants on two counts:

i) it served as an unwelcome reminder of the marginalized poor (who were taken to be a threat to society)

ii) the subjects were considered to be the kind of grotesques who had no place within the artistic realm.

Previously gleaning had usually been represented in art as a depiction of the Old Testament tale of Ruth the gleaner, in which Ruth is characterised as a modest and virtuous example of the way to God; however, Millet had turned it into a statement on rural poverty, which undoubtedly added to the shock value of this painting.

The enormous popular appeal of The Gleaners from the end of the nineteenth until the present day lies in its simplicity and directness, and the fact that anyone can understand it. This was one of the mainstays of Realism in nineteenth-century France in which Millet led, and with which Corot became associated. However, its simple appearance is deceptive, the artist’s manipulation of space gives this work a high degree of subtlety, turning it, from what could easily be a banal and boring image, into an excellent image.

The three peasant women in the foreground appear large and monumental against the vast expanse of the landscape. The above eye-level horizon is on the line splitting the upper two thirds of the canvas; to the right along that line are haystacks and houses which perstectivally create the sense of distance. Then the eye is drawn left to some large haystacks in the middle distance, and then rapidly to the figures in the foreground, making the viewer realise there is very little middle distance, and that the figures appear very quickly. This is how Millet has succeeded in making the figures appear larger than life in relation to the rest of the composition.

I reducing, or even to some extent eliminating, the middle distance Millet has provide us with a sense of magnificence and space; a sense of space that is further enhanced by the very low viewpoint from which we view the landscape. The figure on the right is most dominant of all because Millet has made her head coincide with the horizon line. The other two figures are portrayed bending lower thus leading the eye diagonally towards the background. Millet has also somewhat modified the aerial perspective here; the tonal values in the foreground are generally, as one would expect, darker than those in the distance, but he has painted the figures to the right of the haycart in the distance using the same tonal values as the peasants closer to us. This lends a degree of stability to the diagonal movement of the women and the relationship between the foreground and the background. This is again enhanced by the figures in the foreground being made more distinct, and having been painted in some detail compared to the lighter and more blurred background, which further increases the sense of distance.

There is no attempt her to provide any individuality, these three peasants are universal, they are not particular people; their faces are in shadow which makes us concentrate on their relationship with the landscape in which they are working rather than on their individuality. The view can by no stretch of the imagination be said to be picturesque, detail is reduced to a very minimum, and what detail there is here is earthy and subdued helping the overall character of the surroundings to become the centre of attention. Millet’s shrewd emphasis on this deep space persuades the observer to think about the elemental relationship of people and land; the way they influence it in terms of cultivation and toil, not only this but also of their reliance on the land as a provider of food and the means to earn a living.

Update: 27-11-2007

As you may have noticed in the comments not everyone agrees with the above interpretation of this work. That is a good thing, it would be a boring world if we all agreed, and I like to be challenged from time to time. For those who may be interested in an alternative reading of ths work a very good critique can be found here.