Hello everyone and welcome back. Today we're looking at George Sirat's masterpiece, a Sunday afternoon on the island of Lagrangeant. And as usual, we're going to figure out what's going on in this artwork. And we're going to do this through the usual steps, observation, analysis, interpretation, and then finally we're going to decide on whether or not the artwork was successful. This is a huge painting, about two meters tall by three meters wide. The men and the woman at the front of the painting are slightly larger than life's size and they tower over us. The painting's current home is in the Art Institute of Chicago in Illinois, but it was originally painted in Paris between the years 1884 and 1886. This is a well-loved artwork, as inspired scenes from movies, a symphony, a play, and much more. But not many people understand what this artwork is really about. So let's figure out what's going on and we're going to start by looking closely. When I show this artwork to my students, the first thing they usually mention are the animals. There are three dogs. There's one larger black one, one tiny white dog in the background, and a smaller brown one with a bow around his neck. Behind that one is an animal you don't see every day. It's a monkey shown at the end of a leash. The painting shows a park outdoors. Nearly everything is happening on a wide green lawn. Pepper throughout the lawn or bits of litter and a bunch of trees. And judging by the kinds of green, we can guess it's late spring or early summer. The lawn is next to our river, and on the water we can see many different kinds of sailboats, steamboats, and roamedboats. The sky is partly cloudy with just a little haze. It's a nice day. We can also see lots of people, and most of them are dressed in expensive and fashionable clothes. Many people are wearing hats, and there are a bunch of people with umbrellas. This may seem strange to us because there's no rain, but in fact, they're using umbrellas as parasols to shade themselves from the sun. There are a few clusters of people in the artwork. There's a couple wearing black and gray at the front of the painting. On the other side of the painting is a cluster of three people and a dog. There's some families grouped together too. At the top center is a mother and a little girl. Just to the right of them is another mother and daughter. Behind the gray couple is another gathering of women, and by the river's edge is another family mostly sitting down. There's some other folks too. There are a few couples walking around, and there are a few people who are by themselves. There is a person playing the trumpet, and there are a couple of people looking out across the water. There are some people rowing in forest on the river. And finally, there is a girl in a red dress running on the lawn. So let's start to figure out the clues in this artwork. First, we should point out that this artwork is created with oil paint on canvas, and it's using a technique called poignolism. It's made out of tiny dots and dashes that seem a little bit like pixels or the grain of a photograph. Surat was experimenting with painting, so when we see these dots at a distance, they blend together in a soft haze of color. Notice also that Surat is using a red, green, and blue color scheme, the primary colors for mixing light. This is a perfect triangular color scheme, and he sticks to it carefully. His artwork does not have the harmony and beauty of an analogous color scheme, nor the energy and conflict of a complementary one. Instead, he's created a painting that is perfectly, even rigidly balanced. In fact, as we look closely, nearly everything in this artwork is stiff and rigid. Look at the way most people are standing. They look stiff and uncomfortable, even if they're sitting down. Now take a look at their clothing. They're wearing clothing that are very, very fashionable, but that is really too heavy, hot, and restrictive for such a warm summer's day. They're wearing parasols, and this helps to cut the heat, but they're probably also trying to keep the sun off their skin. You see, back then, working people were more likely to have their skin darkened by levering outdoors. Pale light skin was considered a mark of wealth, and appearances were very important to wealthy people back then. And yes, this is exactly as racist as it sounds. Notice how nobody in the painting seems to be talking outside their group. Instead, they're just standing there like perfectly posed, beautifully dressed dolls. They're not there to enjoy the riverbank in the nice weather, and they're not there to have fun. They're there to see other people and to be seen. They're here because being wealthy forces them to participate in uncomfortable social events like this one. There are a few exceptions to this. In the background is a young girl in red, running freely on the grass with her red hair streaming behind her. And at the bottom left is one adult who seems different. He's much more relaxed, lounging back on his elbows and smoking a pipe. But he doesn't quite fit in. He's dressed in a tank top, and he's likely an employee of the uncomfortably stiff couple in black behind him. But there is one place where he does fit in. You see, while George the Rott was painting Lagrangiot, he also made another painting of the other side of the river. It shows a riverbank that is less fancy and less crowded, and the people here are really different. Many of them have stripped down so they can enjoy the cool water, and they're much more relaxed. Their clothes are far less formal and expensive, and their hair is a little scruffy. This is the side of the river where everyday people come to relax, and they seem to be having a much nicer time. In fact, when you put all the clues together, Lagrangiot is not really a picture of a lovely summer day. Instead, we see that people here can't allow themselves to have fun. Even the lines of the tree are stiff, and surround the people a little like the bars of a jail. These people are busy trying to look proper, to look wealthy and fashionable, and to be noticed at all the trendy places like these newly created city parks. They're not here to enjoy the sun, and they'd be horrified if they got a suntan. They are there out of social obligation, dressed up beautifully, but with no thoughts or opinions of their own. Only animals, young people, and servants are allowed to enjoy things. And the person who I feel most sorry for is the young woman to the right of the center. She realizes she is too old to run around anymore. She knows that in her family, those days of living and acting freely are gone now. And as she looks down at the beautiful, fresh flowers, wilting in her hands, she realizes that she's becoming an adult in a world of wealthy socialites. And just like a bouquet left out in the heat, she's also going to wilt in weather, but on the inside. So this is Sirat's masterpiece, painted carefully with dots and dashes over a period of about three years. What seems at first to be a lovely day at the park is actually a story of how money doesn't buy you freedom and happiness. Instead, when you move into a higher class of society, the rules and expectations can be restrictive and soul-crushing. So what do you think? How well did Sirat communicate his message? In other words, did Sirat do a good job with this artwork? Be prepared to back up your opinion with reasons, and you're allowed to refer to Sirat's sister painting, The Bathers at Aznir. And as always, thank you for your thoughts and attention.