Not so sure about fragonard’s grasp of anatomy, either she’s got incredibly long thighs, or her knee’s slipped southwards.
-And very small feet.
nice to have a servant to take all the work out of swinging!

@soubriquet: Hello and welcome.

Oh well, I don’t think he really was interested in depicting the natural world correctly.

i would tap

Looks to me like the guy is trying to get an upskirt shot, and the other guy is trying to help him by pushing her up higher. I think you were right when you said “horny”.

Jean Honore Fragonard is painting an affair occuring between the woman being swung and the man looking up her dress. The man swining her is her husband. Fragonard is not in fact a horny bastard but is trying to express the frivolous pursuit of pleasure that governed much of 18th century aristocrats way of life. I’m a year 11 art student.

Molly, I was not aware of the relationship between swinger and swingee, but that being said, the “horny bastard” comment is not at all challenged by the knowledge.
Fragonard’s picture document the dissipation and obsession with sexual adventure that governed much of the way of life of many 18th century aristocrats.
That being said, the lives of the peasantry were generally even less wholesome.
Many of Fragonard’s patrons, of course, lost their wealth and privilege, not to mention their heads, when revolution swept across France.
I would argue, Molly, that Fragonard is not so much “trying to express the frivolous pursuit of pleasure”, as trying to produce a moderately titillating soft-porn picture which will be aegerly received by his patron, and spawn a desire for further such comissions.
This sort of image was very popular in the rococo world, being capable of being perceived on multiple levels, on the one hand, it could be claimed to be absolutely innocent. On another….
compare it with the poetry of the era, and you will find repeated themes.
More seriously, we see in this picture a very shallow depth of field, the two main characters being arranged and lit as if upon a stage, with the swinger and the onlooking statuary figures in a murky, two dimensional background. This is no master-piece, it is a piece of work commissioned, and delivered up to order.
Fragonard’s grasp of anatomy is poor, though the picture is redeemed by his use of colour, and the focal frivolity.
In short? A pleasant, but mediocre picture, by a painter who was capable of better.
And a horny bastard too. Let’s not forget his lust for his wife’s fourteen year old sister.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

Will you get over yourself. And by the way my name is Mollie not exactly hard to remember when it’s written right above my comment. Your reply was not helpful and completely condescending.

Mollie, of course I apologise for mistakenly using the more common spelling of your name.
As for the rest of your comment, I take it that it upsets you to encounter someone who disagrees with your opinion?
Unfortunately, the world is full of people with differing opinions.
I’d say “Get used to it”.

My comment was “not helpful”?
Did you ask for help?
Condescending? No, not that either. Just disagreeing.

The sheer lack of remorse in your “apology” is insulting. It is not that I dislike encountering someone who disagrees with my opinion I just don’t appreciate the pompous way in which you stated how incredibly wrong everything I said was.

Remorse!
I might feel remorse if I’d been out massacring your family, but I think it’s unnecessary in the context of simply disagreeing with you over the interpretation of a painting.

And the mis-rendering of your name to something phonetically identical is not exactly mortally wounding.

My comment did not describe yours as incredibly wrong, I started by saying that I had been unaware of the relationship between the characters, bowing as it were to your prior knowledge, but I disagreed with your interpretation.

So, in short, I think you’re over-reacting to a very minor slight.
As for which interpretation of Fragonard is the more correct, who knows?
Could be you, or it could be me. It’s just a matter of opinion, that’s all.
You don’t know me, I don’t know you, we will never meet, so in the meantime, let’s simply agree that we do not agree.
And I’ll promise not to disagree in a comment box with anyone named Mollie for at least a year.

I just don’t understand why you had to pick my view of the painting to pieces. As you said it was open to interpretation and the point of this site is to give your own views not to explain why someone elses are wrong.

“In short” please try and compact your replies. Please reply I find this quite amusing. P.s family are taking precautions to ensure massacre does not occur.

I’m sorry.

I did not mean to cause any unhappiness.
I believe that disagreement on interpretations in art history, current art, literature, and many more subjects, leading to the positing of opposing theories, and arguing one’s case, which naturally includes pointing out flaws in the opposing case, that is what drives history and criticism. We are creatures of argument.
You, as a student of art, will read books with varying views, will be encouraged to make your own interpretations, using your observation, and your knowledge of the artist’s other works, the context of the artist’s life, place in society, the history of the times.
You will no doubt sometimes disagree with the other person’s viewpoint, and at that time, should you feel your premise is worthy of defence, you may enter into a debate.
In the end, though, unless we had Fragonard’s own thoughts, in his diary, or in a letter, or reported by a contemporary, there is no exact answer, no win or lose position.

So I repeat, I gave my opinion, you gave yours, they are opinions, that’s all.
So I apologise. I did not mean to upset you.

Oh
and compact replies?
No
It’s not what I do.

Hey, it’s just a piece of art.

Don’t get aggravated about it - and neither about opinions - please!

p.s.
Hide the kitchen knives.
Sprinkle tin-tacks on the floor before you go to bed..
And I’m quite scared of fierce dogs.
And zombies. Employ a zombie bodyguard.

Orangeguru, I’m a chastened man. May I hide behind you?

@soubriquet: Yes you may … if it’s any comfort?!

I’m afraid my 14 year old sister is also afraid of zombies. Interestingly enough the only part of your first reply that I found interesting or relevant was the disturbing relationship between Fragonard and his wife’s 14 year old sister.

Fragonard’s wife’s younger sister, Marguerite Gerard, became his pupil, and then his collaborator. They painted together, as equals, observers noted, however, their touches and glances, and some thought their relationship pointed to them being lovers.
What is sure though, is that as Fragonard fell on hard times, and Marguerite prospered in her career as one of only a very few female painters, that Marguerite maintained a close relationship with he and his wife, jointly purchasing a home with them, and possibly supporting them financially.

Thank you, Orangeguru.

Okay. Lack of Zombie bodyguard noted.

Thank you. That was a far better way of demonstrating your knowledge on this subject.

Although most of your replies sound like you’ve copied them straight from a webpage.

Ah! flattery! yes I have written a few web pages….

I prefer to write my own sentences. Although I do use commercially available words, which I buy in bulk from indutrial breakers of dictionaries. The price benefit is so great that I can afford to use ten words where three would suffice.
I recently bought up a job-lot of extremely cheap words, and discovered some of dubious quality, the spelling being somewhat variable, I used several hundreds before I discovered that, of course.

In the meantime, I have a huge bin of military surplus apostrophes.
I shall try sell them to grocers, others I’ll file down for use as commas.

Might have to do some writing too.

Right now though, the sun is shining, and real life calls again.

See! a faulty “industrial”
If Orangeguru would send it back, I’d repair it. But hey, we know what it’s meant to be.. Never mind, it’ll be fine.