WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.580 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. We take complex 00:00:02.580 --> 00:00:04.919 source material, boil it down, and give you the 00:00:04.919 --> 00:00:07.280 insights you need. Today, we're digging into 00:00:07.280 --> 00:00:09.800 an artist who took the mud and toil of rural 00:00:09.800 --> 00:00:12.939 life and elevated it to something profound, controversial, 00:00:13.119 --> 00:00:16.039 and, well, unforgettable. We're talking about 00:00:16.039 --> 00:00:18.320 Jean -Francois Millet. He lived from 1814 to 00:00:18.320 --> 00:00:22.140 1875, a really key figure in 19th century French 00:00:22.140 --> 00:00:24.760 art. People often link him to the Barbizon School, 00:00:24.899 --> 00:00:27.899 which he helped found. Maybe more importantly, 00:00:28.059 --> 00:00:31.440 he's central to French realism, especially realism 00:00:31.440 --> 00:00:34.039 looking squarely at rural life. Yeah. When you 00:00:34.039 --> 00:00:36.100 picture French art from that time, you might 00:00:36.100 --> 00:00:38.299 think of, I don't know, grand history scenes 00:00:38.299 --> 00:00:41.520 or maybe later those impressionist water lilies. 00:00:42.119 --> 00:00:44.960 But Millais, he zeroed in almost entirely on 00:00:44.960 --> 00:00:47.219 peasant farmers. And what's striking is his range. 00:00:47.320 --> 00:00:49.140 It wasn't just oil paintings. Those are famous. 00:00:49.219 --> 00:00:52.439 He was a master of pastels, Conte, crayon, even 00:00:52.439 --> 00:00:55.979 etchings. All of it brought this incredible texture 00:00:55.979 --> 00:00:59.140 and reality to his subjects. Our sources, biographies, 00:00:59.140 --> 00:01:01.119 critical analyses, they paint this picture of 00:01:01.119 --> 00:01:03.299 a life and work that became incredibly politically 00:01:03.299 --> 00:01:05.379 charged. We're talking hidden paintings influencing 00:01:05.379 --> 00:01:08.579 new laws. It's quite a story. Absolutely. It 00:01:08.579 --> 00:01:11.099 goes way beyond just art history. So that's our 00:01:11.099 --> 00:01:14.560 mission for this deep dive. How did a farmer's 00:01:14.560 --> 00:01:18.260 son from Normandy end up creating these legendary, 00:01:18.500 --> 00:01:21.840 often controversial images? Images that concealed 00:01:21.840 --> 00:01:24.920 meanings and even inspired legal changes. It's 00:01:24.920 --> 00:01:27.739 a fantastic example of how art isn't just a mirror 00:01:27.739 --> 00:01:31.459 to society. Sometimes it actively shapes the 00:01:31.459 --> 00:01:35.099 rules. And to really get that, we need to start 00:01:35.099 --> 00:01:37.670 where he started. Back in the fields of Normandy. 00:01:37.750 --> 00:01:39.590 Right, because Millet's power comes from the 00:01:39.590 --> 00:01:41.689 fact that this wasn't an outsider looking in. 00:01:41.750 --> 00:01:44.609 He wasn't some Parisian romanticizing country 00:01:44.609 --> 00:01:46.750 life. No, he lived it. He was born in Grouchy, 00:01:46.769 --> 00:01:48.689 Normandy, first child of Jean -Louis Nicolas 00:01:48.689 --> 00:01:51.769 and Lémy Henriette Adelaide Henri Millet, deeply 00:01:51.769 --> 00:01:54.049 rooted in that farming community. And that background 00:01:54.049 --> 00:01:56.049 is everything, isn't it? The sources emphasize 00:01:56.049 --> 00:01:58.290 his upbringing. Totally crucial. His parents 00:01:58.290 --> 00:02:00.290 were apparently quite devout, and they made sure 00:02:00.290 --> 00:02:02.609 he got some education. Local priests like Jean 00:02:02.609 --> 00:02:04.879 Le Brousseau. Tutored him. He learned Latin, 00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:07.519 read modern authors even. So there was this intellectual 00:02:07.519 --> 00:02:10.580 curiosity there early on. Interesting. So a mind 00:02:10.580 --> 00:02:13.060 leaning towards books, but his body was trained 00:02:13.060 --> 00:02:16.400 for something else entirely. Precisely. As the 00:02:16.400 --> 00:02:19.319 eldest son, the farm work fell heavily on him. 00:02:19.360 --> 00:02:22.080 He knew it inside out. Our sources actually list 00:02:22.080 --> 00:02:24.699 the chores. And it's, well, it's exhausting just 00:02:24.699 --> 00:02:28.159 reading it. Mowing, haymaking, binding sheaves, 00:02:28.219 --> 00:02:31.180 threshing, winnowing, spreading manure, plowing, 00:02:31.340 --> 00:02:34.500 sowing. All of it. You can just feel the repetition 00:02:34.500 --> 00:02:37.060 in that list. And that firsthand knowledge, that 00:02:37.060 --> 00:02:39.080 muscle memory, must be what makes his realism 00:02:39.080 --> 00:02:41.120 so different. He wasn't just observing. Exactly. 00:02:41.580 --> 00:02:44.259 When he painted someone gleaning, bent over like 00:02:44.259 --> 00:02:46.960 that, he knew exactly how that felt. That constant 00:02:46.960 --> 00:02:49.580 strain. That experience became the vocabulary 00:02:49.580 --> 00:02:52.030 for his art. And how did he actually get started 00:02:52.030 --> 00:02:53.930 as an artist? It seems like a big leap from the 00:02:53.930 --> 00:02:57.349 fields. It was. And it happened somewhat organically 00:02:57.349 --> 00:03:00.509 through local support. Around 1833, his father 00:03:00.509 --> 00:03:03.189 saw his talent, apparently, and sent him to Cherbourg 00:03:03.189 --> 00:03:05.750 to study. First with a portrait painter named 00:03:05.750 --> 00:03:08.310 Bon de Mouchel. Okay. Then with Théophile Langlois 00:03:08.310 --> 00:03:10.590 de Cherville. And Langlois was important. He'd 00:03:10.590 --> 00:03:12.770 been a pupil of Baron Gross, a big name in history 00:03:12.770 --> 00:03:15.330 painting. So Langlois saw potential beyond just 00:03:15.330 --> 00:03:18.469 local portraits. Seems so. He was instrumental 00:03:18.469 --> 00:03:21.750 in getting Mellet a stipend. A scholarship, basically. 00:03:22.090 --> 00:03:24.110 That's what allowed Miller to make the huge jump 00:03:24.110 --> 00:03:27.949 to Paris in 1837 to study at the École des Beaux 00:03:27.949 --> 00:03:30.370 -Arts. The very center of the art world then. 00:03:30.550 --> 00:03:33.469 Right. And he studied under Paul Delaroche. But 00:03:33.469 --> 00:03:38.189 the transition wasn't smooth. Not at all. Yeah, 00:03:38.229 --> 00:03:40.110 the sources mentioned setbacks pretty quickly. 00:03:40.370 --> 00:03:42.689 They did. That academic setting, it just didn't 00:03:42.689 --> 00:03:45.550 seem to click with his earthier sensibility. 00:03:46.110 --> 00:03:50.099 By 1839, the stipend was cut. Gone. So he had 00:03:50.099 --> 00:03:52.620 to rely on selling work. Which is tough for a 00:03:52.620 --> 00:03:55.139 young artist. Really tough. And his first big 00:03:55.139 --> 00:03:57.180 attempt at the salon, the main art exhibition, 00:03:57.340 --> 00:03:59.479 was rejected. It was a traditional religious 00:03:59.479 --> 00:04:02.400 painting, St. Anne instructing the Virgin. The 00:04:02.400 --> 00:04:04.819 jury didn't go for it. Hmm. Interesting that 00:04:04.819 --> 00:04:06.800 his first rejection was for something traditional, 00:04:06.860 --> 00:04:09.319 maybe pushed him towards his own voice. It feels 00:04:09.319 --> 00:04:11.099 like it might have, yeah. Yeah? Like a sign that 00:04:11.099 --> 00:04:12.919 he needed to paint what he knew. He did have 00:04:12.919 --> 00:04:15.740 a minor success later. in 1840 with a portrait 00:04:15.740 --> 00:04:17.699 at the salon that let him go back to sherbert 00:04:17.699 --> 00:04:20.379 for a bit painting portraits but the 1840s sound 00:04:20.379 --> 00:04:22.259 like they were difficult overall professionally 00:04:22.259 --> 00:04:26.019 and personally very difficult deep personal tragedy 00:04:26.019 --> 00:04:28.959 hit him hard he married pauline virginie ono 00:04:28.959 --> 00:04:33.600 in 1841 but just three years later in 1844 she 00:04:33.600 --> 00:04:36.879 died consumption oh terrible that kind of lost 00:04:36.879 --> 00:04:39.300 so early must have been devastating and you see 00:04:39.300 --> 00:04:41.639 him kind of retreat after that he moved back 00:04:41.639 --> 00:04:44.279 towards sherbert Then ended up in Le Havre in 00:04:44.279 --> 00:04:46.980 1845. Started shifting his style, moving away 00:04:46.980 --> 00:04:49.720 from formal portraits. Yeah, he began doing smaller 00:04:49.720 --> 00:04:53.259 genre pieces, little scenes. And it was around 00:04:53.259 --> 00:04:55.300 then he met Catherine Lemaire. They eventually 00:04:55.300 --> 00:04:57.240 settled down together. She became his lifelong 00:04:57.240 --> 00:04:59.439 partner, right? Yes. They had nine children. 00:04:59.480 --> 00:05:02.399 They didn't formally marry until much later civilly 00:05:02.399 --> 00:05:05.420 in 1853. And then a religious ceremony just before 00:05:05.420 --> 00:05:08.819 he died in 1875. But that stability with Catherine, 00:05:08.899 --> 00:05:11.319 supporting that large family. That must have 00:05:11.319 --> 00:05:12.879 been a huge motivator. It probably pushed him 00:05:12.879 --> 00:05:15.240 to make that big move back to Paris, to really 00:05:15.240 --> 00:05:17.259 try and make it as an artist. And this time, 00:05:17.319 --> 00:05:19.259 when he went back, he found the right people, 00:05:19.379 --> 00:05:21.120 the connections that would change everything. 00:05:21.420 --> 00:05:23.839 Okay, so the mid -1840s, Millais is back in Paris, 00:05:23.980 --> 00:05:26.360 his art is evolving, and he starts building this 00:05:26.360 --> 00:05:29.100 crucial network. Exactly. This is when he connects 00:05:29.100 --> 00:05:31.600 with guys like Constant Trojan, Narcisse Diaz, 00:05:31.600 --> 00:05:33.939 Charles Jacques, Theodore Rousseau. These are 00:05:33.939 --> 00:05:36.339 the names that become synonymous. with the Barbizon 00:05:36.339 --> 00:05:38.779 school. They weren't really a school in the formal 00:05:38.779 --> 00:05:41.259 sense, more like a group of artists drawn together. 00:05:41.480 --> 00:05:43.439 Drawn to painting outdoors, more realistically, 00:05:43.500 --> 00:05:46.139 near the village of Barbizon. Precisely. They 00:05:46.139 --> 00:05:48.720 supported each other, explored alternatives to 00:05:48.720 --> 00:05:51.620 the stuffy academic art world, and the influences 00:05:51.620 --> 00:05:53.300 within that circle were really important too. 00:05:53.439 --> 00:05:57.720 Like Honoré Damier. Ah, Damier. Known for those 00:05:57.720 --> 00:06:00.100 powerful caricatures and drawings of working 00:06:00.100 --> 00:06:03.399 class life. How did he influence Millet? Hugely. 00:06:03.459 --> 00:06:06.560 Damier had this incredible skill in draftsmanship, 00:06:06.560 --> 00:06:09.220 giving ordinary people this almost sceptical 00:06:09.220 --> 00:06:12.040 weight, this dignity. Millis saw that, and you 00:06:12.040 --> 00:06:13.899 can see him adapting it for his peasant subjects. 00:06:14.279 --> 00:06:17.060 He used Damier's approach to figure drawing to 00:06:17.060 --> 00:06:19.360 make a simple laborer look monumental, almost 00:06:19.360 --> 00:06:21.959 heroic, like something out of classical art. 00:06:22.100 --> 00:06:24.579 It's all in how he renders the body, the effort. 00:06:24.759 --> 00:06:27.180 That's fascinating, taking that urban satirical 00:06:27.180 --> 00:06:29.660 edge and applying it to the rural poor. And beyond 00:06:29.660 --> 00:06:32.379 the artists, he found Alfred Sensier. The patron 00:06:32.379 --> 00:06:35.399 and biographer. More than just a patron. Sensia 00:06:35.399 --> 00:06:38.180 was a government bureaucrat, but he became Millet's 00:06:38.180 --> 00:06:41.339 rock. Lifelong supporter, advocate, eventually 00:06:41.339 --> 00:06:43.980 wrote his biography. He was the bridge, really, 00:06:44.079 --> 00:06:46.480 between Millet, who was often struggling, and 00:06:46.480 --> 00:06:49.180 the art world establishment in Paris. Provided 00:06:49.180 --> 00:06:52.720 money, support, belief. Absolutely crucial. So 00:06:52.720 --> 00:06:54.860 things are starting to look up. He had some salon 00:06:54.860 --> 00:06:57.779 success in the late 1840s. Yes. Oedipus taken 00:06:57.779 --> 00:07:01.449 down from the tree in 1847. Did well. And then 00:07:01.449 --> 00:07:04.750 a big one in 1848, Winnower. That painting was 00:07:04.750 --> 00:07:07.029 actually bought by the French government. Wow, 00:07:07.170 --> 00:07:09.129 a government purchase. That's huge validation. 00:07:09.490 --> 00:07:12.209 It should have been, yes. But 1848 was also the 00:07:12.209 --> 00:07:16.230 year of this major failure and a mystery. He 00:07:16.230 --> 00:07:18.930 presented his most ambitious work yet, The Captivity 00:07:18.930 --> 00:07:21.389 of the Jews in Babylon. OK, Captivity of the 00:07:21.389 --> 00:07:23.610 Jews. What was that like? Sounds different from 00:07:23.610 --> 00:07:25.209 his usual subjects. Totally different. It was 00:07:25.209 --> 00:07:27.990 a huge history painting. Millet trying to prove 00:07:27.990 --> 00:07:30.230 he could compete with the academic masters on 00:07:30.230 --> 00:07:32.069 their ground. You know, big biblical narrative, 00:07:32.230 --> 00:07:35.310 complex composition. How did it go down? It bombed 00:07:35.310 --> 00:07:38.189 utterly. Critics hated it. The public scorned 00:07:38.189 --> 00:07:41.550 it. A really brutal public rejection. And then 00:07:41.550 --> 00:07:45.189 the painting just vanished. Vanished like loss. 00:07:45.670 --> 00:07:48.310 Disappeared completely. For over a century, the 00:07:48.310 --> 00:07:50.810 assumption was that Millet. probably humiliated 00:07:50.810 --> 00:07:54.290 just destroyed it himself wow so a massive swing 00:07:54.290 --> 00:07:56.790 from government purchase to total rejection and 00:07:56.790 --> 00:07:59.569 a missing painting all in the same year exactly 00:07:59.569 --> 00:08:01.790 and what's interesting is that this failure seems 00:08:01.790 --> 00:08:05.680 to have just hardened his resolve, pushed him 00:08:05.680 --> 00:08:08.199 back even more firmly towards his true subject, 00:08:08.420 --> 00:08:10.680 the life of the common laborer. And that led 00:08:10.680 --> 00:08:12.920 to a shift in his work. A really decisive one. 00:08:13.019 --> 00:08:15.519 In 1849, he painted Shepherdess sitting at the 00:08:15.519 --> 00:08:17.279 edge of the forest. It's not a huge painting, 00:08:17.399 --> 00:08:19.980 but it's significant. It marks this clear turn 00:08:19.980 --> 00:08:22.779 away from those slightly idealized pastoral scenes 00:08:22.779 --> 00:08:24.800 that were still popular towards something much 00:08:24.800 --> 00:08:27.319 more real, more personal, more grounded in the 00:08:27.319 --> 00:08:29.500 actual experience of rural life. And then came 00:08:29.500 --> 00:08:33.340 the move. Yes, June 1849. He packs up his family 00:08:33.340 --> 00:08:35.320 and moves permanently to the village of Barbizon, 00:08:35.480 --> 00:08:38.100 southeast of Paris. He's joining Rousseau and 00:08:38.100 --> 00:08:40.580 the others there. This is when the Barbizon Circle 00:08:40.580 --> 00:08:43.980 really becomes a place. So he could fully immerse 00:08:43.980 --> 00:08:46.419 himself in that rural, realist approach. Right. 00:08:46.580 --> 00:08:49.519 And financially, this was underpinned by that 00:08:49.519 --> 00:08:53.419 deal he made with Sensier in 1850. Ah, the Sensier 00:08:53.419 --> 00:08:55.460 deal. Tell us about that. Sounds like a classic 00:08:55.460 --> 00:08:57.600 artist -patron arrangement. It was incredibly 00:08:57.600 --> 00:09:00.149 important for giving him breathing room. Sensier 00:09:00.149 --> 00:09:03.129 basically provided materials, canvases, paints, 00:09:03.350 --> 00:09:08.070 and a regular income, a stipend. In return, Millett 00:09:08.070 --> 00:09:10.389 gave him drawings and paintings. Was it exclusive? 00:09:10.610 --> 00:09:13.690 Did Sensier own everything? No, and that's key. 00:09:14.110 --> 00:09:16.570 Millett specifically kept the right to sell other 00:09:16.570 --> 00:09:19.149 works to different collectors. So it wasn't like 00:09:19.149 --> 00:09:21.309 he was trapped. It just gave him this baseline 00:09:21.309 --> 00:09:24.539 stability. enough to field him from utter poverty, 00:09:24.600 --> 00:09:27.080 and crucially, enough freedom to paint those 00:09:27.080 --> 00:09:29.679 potentially controversial subjects without constantly 00:09:29.679 --> 00:09:32.299 worrying about pleasing the salon juries. That 00:09:32.299 --> 00:09:34.299 freedom was probably essential for what came 00:09:34.299 --> 00:09:36.399 next, allowed him to really lean into the work 00:09:36.399 --> 00:09:38.360 that would define him. And that defining moment 00:09:38.360 --> 00:09:40.720 really arrives at the 1850 salon, doesn't it? 00:09:40.799 --> 00:09:43.940 He shows haymakers, but also the sewer. The sewer. 00:09:44.330 --> 00:09:47.789 Yes. Our sources pinpoint this as his first truly 00:09:47.789 --> 00:09:50.370 major masterpiece. And it's the first of that 00:09:50.370 --> 00:09:53.450 iconic trio. The sower, the gleaners, and the 00:09:53.450 --> 00:09:55.250 Angelus. What was so groundbreaking about the 00:09:55.250 --> 00:09:58.429 sower? It's the scale. The power he gives this 00:09:58.429 --> 00:10:00.309 single figure. This isn't some picturesque farmer. 00:10:00.429 --> 00:10:03.409 He's huge, almost elemental, striding across 00:10:03.409 --> 00:10:06.070 this dark landscape, casting seeds with this 00:10:06.070 --> 00:10:08.570 incredible energy, almost violence. It's like 00:10:08.570 --> 00:10:11.710 Millett is saying, this peasant, this laborer, 00:10:11.730 --> 00:10:14.620 is a force of nature itself. powerful statement, 00:10:14.700 --> 00:10:16.379 but the painting he apparently considered his 00:10:16.379 --> 00:10:18.799 greatest achievement took longer. Harvester's 00:10:18.799 --> 00:10:21.240 Resting, Ruth and Boaz, painted over several 00:10:21.240 --> 00:10:24.580 years, 1850 to 1853. Yes, he poured himself into 00:10:24.580 --> 00:10:26.860 that one, considered it his most important work, 00:10:27.019 --> 00:10:29.480 and the reason is tied to his ambition, his training. 00:10:29.740 --> 00:10:32.120 He deliberately conceived it to stand alongside 00:10:32.120 --> 00:10:34.840 the great masters, Michelangelo Poussin. How 00:10:34.840 --> 00:10:38.700 so? By using a biblical story. Exactly. He takes 00:10:38.700 --> 00:10:41.320 the story of Ruth and Boaz, this Old Testament 00:10:41.320 --> 00:10:43.889 narrative, but he populates it. with contemporary 00:10:43.889 --> 00:10:46.710 peasants resting from the harvest heat. He's 00:10:46.710 --> 00:10:49.490 embedding the modern laborer within that grand, 00:10:49.669 --> 00:10:52.470 timeless, classical tradition. It's a way of 00:10:52.470 --> 00:10:55.549 saying their lives, their labor, have epic significance. 00:10:56.029 --> 00:10:58.850 So, elevating the everyday worker to the level 00:10:58.850 --> 00:11:01.769 of historical or biblical figures. Precisely. 00:11:01.850 --> 00:11:04.690 And it marks this really important shift. He's 00:11:04.690 --> 00:11:07.009 moving beyond just symbolic images of peasant 00:11:07.009 --> 00:11:09.809 life towards commenting on contemporary social 00:11:09.809 --> 00:11:12.549 realities, but using this historical framework. 00:11:12.809 --> 00:11:14.710 It's the only painting he ever actually dated 00:11:14.710 --> 00:11:16.230 which shows how much it meant to him. And it 00:11:16.230 --> 00:11:18.450 worked in terms of recognition. It did. This 00:11:18.450 --> 00:11:20.389 was the painting that finally got him serious 00:11:20.389 --> 00:11:23.070 official recognition. He won a second class medal 00:11:23.070 --> 00:11:26.659 at the 1853 Salon for it. a major step up. Okay, 00:11:26.720 --> 00:11:28.620 so that success kind of sets the table for the 00:11:28.620 --> 00:11:30.860 painting that really ignited controversy, The 00:11:30.860 --> 00:11:34.460 Gleaners. The Gleaners, 1857 salon. This painting 00:11:34.460 --> 00:11:37.039 is, well, it's social commentary wrapped in a 00:11:37.039 --> 00:11:39.399 deceptively simple scene. What's the theme? Gleaning. 00:11:39.600 --> 00:11:42.659 Gleaning. It depicts this ancient rite dating 00:11:42.659 --> 00:11:45.379 back centuries, maybe even biblical times, where 00:11:45.379 --> 00:11:47.659 the poorest people, usually women and children, 00:11:47.840 --> 00:11:50.039 were allowed to pick up the leftover scraps of 00:11:50.039 --> 00:11:52.639 grain after the main harvest was done. Milley 00:11:52.639 --> 00:11:55.120 saw it as this eternal, almost biblical act. 00:11:55.320 --> 00:11:58.419 But in 1857, France, painting poverty wasn't 00:11:58.419 --> 00:12:01.000 seen as timeless or biblical, was it? Especially 00:12:01.000 --> 00:12:03.879 after the revolutions and social unrest of 1848. 00:12:04.139 --> 00:12:06.919 Exactly the point. This is France under Napoleon 00:12:06.919 --> 00:12:10.279 III's Second Empire. There's still enormous anxiety 00:12:10.279 --> 00:12:12.320 about the working classes, about socialism, about 00:12:12.320 --> 00:12:14.740 potential uprisings. Some of the Paris elites 00:12:14.740 --> 00:12:17.200 saw Millie's painting. They didn't just see poor 00:12:17.200 --> 00:12:19.000 women working. What did they see? They saw these 00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:22.440 huge looming figures of the rural poor, shadowed, 00:12:22.440 --> 00:12:25.779 monumental. They looked threatening to the establishment. 00:12:25.799 --> 00:12:27.419 They looked like a symbol of the potentially 00:12:27.419 --> 00:12:30.179 rebellious masses, less like humble workers, 00:12:30.299 --> 00:12:32.820 more like an omen. So the reaction wasn't about 00:12:32.820 --> 00:12:35.659 the art itself, but the fear it provoked. Absolutely. 00:12:36.139 --> 00:12:38.860 The figures we're seeing is too large, too strong, 00:12:38.879 --> 00:12:42.399 too present. One critic famously called the Millets 00:12:42.399 --> 00:12:45.440 three fates of pauperism, like they were harbingers 00:12:45.440 --> 00:12:48.860 of social doom, maybe even revolution. The sources 00:12:48.860 --> 00:12:51.960 are clear. The public reaction was largely hostile. 00:12:52.139 --> 00:12:54.519 It shows just how politically charged the mere 00:12:54.519 --> 00:12:56.940 depiction of poverty had become. Let's talk about 00:12:56.940 --> 00:12:58.940 the technique. How does he make them seem so 00:12:58.940 --> 00:13:02.159 powerful, almost menacing? His composition is 00:13:02.159 --> 00:13:04.659 brilliant, and deliberately so, I think. You 00:13:04.659 --> 00:13:06.580 have these lines that follow the curve of each 00:13:06.580 --> 00:13:09.120 woman's back, leading your eye down to the ground, 00:13:09.159 --> 00:13:11.820 then up again. It visually reinforces the repetitive, 00:13:12.019 --> 00:13:14.240 back -breaking nature of their labor. It's an 00:13:14.240 --> 00:13:16.519 endless cycle captured in the paint. And the 00:13:16.519 --> 00:13:18.879 contrast between foreground and background. Stark. 00:13:19.419 --> 00:13:21.179 Literally stark. Yeah. The three gleaners in 00:13:21.179 --> 00:13:23.539 the foreground are large, imposing, dressed in 00:13:23.539 --> 00:13:25.860 dark, coarse clothing. They're mostly in shadow, 00:13:26.039 --> 00:13:28.799 bent low, struggling for tiny bits. But way off 00:13:28.799 --> 00:13:30.840 in the sunny distance, you see the landowner's 00:13:30.840 --> 00:13:33.460 farm overflowing with abundance. Huge stacks 00:13:33.460 --> 00:13:36.320 of harvested grain, carts piled high, even a 00:13:36.320 --> 00:13:38.240 figure on horseback overseeing it all. So it's 00:13:38.240 --> 00:13:40.139 not just showing poverty, it's showing the gap. 00:13:40.559 --> 00:13:43.639 Precisely. It juxtaposes the immense effort and 00:13:43.639 --> 00:13:46.179 meager rewards of the poor with the seemingly 00:13:46.179 --> 00:13:48.620 effortless wealth accumulated by the property 00:13:48.620 --> 00:13:51.220 owner in the background. He gives the women a 00:13:51.220 --> 00:13:53.139 kind of noble strength through their scale and 00:13:53.139 --> 00:13:55.919 solidity, but simultaneously highlights just 00:13:55.919 --> 00:13:58.179 how marginalized and desperate their situation 00:13:58.179 --> 00:14:00.679 is. It's incredibly powerful social commentary. 00:14:00.879 --> 00:14:03.279 Wow. OK, let's move to the third painting in 00:14:03.279 --> 00:14:05.960 that iconic trio, the one with the really strange 00:14:05.960 --> 00:14:09.220 backstory and incredible legacy. The Angelus. 00:14:09.240 --> 00:14:13.559 Ah, the Angelus. Painted between 1857 and 1859, 00:14:13.860 --> 00:14:16.559 this one has perhaps the most surprising legacy 00:14:16.559 --> 00:14:18.960 of all, especially legally. It started, simply 00:14:18.960 --> 00:14:21.840 enough, as a commission. Commissioned by an American. 00:14:22.000 --> 00:14:24.340 Yes, Thomas Gold Appleton, an American art collector. 00:14:24.639 --> 00:14:26.639 He actually knew one of the other Barbizon painters, 00:14:26.860 --> 00:14:29.440 Constantine Troian. But the painting Appleton 00:14:29.440 --> 00:14:31.840 commissioned wasn't initially called the Angelus. 00:14:31.840 --> 00:14:34.320 No, what was it called? Its first title was Prayer 00:14:34.320 --> 00:14:41.310 for the Potato Crop. Just a simple scene. So 00:14:41.310 --> 00:14:43.830 what happened? Why the change? Well, Appleton, 00:14:44.029 --> 00:14:46.629 for whatever reason, never actually took possession 00:14:46.629 --> 00:14:49.049 of the painting. He didn't follow through on 00:14:49.049 --> 00:14:51.750 the purchase in 1859. So Millett had this finished 00:14:51.750 --> 00:14:54.190 painting he needed to sell. Okay. So he made 00:14:54.190 --> 00:14:56.570 a couple of tweaks. He painted in a tiny church 00:14:56.570 --> 00:14:58.769 staple on the horizon, making the context more 00:14:58.769 --> 00:15:01.429 specifically religious. And he changed the title 00:15:01.429 --> 00:15:04.330 to The Angelus, referring to the Catholic prayer 00:15:04.330 --> 00:15:06.289 traditionally said at morning, noon, and evening, 00:15:06.429 --> 00:15:09.110 signaled by the church bell. It made the scene 00:15:09.110 --> 00:15:11.850 more universally understandable, perhaps more 00:15:11.850 --> 00:15:13.830 marketable. Did it sell quickly then? Become 00:15:13.830 --> 00:15:17.049 instantly famous? Not exactly. Even with the 00:15:17.049 --> 00:15:19.889 changes, when it was shown around 1865, its value 00:15:19.889 --> 00:15:24.519 was okay, but not spectacular. Millett's reputation, 00:15:24.659 --> 00:15:26.559 especially after the gleaners, still made some 00:15:26.559 --> 00:15:28.779 people nervous. His perceived political leanings. 00:15:28.840 --> 00:15:32.139 Right. Even a seemingly pious scene, when focused 00:15:32.139 --> 00:15:34.360 on the rural poor, made some collectors wonder 00:15:34.360 --> 00:15:36.980 if there was a hidden socialist message. His 00:15:36.980 --> 00:15:39.100 sympathies were still considered suspect by some 00:15:39.100 --> 00:15:40.820 parts of the establishment. But that caution 00:15:40.820 --> 00:15:43.200 completely evaporated after his death in 1875. 00:15:43.789 --> 00:15:46.029 Oh, absolutely. The story of what happened to 00:15:46.029 --> 00:15:48.730 the Angelus after Millet died is incredible. 00:15:49.049 --> 00:15:51.950 It became this huge symbol, a national treasure 00:15:51.950 --> 00:15:54.990 almost. A bidding war. A bidding war erupted. 00:15:55.049 --> 00:15:58.289 It became this point of national pride for France. 00:15:58.610 --> 00:16:01.149 There was a French syndicate trying to buy it 00:16:01.149 --> 00:16:03.409 to keep it in the country, competing fiercely 00:16:03.409 --> 00:16:05.889 against American collectors who also wanted it 00:16:05.889 --> 00:16:08.690 badly. The price just kept climbing and climbing. 00:16:08.870 --> 00:16:11.029 How high did it end up going? The final price 00:16:11.029 --> 00:16:13.809 was staggering for the time. Yeah. 800 ,000 gold 00:16:13.809 --> 00:16:17.289 francs. 800 ,000. That's astronomical, especially 00:16:17.289 --> 00:16:19.330 for an artist who'd struggled financially for 00:16:19.330 --> 00:16:22.309 so long. Exactly. And that huge gap, the immense 00:16:22.309 --> 00:16:24.990 price the painting fetched versus the relative 00:16:24.990 --> 00:16:27.970 poverty Mill himself lived in and the situation 00:16:27.970 --> 00:16:29.950 of his surviving family, his widow Catherine 00:16:29.950 --> 00:16:32.950 and their nine children, that disparity became 00:16:32.950 --> 00:16:35.389 a major public issue. And this is what led to 00:16:35.389 --> 00:16:37.490 the legal change. This is the direct catalyst 00:16:37.490 --> 00:16:39.970 for the invention of the droid de suite. We often 00:16:39.970 --> 00:16:42.789 call it the artist's resale right. Before this, 00:16:42.990 --> 00:16:45.730 an artist sold a painting once. If they were 00:16:45.730 --> 00:16:48.330 struggling, maybe they sold it cheap. If 50 years 00:16:48.330 --> 00:16:50.970 later, that painting was worth millions, the 00:16:50.970 --> 00:16:53.169 artist or their family saw absolutely nothing 00:16:53.169 --> 00:16:56.309 from that massive increase in value. So the Girotta 00:16:56.309 --> 00:17:00.269 Suite aimed to fix that unfairness. Yes. The 00:17:00.269 --> 00:17:02.289 Angela situation highlighted the moral problem 00:17:02.289 --> 00:17:05.099 so starkly. The Drada Suite established a legal 00:17:05.099 --> 00:17:07.700 right for artists or their heirs to receive a 00:17:07.700 --> 00:17:09.660 small percentage of the sale price each time 00:17:09.660 --> 00:17:11.940 their work is resold professionally, like through 00:17:11.940 --> 00:17:14.460 an auction house or gallery. It was specifically 00:17:14.460 --> 00:17:16.480 intended to provide ongoing compensation and 00:17:16.480 --> 00:17:18.799 prevent future situations like the Millett families, 00:17:18.940 --> 00:17:21.380 where the creator's legacy generates vast wealth. 00:17:22.089 --> 00:17:24.690 but the creator's family struggles. Wow. So Millet's 00:17:24.690 --> 00:17:26.430 painting didn't just depict the struggles of 00:17:26.430 --> 00:17:29.289 the poor. Its afterlife literally created a mechanism 00:17:29.289 --> 00:17:31.349 to offer some financial protection to future 00:17:31.349 --> 00:17:34.250 artists. That's a legacy. So moving into the 00:17:34.250 --> 00:17:37.009 1860s, despite some of those lingering controversies, 00:17:37.230 --> 00:17:40.089 Millet's reputation finally solidifies. He starts 00:17:40.089 --> 00:17:43.410 achieving real success. Yes. The 1860s brought 00:17:43.410 --> 00:17:46.509 more stability. He got a contract for 25 works. 00:17:46.960 --> 00:17:49.380 which provided a regular monthly income. That 00:17:49.380 --> 00:17:51.720 kind of steady support is huge for an artist. 00:17:51.880 --> 00:17:54.460 And he found another major patron, Emile Gavet. 00:17:54.819 --> 00:17:57.380 Gavet commissioned pastels, right, a lot of them. 00:17:57.460 --> 00:18:00.119 A huge number, eventually around 90 pastels. 00:18:00.599 --> 00:18:03.059 This focus on pastels in this period is important, 00:18:03.200 --> 00:18:05.500 too. It shows his incredible technical skill 00:18:05.500 --> 00:18:08.140 wasn't just limited to oil paint. He was exploring 00:18:08.140 --> 00:18:11.150 different media intensely. And the official recognition 00:18:11.150 --> 00:18:14.410 kept coming. It did. The Exposition Universelle 00:18:14.410 --> 00:18:18.029 in Paris in 1867 was a major moment. They featured 00:18:18.029 --> 00:18:20.130 several of his key works, including both the 00:18:20.130 --> 00:18:23.930 Gleaners and the Angelus. Then, in 1868, he was 00:18:23.930 --> 00:18:26.809 named a Chevalier de la Légion d 'honneur, France's 00:18:26.809 --> 00:18:28.650 highest order of merit. He definitely arrived, 00:18:28.869 --> 00:18:31.190 no longer just the struggling guy in Barbizon. 00:18:31.450 --> 00:18:33.730 But just as things seem settled, history throws 00:18:33.730 --> 00:18:36.230 another curveball. The Franco -Prussian War in 00:18:36.230 --> 00:18:40.039 1870. Right. War breaks out. Paris becomes unstable, 00:18:40.359 --> 00:18:42.880 dangerous. Millett had to flee with his family. 00:18:43.019 --> 00:18:46.200 Back to Normandy. Yes, back to his roots. They 00:18:46.200 --> 00:18:48.720 went to Cherbourg and Greville for safety. It 00:18:48.720 --> 00:18:51.079 was disruptive, obviously, physically and financially 00:18:51.079 --> 00:18:54.160 difficult. He did return to Barbizon late in 00:18:54.160 --> 00:18:57.140 1871. And in his last few years, he actually 00:18:57.140 --> 00:18:59.619 achieved significant financial success. He was 00:18:59.619 --> 00:19:02.369 even elected to the Salon jury. But his health 00:19:02.369 --> 00:19:04.430 was declining rapidly. And he passed away in 00:19:04.430 --> 00:19:08.890 1875. January 20th, 1875. He actually had several 00:19:08.890 --> 00:19:10.650 large government commissions he wasn't able to 00:19:10.650 --> 00:19:13.089 complete because his health failed him. But that 00:19:13.089 --> 00:19:15.589 period of disruption during the war, it actually 00:19:15.589 --> 00:19:18.230 holds the key to solving that old mystery, doesn't 00:19:18.230 --> 00:19:20.549 it? The missing painting. Exactly. the captivity 00:19:20.549 --> 00:19:23.049 of the Jews in Babylon, the one that vanished 00:19:23.049 --> 00:19:25.829 back in 1848 after being rejected. What happened? 00:19:25.950 --> 00:19:28.109 How was it found? It wasn't found exactly. It 00:19:28.109 --> 00:19:31.630 was uncovered. In 1984, so over 100 years after 00:19:31.630 --> 00:19:34.250 his death, scientists at the Museum of Fine Arts 00:19:34.250 --> 00:19:36.769 in Boston were examining another Millet painting 00:19:36.769 --> 00:19:39.990 from 1870 called The Young Shepherdess. They 00:19:39.990 --> 00:19:41.970 used X -ray analysis. And under the surface? 00:19:42.490 --> 00:19:44.549 Under the paint of the peaceful shepherdess scene, 00:19:44.730 --> 00:19:47.250 the x -rays revealed the clear structure, the 00:19:47.250 --> 00:19:49.549 composition, of the captivity of the Jews in 00:19:49.549 --> 00:19:52.930 Babylon. The whole ambitious, complex scene was 00:19:52.930 --> 00:19:55.710 right there, painted over. No way! So he didn't 00:19:55.710 --> 00:19:58.049 destroy it after all? It seems not. The most 00:19:58.049 --> 00:20:00.049 likely explanation is that during the Franco 00:20:00.049 --> 00:20:02.730 -Prussian War, when he fled Paris, and materials 00:20:02.730 --> 00:20:04.609 like canvas were probably really hard to come 00:20:04.609 --> 00:20:06.930 by and expensive, he simply took this large, 00:20:07.029 --> 00:20:09.970 failed painting and reused the canvas, painted 00:20:09.970 --> 00:20:12.630 right over his biggest public failure. That's 00:20:12.630 --> 00:20:15.069 incredible. Talk about layers of history on one 00:20:15.069 --> 00:20:18.089 canvas. His ambition, his failure, and then his 00:20:18.089 --> 00:20:20.789 practical need during wartime, all preserved. 00:20:21.089 --> 00:20:23.789 The canvas itself tells such a story, but it's 00:20:23.789 --> 00:20:26.509 not the only secret hidden in his work. We have 00:20:26.509 --> 00:20:28.690 to talk about the Angelus again, and that darker 00:20:28.690 --> 00:20:31.420 theory. Ah, yes, the Salvador -Dali connection. 00:20:31.859 --> 00:20:34.759 Dali. The surrealist master was completely obsessed 00:20:34.759 --> 00:20:36.599 with the Angelus. He wrote a whole book about 00:20:36.599 --> 00:20:39.000 it, a psychoanalytic study called The Tragic 00:20:39.000 --> 00:20:41.819 Myth of the Angelus of Millet. And Dali being 00:20:41.819 --> 00:20:44.960 Dali, he wasn't buying the simple story of pious 00:20:44.960 --> 00:20:47.400 peasants. What did he think was going on? He 00:20:47.400 --> 00:20:50.440 saw all sorts of hidden meanings, repressed sexual 00:20:50.440 --> 00:20:52.859 aggression, psychological tension, but his most 00:20:52.859 --> 00:20:55.279 radical claim was about what they were praying 00:20:55.279 --> 00:20:58.369 over. He didn't think it was potatoes. Was them. 00:20:58.589 --> 00:21:01.710 Dali insisted. Absolutely insisted. They were 00:21:01.710 --> 00:21:04.029 praying over the grave of a buried child. Whoa. 00:21:04.630 --> 00:21:07.650 That completely changes the mood. From piety 00:21:07.650 --> 00:21:10.349 to profound grief. Where did he get that idea? 00:21:10.650 --> 00:21:12.809 From his interpretation of the figure's poses, 00:21:12.990 --> 00:21:15.809 the somber atmosphere, the composition. He felt 00:21:15.809 --> 00:21:19.119 it radiated loss. not just devotion. His conviction 00:21:19.119 --> 00:21:21.359 was so strong, so persistent, that eventually, 00:21:21.539 --> 00:21:24.480 years later, it prompted the Louvre Museum, where 00:21:24.480 --> 00:21:27.319 the painting hangs, to x -ray it during a conservation 00:21:27.319 --> 00:21:30.160 process. And the x -ray showed. The x -ray revealed 00:21:30.160 --> 00:21:32.900 something astonishing. Right there, beneath the 00:21:32.900 --> 00:21:34.619 paint layer of the basket of potatoes sitting 00:21:34.619 --> 00:21:36.619 on the ground between the two figures, was a 00:21:36.619 --> 00:21:39.420 painted -over shape, a small, dark, geometric 00:21:39.420 --> 00:21:41.859 form. And it looked like... It looked remarkably 00:21:41.859 --> 00:21:44.460 like a small coffin. Seriously, a coffin shape, 00:21:44.640 --> 00:21:48.099 painted over. Yes. Now, art historians are cautious. 00:21:48.420 --> 00:21:50.779 We don't know for sure what Millett intended. 00:21:51.079 --> 00:21:54.059 Was it an earlier idea he abandoned? Did he paint 00:21:54.059 --> 00:21:56.019 a funeral scene initially and then change it 00:21:56.019 --> 00:21:58.059 to something less grim, maybe to make it more 00:21:58.059 --> 00:22:00.880 sellable after Appleton backed out? Or was Dully 00:22:00.880 --> 00:22:03.759 right? Was the grief the hidden subject all along? 00:22:03.960 --> 00:22:06.440 We can't be certain. But the presence of that 00:22:06.440 --> 00:22:09.819 shape, deliberately covered up, it's chilling. 00:22:10.019 --> 00:22:13.940 It adds this layer of potential tragedy, of deep... 00:22:14.140 --> 00:22:17.319 private sorrow beneath the public image of devotion. 00:22:17.640 --> 00:22:19.779 It makes the painting even more complex, doesn't 00:22:19.779 --> 00:22:22.079 it? Especially given its history becoming this 00:22:22.079 --> 00:22:25.660 valuable cultural icon. It carries this possible 00:22:25.660 --> 00:22:28.539 secret grief, much like Millet's own life, perhaps. 00:22:28.759 --> 00:22:30.880 Beyond these incredible hidden stories, Millet's 00:22:30.880 --> 00:22:32.779 influence on the artists who came after him was 00:22:32.779 --> 00:22:34.720 immense, especially the post -impressionists. 00:22:35.000 --> 00:22:37.240 Van Gogh is the obvious one. Oh, foundational. 00:22:37.640 --> 00:22:40.279 Van Gogh practically worships Millet. The sources 00:22:40.279 --> 00:22:43.170 call Millet a major source of inspiration. especially 00:22:43.170 --> 00:22:45.369 early in Van Gogh's career. Vincent mentions 00:22:45.369 --> 00:22:47.329 Millet constantly in his letters to his brother 00:22:47.329 --> 00:22:50.190 Theo. What did he admire so much? He admired 00:22:50.190 --> 00:22:52.869 Millet's honesty, his commitment to depicting 00:22:52.869 --> 00:22:55.670 the poor with dignity, the raw energy in his 00:22:55.670 --> 00:22:59.609 figures. Van Gogh copied Millet's works obsessively, 00:22:59.650 --> 00:23:02.089 drawings, paintings, after the sower, after scenes 00:23:02.089 --> 00:23:04.730 of peasant life. He wrote about trying to capture 00:23:04.730 --> 00:23:07.569 that same feeling, that same force. You can see 00:23:07.569 --> 00:23:09.910 Millet's DNA all over Van Gogh's depictions of 00:23:09.910 --> 00:23:12.720 peasants and rural labor. And the influence went 00:23:12.720 --> 00:23:16.440 beyond Van Gogh. Definitely. Millet's later landscapes, 00:23:16.759 --> 00:23:18.440 especially the ones he painted near the Normandy 00:23:18.440 --> 00:23:21.099 coast during the war, they became important for 00:23:21.099 --> 00:23:24.920 Quad Monet. Monet? How so? Monet studied how 00:23:24.920 --> 00:23:27.200 Millet handled the light, the atmosphere, the 00:23:27.200 --> 00:23:29.900 composition in those coastal scenes. You can 00:23:29.900 --> 00:23:32.779 see echoes of Millet in Monet's own early Impressionist 00:23:32.779 --> 00:23:36.119 paintings of the Normandy coastline. Millet provided 00:23:36.119 --> 00:23:38.200 a kind of structural reference point. And even 00:23:38.200 --> 00:23:40.490 Georges Seurat. The pointillist, that seems like 00:23:40.490 --> 00:23:42.869 an odd connection. It seems odd at first, but 00:23:42.869 --> 00:23:44.190 it makes sense if you look at Millet's figures. 00:23:44.289 --> 00:23:45.690 Remember how we talked about their monumental, 00:23:45.809 --> 00:23:48.009 almost sculptural quality? Yeah, that weightiness. 00:23:48.369 --> 00:23:51.029 Seurat picked up on that. He admired how Millet's 00:23:51.029 --> 00:23:53.950 simplified forms gave them this enduring, almost 00:23:53.950 --> 00:23:56.980 geometric structure. That emphasis on underlying 00:23:56.980 --> 00:23:59.579 form, abstracting it to convey something solid 00:23:59.579 --> 00:24:02.480 and symbolic, resonated with Seurat's own search 00:24:02.480 --> 00:24:04.700 for order and structure in his very different 00:24:04.700 --> 00:24:07.200 pointillist technique. So Millett's impact wasn't 00:24:07.200 --> 00:24:09.819 just emotional, it was formal too. And it spilled 00:24:09.819 --> 00:24:12.700 out of painting, into literature, and even popular 00:24:12.700 --> 00:24:16.400 culture. Massively. His painting... Lo Malahu, 00:24:16.559 --> 00:24:19.019 the man with the hoe, showing this utterly exhausted 00:24:19.019 --> 00:24:22.440 laborer leaning on his tool. It directly inspired 00:24:22.440 --> 00:24:25.359 a really famous poem by Edwin Markham in 1898. 00:24:25.559 --> 00:24:28.039 The man with the hoe. That's the one. Markham 00:24:28.039 --> 00:24:30.519 used Millett's image as this powerful symbol 00:24:30.519 --> 00:24:33.099 of exploited labor across the world. It became 00:24:33.099 --> 00:24:35.420 an anthem for social justice. And the inspiration 00:24:35.420 --> 00:24:38.200 continues. There's a 2005 poetry collection by 00:24:38.200 --> 00:24:40.599 David Middleton inspired by Millett's work, too. 00:24:40.720 --> 00:24:42.500 And then there's the Mark Twain play. Right. 00:24:42.579 --> 00:24:45.920 Is he dead from 1898? Mark Twain uses a fictionalized 00:24:45.920 --> 00:24:47.799 Millett as the main character. It's a comedy, 00:24:47.819 --> 00:24:50.900 a satire about a struggling artist who fakes 00:24:50.900 --> 00:24:53.660 his own death because he realizes his paintings 00:24:53.660 --> 00:24:56.059 will be worth much more. if people think he's 00:24:56.059 --> 00:24:58.920 dead. So he pretends to die to achieve fame and 00:24:58.920 --> 00:25:01.140 fortune. That's hilarious and deeply ironic, 00:25:01.279 --> 00:25:02.960 given what actually happened with the Angelus 00:25:02.960 --> 00:25:06.460 after Millett's real death. Exactly. Twain poking 00:25:06.460 --> 00:25:08.759 fun at the absurdities of the art market, an 00:25:08.759 --> 00:25:10.980 absurdity that Millett's own posthumous fame 00:25:10.980 --> 00:25:13.559 helped to highlight. It's kind of perfect that 00:25:13.559 --> 00:25:15.700 the artist whose legacy prompted laws to protect 00:25:15.700 --> 00:25:18.460 artists also became the centerpiece of a comedy 00:25:18.460 --> 00:25:21.640 about exploiting that very system. Hashtag, hashtag, 00:25:21.920 --> 00:25:24.460 outro. So when you pull back and look at Jean 00:25:24.460 --> 00:25:26.359 -Francois Millet, you see this incredible paradox. 00:25:26.559 --> 00:25:28.380 Here's a man from the humblest beginnings, a 00:25:28.380 --> 00:25:30.880 farmer's son, and he takes the most ordinary, 00:25:31.019 --> 00:25:32.960 roughest subjects, peasants digging, sowing, 00:25:33.099 --> 00:25:36.660 resting, praying, and he gives them this monumental 00:25:36.660 --> 00:25:39.480 dignity, this almost classical power that aren't 00:25:39.480 --> 00:25:41.630 usually reserved for gods or kings. He didn't 00:25:41.630 --> 00:25:44.089 just paint realism. He made it confrontational. 00:25:44.309 --> 00:25:47.029 He turned depictions of rural poverty into social 00:25:47.029 --> 00:25:49.890 dynamite, forcing Parisian society to look at 00:25:49.890 --> 00:25:52.130 the human reality behind their comfortable lives. 00:25:52.609 --> 00:25:55.329 The reaction to The Gleaners shows just how provocative 00:25:55.329 --> 00:25:57.670 that was. And his legacy is just so far -reaching. 00:25:57.890 --> 00:25:59.930 It's in the law books with the Droit de Suede. 00:25:59.990 --> 00:26:02.470 It's in the canvases of Van Gogh, Monet, Seurat. 00:26:02.690 --> 00:26:05.710 His importance is still recognized today. Think 00:26:05.710 --> 00:26:08.490 of that recent big exhibition, Millet, Life on 00:26:08.490 --> 00:26:11.220 the Land, marking 150 years. since his death. 00:26:11.319 --> 00:26:13.559 He remains relevant. Okay, so here's something 00:26:13.559 --> 00:26:15.880 to leave you with, our final thought. Consider 00:26:15.880 --> 00:26:18.740 that Dali theory about the Angelus. If he was 00:26:18.740 --> 00:26:21.359 right, or even partly right, that beneath that 00:26:21.359 --> 00:26:24.099 surface of calm piety lies this hidden grief, 00:26:24.299 --> 00:26:27.210 this painted over coffin. What does that make 00:26:27.210 --> 00:26:29.730 you wonder about other masterpieces? How many 00:26:29.730 --> 00:26:32.190 seemingly simple, beautiful paintings by the 00:26:32.190 --> 00:26:34.509 great artists might be concealing their own secrets, 00:26:34.769 --> 00:26:37.250 their own layers of sorrow or struggle just beneath 00:26:37.250 --> 00:26:39.390 the brushstrokes we think we understand so well? 00:26:39.809 --> 00:26:41.630 What else is hiding in plain sight?