Honestly the first reason that I liked this painting is because his name is fun to say in a fake french accent: Jean-Honore Fragonard. I first saw this painting in my art history class last year and my teacher basically dismissed it as frilly, meaningless art (he of course talked about the scandalous nature of the painting, but Mr. Williams is not at all a fan of Rococo art). A lot of people share Mr. Williams' opinion of Rococo artwork, but I think that some of Rococo (particularly this panting) are very interesting. I don't know enough Rococo artwork to attempt to defend it so I won't try, but I will hopefully give you some good points to think about regarding Fragonard's The Swing.
First of all, there's no denying that this painting is pretty. It may be frilly, but the use of detail, shadow, color, etc. are quite impressive. And this technical skill increases the power of the story that Fragonard tells in this piece. It all revolves around young love and the scandals that can be involved with that.
There are four important subjects in this picture. The first is obviously the girl on the swing. She is lavishing in the spring air, without a care in the world. As she kicks off her shoe, she spreads her legs for the boy in the bushes to get an interesting view of the scenery. The second subject important subject is of course the boy in the bushes. As he watches the girl swing forward he extends his arm to get closer to her. This is simply young passion. They are not together, it is a spring/summer fling. The next important subjects are the cherub statues surrounding the situation. The one on the left seems to be putting his finger in front of his mouth as to "shh" the situation. The others which are in the background, behind the girl are staring up admiring her. The symbol of a cherub is one of love and passion, which further explains the narrative of the piece. The final important subject in the painting is much more difficult to attempt to analyze. Who is the man pushing her on the swing and what does he have to do with the situation? Some have said he is her "priest-lover." This seems absolutely outlandish. The most logical explanation I can come up with is that he is simply a servant who is pushing her on her swing. I am happy to hear any other opinions from you all!
I think that this is an interesting piece of art simply because it is beautiful. It is made more juicy by the narrative within the painting, which you won't find in much of Rococo artwork. This isn't necessarily a powerful work but it is definitely nice to look at. I'll ask a question for you guys as well: is simply being beautiful enough to qualify as a "work of art?"
Here is the painting:
I hope you like it!
-Allijah
you should have done more research the reason it might have been suggested he was a "priest lover" was because the figure pushing the swing was originally commissioned to be a bishop
ReplyDelete