The variety of themes, forms, and techniques used by artists throughout history is wide, and it can be argued that no two paintings by different artists are the same. Comparing and contrasting works of art that are thematically or visually similar reveals their true differences, which usually reflect variations in the authors’ backgrounds or the intended meanings of the works. Analyzing different works of art both individually and in comparison with others also helps to understand how formal qualities of a painting assist in conveying its meaning and purpose. The present paper will seek to compare and contrast two paintings: The Dissolute Household by Jan Steen (1665) and Supper at Emmaus by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1600-1601). As the analysis will show, although the works are similar in terms of their subject and some visual characteristics, many dissimilarities between them are justified by their different purposes.
The main similarity between the two works of art is that they both focus on a group of people sitting at a table with food. Steen’s painting pictures a middle-class family, with six men and women of varied ages. The second artist, however, depicts four people, and the central figure in the painting is Jesus, who is accompanied by disciples he met on his way to Emmaus. Thus, despite being similar in their focus, the works differ a lot thematically, with one picturing domestic life and the other centered on a biblical scene.
Similarities between the two works can also be observed in shapes, textures, and colors. Both artists use a mixture of warm, reddish tones mixed with browns and whites. This contributes to the perceived atmosphere and mood of the pieces by reflecting the use of artificial light in the room and creating a warm overall impression. This is supported by the use of soft and rounded yet well-defined shapes. Both artists have devoted a lot of attention to draped fabrics, which appear to be silky and smooth. However, this combination of textures and shapes in the first painting is somewhat interrupted by angled, contrasting shapes, such as that of the board used for gambling and the broken glass.
Differences in the form of the two paintings are evident at first glance and concern all other qualities besides the ones mentioned above. In terms of balance and composition, Steen’s painting is much more diffused, whereas the figures in Carravaggio’s piece are located in the center of the canvas. This contributes to the dissimilarities in the dynamics of the two pieces. On the one hand, the characters of Steen’s work are all preoccupied with different activities, and their focus is distributed all across the room. On the other hand, in Caravaggio’s work, the attention of three characters is devoted to Jesus, who also appears to be focused solely on the conversation. The movement and rhythms of the two pieces also vary significantly. The first painting is full of action and small details, which create an impression of chaos and show the disordered atmosphere of the household. In the second painting, movement is limited to the men’s hand gestures, implying a calmer and more civil atmosphere. The rhythm of Carrivaggio’s piece is also uninterrupted by unnecessary details, and the viewer’s eye can pass through the work smoothly without significant interruptions.
All of these differences highlight the contrast between two moods, chaos and civility, which points to differences in the purposes of the two works. Steen’s painting is, in its content, subject, and form, a moralizing piece intended to highlight the vices that poison a family addicted to gambling and drinking. The atmosphere of disarray, which flows from the work’s composition and rhythm, helps to transform a warm, routine image into a lesson on morality. Caravaggio’s painting, on the contrary, serves to reflect an important scene of the Bible by underlining the importance of Christ and his teachings. Here, the author achieves it through the same techniques of composition, rhythm, and balance.
On the whole, both works of art are important and relevant in their context. Steen fulfills the goal of drawing the audience’s attention to the consequences of immoral behavior, whereas Carrivaggio successfully recreated a scene from the Bible, conveying the image of Christ and his interactions with people. The authors’ use of forms to create meaning and fulfill their purposes is brilliant since comparing the works visually reveals a lot about the messages that they carry. I like both works, but I find Steen’s painting to be more captivating because of its rhythm and composition. While Carrivaggio’s piece is also skillful, Steen’s work is admirable to me because it carries an essential moral meaning. I find it captivating how the artist uses the color and form first to recreate a typical family image and then adds more and more details to show the true nature of the people in the picture and teach the audience a lesson on morality. At the same time, the work is still visually appealing, which reflects Steen’s mastery.