I would like to analyze the painting, Landscape with the Fall of Icarus, painted by Pieter Bruegel. Rife with meaning through thorough analysis and observation, it can be seen that several things are going on in the image. Painted around the 1560s (the true date is unknown, because the survived painting is supposedly a copy of the original), the background is set with a shepherd tending his small herd, a plowman doing work in his field, a fisherman, all set in the backdrop of a small bay that contains a few ships. Very discrete, there is an image of legs sticking out of the water behind the large ship in the painting. These are supposed to be the legs of Icarus, who drowned after he flew too close to the sun. He had wings made of wax by his father, Daedalus. Even with prior warning about flying too close to the sun from his father, he still flew too close and his wings crumpled and fell apart. The main notion in this image is that everyone is continuing their everyday tasks. It has been interpreted that the painting is a representation of mankind’s ignorance towards suffering. I especially enjoy this painting because looking at it quickly, one would not know the whole story behind it. After analysis and research, it’s amazing to study about the story of Icarus and how this more humanist view of the story, exemplified through this image, came up during the Northern Renaissance. Before I begin my analysis, I’ll simply state that humanism can be broadly defined as an emphasis on human individuality and less emphasis on religion (Wikipedia).
The first part I’d like to bring discuss that really makes this piece a good representative of humanism is that it appears to be very secular. There is no mention of God, no religious symbols. Publius Ovidius Naso (also called Ovid), a Roman poet who originally created the main poem about the Fall of Icarus, wrote, ”Some, while catching fish with a trembling rod either a shepherd leaning on his staff or a plowman on a plow saw these and was stunned, and they who were able to snatch the sky, he believed were gods.” (Wikisource). This gave the story a slightly religious twist to it, but the painting did not give this idea. Especially striking is that this particular painting deals with a death, in this case the death of Icarus. Had the painting taken place at an earlier time, it may have had more of a religious tie i.e. perhaps the sun shining down on the legs of Icarus as a representation of God. Because of the lack of religious icons in this image, it is apparent that this piece was a true product of humanism art.
Landscape with the Fall of Icarus is very straight forward piece of art, but at the same time it’s obvious much effort was put into drawing the landscape (hence the title begins with the word landscape, and not ‘The Fall’). This was also another trait of the Northern Renaissance. Still utilizing the humanist philosophy for many paintings, the Northern Renaissance began to move towards more landscape paintings and portraits.
Sources
Wikipedia. Humanism. 2012. Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism).
Wikipedia. Landscape with the Fall of Icarus. 2012. Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_with_the_Fall_of_Icarus).
Wikisource. Daedalus and Icarus. 2012. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Daedalus_and_Icarus).
dlfitzpatrick 
I really appreciate the way you laid out your post because it was easy to follow and understand as well as get a great picture of what the painting meant and a little about who painted it. You stated everything need to know about the painting clearly and cited properly. I really like how you went into detail about how the painting connects to humanism and how it is not secular. Do you believe that at that time when you said “ignorant suffering” that they didn’t think of how it felt to be tortured or suffer, like Christ did? I am not sure. I really enjoyed your posting though. 🙂
Hey Sierra,
I feel that at the time of when this painting was created, more of an emphasis was trying to be put on anything but religion (in the visual arts field anyways). I think that acknowledging suffering in art would somehow bring it’s viewers back to thinking about religion. Conclusively, I think by being ignorant towards suffering, religion can play a lower role in humanist art. Thanks for the reply!
“Oh how the mighty have fallen” – That was the first thing I thought when I saw the painting.
Great job on your analysis. I definitely do see how secular this work of art is, but of course there are some small religious undertones that are mainly found through interpretation. Which makes sense for a High Renaissance piece.
Going back to my first though. What do you interpret from this piece when the perspective is: the gravesite of a God being a place for business as usual? No one is there in reverence. It’s almost as if no one cares.
Is this the fear of the artist? Hoping that his passing wont go unnoticed?
-or-
Is it a deeper look into society? about the changes from era to era?
(out with the old, in with the new)
This painting is very peculiar. For instance, as you mentioned the piece has “Landscape” listed first, but there doesn’t seem to be much emphasis put into the land scape. All there is is a small city with a few mountains that don’t really command your attention nearly as much as what is going on in the foreground. The herder, farmer, fisherman, and ship have the most detail (especially the tree to the left just in front of the herder) and draw a lot of attention. Also, if it weren’t for the fact that part of the title refers to Icarus, I would have no idea that this painting was even remotely related to him, let alone anything to do with Greek mythology or culture. I didn’t even see the legs in the water the first time I glanced at it (which perhaps plays into the idea of the indifference to suffering).
My confusion to the the title aside, I like the idea that the painting is about people’s indifference to the suffering of others. This is especially noted with the fisherman and the ship as the fisherman does not give any notion to have noticed Icarus which is hard to imagine seeing as how I’ve never seen a man fly solo before let alone drop out of the sky. Also, if you look at the sails of the ship you can see that it is sailing away from him. It passes right by where Icarus lands in the water and continues on it’s way out to sea.
I also want to mention that every time I look at the farmer I think that he is conducting. Thinking of someone conducting to a horses rear end makes me chuckle just a little bit.
Can you explain why there is no discernable reference to ancient Greece in this (Icarus aside) despite the fact that it surrounds a Greek mythology that has plenty of elements to draw on?
I really like this painting because of everything that is going on in it. I almost chose this painting to use in my blog. You definitely could have talked a little bit more about the landscape in your blog. You did a good job of making a good title and letting me know who painted this painting. You explained why you liked this piece and i agree with why you like it. You did a good job of relating humanism to this painting as well. You have some good sources and cited them properly. There are some religious aspects in this painting that do not really stand out at first, but you have to interpret them.
Do you really think that this painting does not have any religion in it? To me it looks the god is shining light down in the background of this painting. Overall I think that you did a good job with your post.
Hello Mr. Dutton, thank you for the reply. I feel that it’s an analysis of a becoming society, a society that’s become focused on the various activities of daily life. Perhaps a view to come of the ever closening future. Definitely a place that’s become a “business as usual” type of society. I do feel strongly that it is an analysis of a becoming society though, and not the current society (of when the paintin was created).
But perhaps the artist was trying to bring religion a little bit back into the picture, by showing how careless people may be about religion and death. Maybe trying to push the lesson of, ‘We better change our ways, or we’ll turn to this type of society.’ was his point. Either way, I feel that this piece helps bring out strong opinions from both supporters of secular and non-secular visual arts.
Mr. Clausen, thank you for your reply. I feel that Icarus was brought into the picture simply to tie it to supporters of more non-secular types of art. Regardless if it was Icarus or not, the painting still can give the notion of ignorance towards suffering. The legs sticking out of the water could be anybody’s legs, and the gist of the painting still conveys the same basic ideas. Perhaps Bruegel was doing it just to attract more views into a painting that otherwise, without the word Icarus in it’s title, may not have been near as popular. So conclusively, I feel that he simply put the name in there for eye-catching purposes. Shallow? Some may argue so. But I agree with you that there are no other discernable references to ancient Greece in this painting.
I feel that it depends on the viewer of the painting. From a secular supporter of visual art’s point of view, there would be no religion in it. Simply a death surrounded by ignorance. For a supporter of religious based art, there are so many ways to tie religion into it. As I said in a previous comment to username edclausen, I feel that the name Icarus was thrown into the title simply for eye-catching purposes. There are no direct ties to ancient Greece in this painting, and those legs could be anybody’s legs. But putting in the name Icarus into the title, that truly opens up the doors for analysis from both secular and non-secular visual arts analysts.
I don’t see this painting as ignorance of suffering or indifference to suffering. I think it demonstrates the reality and necessity that life goes on. That death, no matter whose death, is only a moment in any life. The fact that all the human beings in the picture are working at their livelihood reinforces that idea- the farmer’s crop has to be harvested, the fishermen’s nets have to set, the shepherd must tend to his helpless sheep. The message is that our death is largely unimportant in the great scheme of things, no matter how “glorious” was our moment of passing.