The Stone Breakers

            With the rise of the socialist movements, the invention of photography, and the revolutionary push of avant-garde art reacting against academy traditions also came the birth of Realism painting. One such painter, Gustave Courbet, believed that painting was an “essentially concrete art,” and embraced the notion of realism, painting only what existed in front of him—what he could see with his own eyes. He also believed in art as being utilitarian and having the potential to initiate change for the better in society. This shows through his realism paintings, which incorporate political and technical perspectives of the radical avant-garde intention. His painting The Stone Breakers (1849) is a prime example of how he includes these ideas, reacts to the authority of the academy, and tries to bring awareness to the struggles of the lower class.

            First off, Courbet’s painting fits the political radicalism viewpoint in regards to his chosen subject matter. In The Stone Breakers, he depicts two gentleman of the proletariat (working/lower class) performing intense, backbreaking labor. To anyone of the upper class, these figures would appear humble and insignificant with their laborious activities and tattered clothing. This is what makes it have the affect it does. Keeping in mind that this painting was viewed majorly by the bourgeoisie (wealthy middle class), it was seen as imposing and intimidating due to its referencing of the poor. The rich folks didn’t want to see paintings of this sort because it offered them nothing. They didn’t want to be burdened by the thought of the struggling lower class, especially since they didn’t think the subject matter was worthy enough to begin with. In these ways Courbet glorifies the working class only a year after working class socialist revolutions (ignited by Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto) and expresses empathy for their oppressed state.

            From an artistic, or technical standpoint, Courbet’s The Stone Breakers fills out the other definition of the avant-garde radical style. He breaks away from the traditions of the academic style in numerous ways, which also promote his bringing of awareness to the proletariat. His application of paint is rougher than usual academy paintings, similar to, but not to the extent of impressionism. This can possibly be seen as a reflection on the rough lives of the lower class. Also, the figures are brought to the foreground, making them fill the canvas—which also happens to be extremely large. This is another reason why the painting was so confrontational: with its enormity, usually reserved for noble or historie subject matter, it could not be avoided by the eyes of the bourgeoisie and therefore was a sight threatening to their lifestyle. Another untraditional aspect is Courbet’s disinterest in perspective and depth. There is no illusionism in the background, but rather a rolling hill that takes up the space and flattens the image in a way. Lastly, the figures’ gazes are turned away from the viewers of the painting, making them more anonymous, resulting in their representation of the general lower class. Since you cannot see their faces, they represent the masses.

            All of the characteristics of the painting offended members of the bourgeoisie, because all of its features pointed out the exploitation of the lower class by the upper class.