In the Shadow of David’s Brutus
Both Rousseau and David’s philosophy have the same idea where David was influenced by Rousseau to a great extent. However, they have presented their ideas in different medium whereby one was on the written form whereas the other one was on the visual form. Therefore, this essay will prove their ideas in different ways which they are explored by Rousseau and David. Rousseau constructed the social contract was to solve the question of freedom, and his solution to this problem was the construction of the civil state.
In other words, his idea was that living in the civil state was similar as signing a contract in which one agrees to obey the general will and not one’s particular will. Rousseau wanted to show that man could live in the civil state and be free as in the state of nature. Through the grouping of citizens, each willing to surrender himself and live with others as a whole which required thinking rationally and act morally. Most importantly, by agreeing to the social contract, people gave up their physical freedom in state of nature and signing himself over to the civil state. Hence, this directed by the general will.
In the first and second line of the extract, ‘a remarkable change in man’ indicates that people would benefit in a change from the state of nature to civil state. He believed that in joining the civil state, people escape the slavery of appetite and fulfill themselves as human beings. Only ‘general will’ makes people human. Our particular wills may want to pursue selfish ends with no regard for the people’s interests. Hence, Rousseau believed that ‘general will’ is a will that “it would be in each individual’s best interest to think according to the general will and so escape brutish stupidity. (Blk 3, pp115).
Therefore, votes must be cast to find a ‘general will’. This general will is the product of reason (Blk 3, pp122). Only then will the society benefit if citizen act according to reason and embrace the ‘general will’. Thus, in obeying the state, citizens will be obeying themselves because the ‘general will’ should be what they desire. Therefore, the particular will should coincide with the will of the state because everyone wants the best. Another idea from Rousseau was “to be legimate, the authority the state has over the people must come from the people themselves” (Blk 3, pp97).
In social contract, Rousseau is trying to defend a certain view about legimate authority. He argued that a state is only legimate if based on a contract between all its members, in which they give away their bad qualities in exchange for good qualities. Thus, he claimed that the goal of the government should be to secure freedom, equality, rights and justice for all within the state. Hence, he also claimed that we should abandon our inclinations and consult our reason and think as a member of the state. This had to adopt the general will. As such, people could relate Rousseau’s political ideas with David’s painting.
It helped to ignite a passion amongst the French general public and change French politics. In Rousseau’s social contract, the minorities of individuals who do not agree with the ‘general will’ must not be ignored. When there is a conflict between the two, Rousseau expects that the citizen will rationalize and choose the ‘general will’ over his ‘particular will’. To do otherwise would be ignoble and slavish to selfish appetite. This emphasizes duty to state over personal desires and it was this same belief which David, a painter of the Revolution subscribed to.
In his painting, “The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his sons”, David painted in such a way that the view of the spectator is at the same level and it is drawn in a horizontal space. The picture is organized into two different figure groups whereby the females are on the extreme right while the males are on the extreme left. Thus, the empty chair forms a barrier between the two halves of the painting. The group of female figures and a woman on the far right attract the attention in this picture. Their strong emotions show sadness and anxiety to grief at the sight of the corpses.
The tallest woman gives a point of interest that she is turning towards her dead sons and one of her hands supports her two daughters while the other hand hopes to rush towards her dead sons. However, her two daughters could not accept the truth that the death of their family members as one was fainted and the other one used her two hands to hide her eyes. Next to them is a female who is seated at one corner as she is deeply depressed of this scene. On the left, Brutus sits impassively in the shadow of the goddess Roma and his right arm signals the lictors to bring the corpses in.
He turned his back and refused to look at his dead sons. His tightly clenched toes and muscles on his arms show how tense he is. His other hand held a letter tightly. Thus, the content of the letter has something to do with his sons as they planned a plot to overthrow Brutus. Thus, David has chosen a part of history and he has painted at that moment that Brutus sacrificed his sons for the sake of politics. Hence, he has portrayed the conflicts between political duty and family allegiances. The painting became politically significant because the content reflected the Roman republican virtues and promoted the ideas of moralizing France.
This painting leads our eyes along perspective lines and into the depths of the room which was blocked half-way on this picture. The column nearest to the viewer, the dark doorway and the walls on the left and the curtain screen on the right block the view of what lies behind the painting, making us focus on the action of the figures which was closer to us. Thus, it also creates a greater depth in the dark brickwork beyond a second row of columns. The colours and features of the lictors who are first to enter the room are darker then those behind them.
Hence, this gives a further sense of pictorial space and takes the viewer deeper into the picture creating depth. The red cushion to the left closer to us adds to another dimensional space. Thus, the different proportions of the chairs and table add more space and depth to the picture. Light is bright and has poured into the scene with different angles. This makes the spotlight effect on the female figures which captures our attention. Bright lights also fall on the columns and empty chair, on the feet of Brutus and on the legs of the body on the second litter.
It is also more evident from the shadow of the man on the left, the shadow of female group on the cloth and flooring and one of the lictor’s shadows is cast on the column. We could conclude that the light is coming from the doorway from the left. These also seem to be lit in their outlines and add to the three-dimensional effect. In his painting, David chose bright colours such as red and orange costumes for the females, table cloth and empty chair. On the other hand, he also chose dark neutral colours to create a somber mood.
There is a broad tonal range in it as a whole, from very bright to very dark and this creates dramatic contrasts. The figures are clearly defined and certain colours are repeated and balanced as reflected in this painting. Like David’s painting, Rousseau’s ideas are also very clear and well-defined. The brushwork is well-defined and shows clear facial expressions. The expressions on the female figures clearly showed their emotion reactions whereas Brutus is left alone. Brutus and his sons had different views as his sons supported the monarchy instead of him.
Thus, it symbolizes that from the left are ’emotions’ and from the right are ‘reasons’. Therefore, David introduces the themes of the triumph and role of reason. When looking at David’s painting, it could not separate from Rousseau’s ideas. As I have mentioned earlier, one must surrender himself and live with others as a whole which required thinking rationally and act morally. In other words, we should bring across the moral values that people should be noble and not possess those bad qualities that has mentioned in the extract.
Last but not least, the similarity between Rousseau and David is their ideas involved human reasons and attitudes. Hence, it also grasps an emotional and passionate side of man in both painting and extract. These two medium symbolizes both political and historical context. Thus, David’s Neoclassical art extolled civic virtues and emphasized morality, Rousseau was willing to sanction death as a punishment allowing for the achievement of his civil state and David’s painting serves as propaganda to reflect his ideology in his painting.
