Pieter Bruegel’s The Fall of Ikaros around 1555 is an impressive work that I enjoyed looking at and immersed myself in. Therefore, I wanted to take a closer look at this painting.
|The Fall of Ikaros, Pieter Bruegel, circa 1555. Source: web1|
Let’s talk briefly about the painter… Since
Pieter Bruegel’s son is a painter, he is often referred to as old or father Bruegel to be distinguished from him. In some sources, it can also be read as “ue” “ü Alman in German. This great masters E. Gombrich’s The Story of Art is the tremendous work introduces as follows: “
XVI. The greatest Flemish master of the 18th century was Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1525? -1569). We know very little about his life. What we know is that, like most northern artists of his time, he went to Italy and lived and worked in Antwerp and Brussels. He painted most of his paintings in the 1560s in Brussels, when the Duke of Alva came to the Netherlands. The reputation of art and the artist was probably as important to him as it was to Dürer or Cellini. (Hep) We all tend to make a common mistake about artists. This is often the mistake of confusing his work with the artist. Dickens, Let’s think of a member of Pickwick’s entertaining surroundings or Jules Verne as a brave explorer and traveler. If Bruegel himself was a peasant himself, he would not have been able to paint these pictures. Certainly he was an urban man and his view of village life was very similar to that of Shakespeare. For Shakespeare, Carpenter Quience and Weaver Bottom were “clowns tür. It was customary to see ignorant country people as a figure of entertainment. I don’t think Shakespeare or Bruegel handled this custom without being polite. But in village life, people exhibit their temper more clearly, and they hide less behind an artificial shell like the gentleman of Hilliard. So when playwrights and artists wanted to show people’s foolishness, they usually chose people from the lower layer ” I don’t think Shakespeare or Bruegel handled this custom without being polite. But in village life, people exhibit their temper more clearly, and they hide less behind an artificial shell like the gentleman of Hilliard. So when playwrights and artists wanted to show people’s foolishness, they usually chose people from the lower layer ” I don’t think Shakespeare or Bruegel handled this custom without being polite. But in village life, people exhibit their temper more clearly, and they hide less behind an artificial shell like the gentleman of Hilliard. So when playwrights and artists wanted to show people’s foolishness, they usually chose people from the lower layer ” (Gombrich, 1999).
Myth, which is the subject of the painting, is very brief:
Some commentators think that this myth is related to the excitement of youth, uncontrollability and perhaps arrogance that can lead to human catastrophe. Neither in the back nor in the front, perhaps this approach can be described in the form of good middle. Or directly, the father will listen to the word as well as a patriarchal commentary who wants to. Of course, the father here represents mastery, maturity, experience,
Going back to the picture…
Let’s start with an annoying anachrony, that is, history error. Our painter Bruegel made a few history mistakes. There is no history of myths, but in general the ancient Greeks think that they lived in the ancient past. Not in Renaissance Europe, no doubt. However, our painter did not refrain from dressing the peasants who had cultivated the land in the painting with their own region and period. In addition, the sailing ship in the sea is also a 16th century sailboat as far away as possible from the ancient Greek ships.
Did he knowingly made these mistakes, didn’t care, did it stem from his ignorance, or was connected with another artistic narrative, open for discussion. Maybe…
After all this, when we try to interpret the picture, we seem to have two roads leading to the opposite direction of each other. The first way glorifies the ordinary people in the painting, the peasants, and the second one.
If we go from the first, we will have to immerse ourselves in the wind of humanism blowing in 16th century Europe. Now is the time of the gods, the divine narratives, the ordinary man, the man who uses his mind, the man who created himself, against the extraordinary deities of the extraordinary world. Man believes in himself. The events in mythology are not very interesting. He continues to live and produce in his real world. Tales are not for him. Ikaros has fallen, Zeus has sent the lightning… He no longer has time to spend on them, he doesn’t even care, even in everyday affairs, they take so little space that Ikarus’s flying into the skies suddenly cannot be overlooked unless we look carefully.
The second way begins with the commentary by Gombrich’s period artists that “when playwrights and artists wanted to show people’s foolishness, they usually chose people from the lower layer.” Perhaps Bruegel wanted to emphasize the extent to which the peasants were fooled by ordinary people, or how much they were aware of “high gibi things such as“ mythology oloji. While one of the most important narratives of Greek mythology takes place right in front of their eyes, they are still worried about plowing, fishing, and feeding animals.
There is another point of view that it may be intended to defeat people. This is another path that departs from road 2. According to this interpretation, the painting emphasizes the direction of the person who closes his eyes to someone else’s pain and does not care. People who don’t care about a young man shouting from the sky and fluttering into the sea. Everyone is so buried in his own business that he doesn’t care about someone else’s pain, even death. This actually takes the picture from the 16th century to modern times. Isn’t one of the greatest weaknesses of modern man being buried in itself? (You know, art criticism can not be made without such cool sentences). I didn’t say it to keep it cool, really. If you don’t believe, ask Nietzsche or something. He will curse with the mouthful of modern man’s devotion.
|Charles Le Brun, 1645.
Here Diadalos wears wings to his son Ikarus.
|Orazio Riminaldi, 1625.
Here, too, he wears wings to Ikarus, son of Diadalos.
|Frederic Leighton, 1869. It is
as if he wears the wings to Ikarus, the son of Diadalos, but Daidalos
stands next to Ikaros, who remained almost a slave. Maybe Ikaros’un young people with the excitement of the
painter tried to convey to us that way to the gas thoroughly.