The Epistemology of Painting: Brightness and Detail

What do various levels of brightness and detail say about a painting and the artist himself?

Human cognition starts with perception. It begins with the data of our sense organs; It starts with reality, what is actually out there, what we see with our own eyes, and what we touch with our hands. The senses perceive reality in different clarity levels; On a very clear and sunny day, we could see much farther away than on a foggy gloomy day.  

In painting, there are two different ways that eyesight is represented:

1. How much detail and focus there is 

2. How much brightness there is  

Every painter has a unique attitude towards each point regarding eyesight. For example, some painters value both brightness and detail, some value only one or the other, and some don’t value either.

Detail and Focus

(“Bonjour, Monsieur Courbet”, Gustave Courbet, 1854)

It was important for Courbet to show high levels of detail, accurate lighting, and realistic colours. The brightness is also high and proper for a painting with “Bonjour” on its title. But Courbet doesn’t amend the brightness either way. He aims to accurately represent the scene as it was in reality. This picture is a perfect way to explain why Courbet was considered a realist. 

Sometimes, the brightness level an artist includes in his work symbolises his approach to life: can people be happy? Can they achieve values? Is the world a good place to live? This is an important distinction to make between brightness and detail. Brightness is more of a metaphysical evaluation of life on earth, and detail relates more to what the artist thinks one should be focused on. I would still categorise both under epistemology because both brightness and detail are tied to how we perceive reality. But it still is intertwined with other fields such as metaphysics and ethics. 

Let’s use a different example from the impressionists:

(Pont-Neuf, Pierre-Auguste Renior, 1872)

Almost all of Renoir's paintings are very bright. In some, he goes into more detail and less in others, but the brightness in his works is always apparent. There is no specific focus on any character like in the example above. Renoir simply doesn’t think it’s essential for this work. Still, you can get a sense of vibrant city life and liveliness even without much detail and focus. 

The brightness and the colourful beauty of the city are enough for Renior to give us an impression of the city. Even with the blurry figures, one can feel Paris's vitality. Perhaps this portrayal is even more accurate to what wandering Paris felt like to Renoir. When I wander the streets myself, I’m sometimes not focused on anyone’s face but only on the path on which I am walking. 

It’s not that there are no details at all. Renoir is providing us with just enough. We don’t need any more details to get the idea. Much opposed to Courbet, who is an example of an artist who paid very close attention to even very subtle details. Renior cared much more about colour and brightness. Courbet’s approach to colour and light was realistic. His paintings were bright when his subjects were, in fact, bright. I couldn’t find one Renoir picture from the impressionist era that wasn’t filled with lively, bright colours, and that difference alone can say a lot about these two artists. It tells about their attitude towards life, well-being, and much more.

Light and darkness 

(Judith at the Banquet of Holofernes, Rembrandt, 1634)

There shouldn’t be a 100% realistic representation of either detail or brightness. That is what the hyperrealists tried to achieve, and for my analysis of them, I shall refer you to my article about them. Sometimes, great artists like Renoir put a much higher emphasis on colour and brightness. Some other great artists emphasise the small details and the picture's general correspondence to reality. Some simply prefer a dark background. It might simply go better with the mood they wish to portray what they want to focus on. 

Rembrandt was a master of lighting. Nothing was bright for no reason. He used light to achieve a high level of focus on the subjects themselves. One more light usage on his part was to emphasise the drama of a particular scene that he wanted to portray. 

(Belshazzar's Feast, Rembrandt, 1635)

Perhaps the most famous example of his usage of light and shadow is Belshazzar’s feast. It is a biblical scene from the book of Daniel where a prophecy directly from God about the destruction of Babylon is revealed to Belshazzar, the prince of Babylon. The light here is also symbolic because it represents the good - God and the evil Babylonians who are surrounded by darkness. The only light source in the picture is the word of God written in Hebrew. It seems as though without them, the whole room would be completely dark. 

Rembrandt distorts realistic lighting to make the scene much more dramatic. However, if you were to look closely at the details, especially what Belshazzar is wearing, you would see tremendously beautiful and accurate attention to detail. 

The lesson from Rembrandt is that an artist may distort the actual lighting to emphasise some value, some idea, or some feeling that the artist wishes to emphasise. An artist can show reality as it is like in the case of Courbet, but more interestingly, an artist can show reality how it may be. He can show us a version of reality that is idealised, or like in Rembrand’s, a more focused version of reality that abstracts away things that the artist may deem as less important such as portraying accurate lighting or, as in the case of Renior, not going through the effort of accurately painting each minute detail that is irrelevant to achieving what he wanted to achieve with that painting. 

Borderline cases

(Fishermen at Sea, J.M.W Turner, 1796)

William Turner was a very famous world-renowned English painter from the romantic era. Immediately when thinking about an artist who has emphasised brightness, Turner came to my mind. Interestingly, his first painting exhibited in the royal academy of art, “Fishermen at Sea”, is quite dark. This painting reminds me of the great Aivazovsky painting that I discussed here. The comparison between the two is fascinating indeed. One thing that I will say about the difference is that I can immediately sense the malevolent sense of life that Turner, even at this stage of his life, possessed. The small fishermen’s boat looks very fragile as against Aivazovsky’s ship, which is much larger and sterner. 

This painting is very interesting because it doesn’t look like a Turner. He is well known for his bright and pastel colours, and here, the picture is very dark. Even the moon, the light source itself, is almost covered with clouds. There is very high attention to detail which in the later Turner is virtually non-existent. It is somewhat of an opposite to the picture below. 

(Norham Castle, Sunrise, J.M.W Turner, 1845)

This painting was one of Turner’s last ones. And it depicts Norham Castle overlooking a river. Could you know that without the title? I don’t think you will. The colours are very bright pastels. Some deer could be seen, and an outline of a sun is visible in the upper centre. This painting is very close to being what I would call “pure brightness” - A so bright painting that nothing is visible except for only the brightness itself. Actual paintings of pure brightness will come much farther into the 20th century, but Turner influenced them greatly. When a picture depicts nothing comprehensible, it cannot be considered art, I don’t think that's the case in Turner, but it’s a trend he has helped to create. 

(Norham Castle: Sunrise, J.M.W Turner, 1798)

Turner was very pessimistic by the time of this painting, possibly even depressed. He had actually painted Norham Castle six times. It is evident that this place was of great sentimental value to him. He had found refuge in the bright pastel colours. He couldn’t care less about painting an accurate, realistic picture at this point in his life. As you can see, he had already done a realistic portrayal of Norham Castle. In his earlier days. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, different artists hold different philosophies, and light, colour, and different levels of detail are interesting ways that an artist can project his views about existence and life on earth. Art has to have detail. It has to be something comprehensible to the senses. But there is a wide spectrum. There are impressionists, and there are realists. These are both legitimate schools of art. The cause of this difference is a different question that I am still trying very hard to think about. I will write about it in the future for sure. It’s important to stress that there is no dichotomy between detail and brightness, it is very difficult to hold both as most important, but it is indeed possible. 

Starting in the 19th century, this false dichotomy became more and more prominent in the art world. Some artists became less and less interested in an integrated work and became more interested in emphasising either brightness or detail. In the 20th century, it became hyperrealism vs abstract, which are both wrong and non-art. Beauty is about the harmony of all the aspects of art. It is harmony between the style, the composition, the levels of detail, and the levels of brightness. You don’t want a portrait where you can see all the small ugly imperfections of the human body. You want just the right balance of high realistic details but not too many. You want beautiful bright colours but not too many. This is very difficult to achieve. 

Bouguereau is one example from the 19th century that comes to mind. To name one from the earlier rococo period is Tiepolo, who is one of my absolute favourites. To combine both detail and brightness to a beautiful harmony requires a work of artistic genius. Not only that, but it also requires a this-worldly philosophy that celebrates life on earth. Nowadays, unfortunately, that is a very rare combination, but it does still exist - I highly recommend checking out Quent Cordiar’s gallery for beautiful examples of that. 

(Gabrielle Cot, William-Adolphe Bouguereau, 1890)