Spot the deliberate mistake

[davywavy]

One of the things I find interesting about going abroad is the way historical events are portrayed from other perspectives. Having got most of my historical education from my dad's copy of the 1932 Empire Book for Boys, it often comes as a bit of a surprise that other peoples might not see the same people and events in the same way.

I've just got back from a few days in la Belle France (The Bell, France) where I discovered that they see the Napoleonic wars in a totally different light to the British. Take, for example, this portrait of Napoleon Bonaparte. It appears that the artist has made several elementary mistakes. Can you spot them?

Comments

[gnommi.livejournal.com]

actually, a cursory glance at the evidence reveals that Napoleon ALMOST NEVER looked where he was going whilst riding, and ALMOST ALWAYS was pointing at *something*, though we may never know what.

(http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v234/gnommi/?action=view&current=LOLNapoleon.jpg)

Wonder he lasted so long...

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

The pointing is probably an artistic device aimed at demonstrating Napolean's 'hands on' nature during the various wars he commanded. By having him face a different direction to his horse and having him point, it breaks the usual static pose of a regal portrait.

This may have also served to humanise him by bringing him closer to the Dutch style of painting 'normal people' going about their lives, but generally it gives him the presence of a man who is saying 'you! go over there and kill them' or even 'follow me lads!' It is not the portrait of a man who is stood on a hill, far away from battle on a specially tame horse.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Alternatively (and more likely), he was just looking the wrong way when the Duke of Wellington turned up.

[gnommi.livejournal.com]

yeah I gathered that, just being my normal facetious self :)

He's almost always shown gesturing what should be done from the front line, usually surrounded by casualties, some of which are approaching him (bottom left). I noticed too that he's usually on a white horse (though not always). Is this significant, or did he just have a white one?

I noticed that there is a lot of hat-waving in a lot of pictures of him in front of troops, popular guy...

He's quite often reining in a horse too, rather than standing or plodding, I notice. Always giving the impression of action.

Don't think white breeches are a sensible option though, they'll get grubby in no time. And they really are *suspiciously* clean.

He doesn't look too chipper crossing the alps (left centre), is he going into exile by that time?

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

I suspect its for the obvious symbolism and the fact it makes him stand out more in a complex scene. The 'reining' of the horse would likely be to give the impression of him controlling a powerful beast, symbolising his control of the great french armies.

[(Anonymous)]

Him crossing the Alps by Donkey is probably pretty close to the truth (it's before Marengo in 1800, so long before exile). The David version (rearing horse top right) must have been worth a laugh from the grognards of the Old Guard.

Yup, always a white horse - hence the D of Wellington's "I don't need a white horse to puff me b'God!" at Waterloo (there you go David, credit to Nosey where it's due).

Oddly enough, Boney always called his horses Marengo, odd 'cos he very nearly lost that one. Got saved by a suicidal charge by one of those young curly haired generals (called Desaix) who always manage to conveniently get themselves killed in the moment of victory. Thus saving Napoleon the bother of having to have him quietly offed later on by Fouche & Savary.

D

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Could it also be a practical reason in that a man on horseback straight on looks a bit daft while still wanting to have a frontal portrait rather than a profile? I would imagine side views of horses are easier to paint than complicated perspectives.

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

The usual way would have been to paint it in the manner of a horse standing at a slight angle, as though held by a servant, with the noble sat astride and facing the viewer (or looking slightly over their head). Dealing with difficult perspectives would have been expected of a quality artist in this period.

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

ISTR that often a pointing gesture within a painting was designed to draw the viewer's eye towards something else in the painting, and strengthen the sense of perspective by pointing towards/away from the vanishing point.

Here, however, it just seems to be a futile gesture - unless of course the painting was initially paired with another, and the gesture wasdirected towards something in that...