Balzac’s short tale “The Unknown Masterpiece” contains several allusions to art. Porbus and Frenhofer have rationally presented two diametrically opposed concepts in the most aesthetically reflective manner imaginable. The two facets of an artist’s existence are depicted, namely love and art. Thus, this conflict is exemplified in the novel Gillette, when Gillette’s boyfriend, an artist named Poussin, allows the older painter Frenhofer to paint her: “and if, for the sake of my future renown, if you must sit to another?” (Goldstein 35). Gillette is more concerned with love than art, creating an antagonistic relationship between the actual lady and her fictitious hero. Frenhofer is disassociated from reality and paints what is in his brain rather than what is on the page.
Balzac demonstrates that art devoid of love is empty as both musts are in balance to provide meaning. This is seen in Gillette’s withdrawal from Poussin when he utilizes her only as an object in his painting. “If you desire for me to sit for you again as I did the other day,” she added with playful petulance, “I will never consent to do so again, for your eyes say nothing and you do not think of me at all, but you gaze at me “she said (Goldstein 35). On the other hand, Catherine is Frenhofer’s vision, which is so vivid that he refuses to reveal his picture of her to anyone for fear of profaning their love. It is reported that when others view his artwork, they disapprove, prompting him to burn it and die of shock. “Adieu, my dear young friends!” said Frenhofer (Goldstein 48) as, on the other hand, is touched by the love and counsels art on both the subject and the art itself (Goldstein 20).
He is acquainted with Porbus- when Porbus receives visitors, Frenhofer greets him with “Good day, Master” (Goldstein 16), and he admits both of them. Frenhofer is shown as judgmental, and he critiques one of Porbus’s paintings, pointing out its flaws and lacking the element that elevates art to poetry. “I admire you, saint,” the elderly gentleman stated (Goldstein 16), where Frenhofer demonstrates that he is opinionated and obscure. He takes like a young artist after viewing one of Poussins’ drawings, shown as an excellent mentor. Fraunhofer, in collaboration with Porbus, also serves as a mentor to young Poussin. “See, young fellow,” he said, “how three or four brushstrokes and a thin gloss of blue allow in,” Frenhofer stated (Goldstein 24).
A reversal occurs as Porbus instructs his lover Gillette to sit nude for Frenhofers art to view an old picture of a lovely Catherine. “We shall make our way inside his studio!” said Poussin, Goldstein 33), which highlights Frenhofer’s downfall, as the two young artists make disparaging remarks about his work, precipitating his end. Edouard Frenhofer, who lives in the countryside of Southern France with his wife, is the subject of the lovely troublemaker film. A painter and his lover, Marianne, visit him, which encourages Frenhofer, and he resumes to work on his masterwork. It is a meticulous, deliberate examination of the artistic process and the fixation that he chooses Marianne to replace his wife’s job as a model. Marianne’s work is given much attention as she maintains her posture and changes positions in response to Frenhofer’s requests.
This is brought to light when she begins posing naked. Collaboration between the two is palpable at the play’s second hour, Liz and Nicholas converse, and Liz tells Nicholas that Marianne is secure because her husband is a gentleman. The connection between Frenhofer and Marianne becomes increasingly personal on the second and third days. Frenhofer, on the other hand, becomes callous and aggressive as he contorts her nude body as if it were a numb object.
In other terms, this drama begins with its earliest preliminary drawings and ends with a sinister unseen gorgeous canvas. The video delves at the challenges inherent in a unique creative process shared by artists and subjects. Marianne is terrified when the artwork is completed, and it snatched something from her that she couldn’t recapture. This also does not sit well with Frenhofer’s partner Liz, and as a result, he walls up the final piece and paints a fast, mediocre image to please the anticipated audience. He is dissatisfied with the expected masterwork he displays in conclusion.
This is in contrast to the Frenhofer in the novel The Unknown Masterpiece, who has no affection for the topic of his painting or art in general. He is not treated with deference due to his brutal and violent treatment of his victim Marianne. However, he does not allow the opinions and criticisms of others’ love affairs to deter him from pursuing his craft. However, it destroys his morale, in contrast to the Unknown Masterpiece, where just a negative feeling ultimately causes a well-known artist to abandon his art and burn his masterpiece, resulting in his death. Both the play and the tale contain challenges to the artist’s craft. They are perceived as allowing the difficulties they face while creating their work to knock them down. This explains their resemblance.
Frenhofer is portrayed in the film and the tale as two distinct people. Both adore their artistic lives and would do anything to maximize their enjoyment. However, Frenhofer’s character in the film portrays the story’s Frenhofer as extremely weak in heart. He is emotionally frail when he is surprised when Porbus expresses a negative feeling about his magnificent piece of art, Gillette “I see nothing” (Goldstein 44). This shock caused him to set fire to the canvas, ultimately resulting in his death. The few unfavorable feelings compelled him to smash everything to the point of death. This is diametrically opposed to the Frenhofer shown in the film. Regardless of the numerous things spoken to him, he did not let them all enter his heart. Despite his disappointment, he makes a concerted effort to ensure that his canvas turns out as he anticipated.
Frenhofer’s artwork depicts him as callous and uncaring in the film “The Troublemaker.” In contrast to the tale, he is harsh to Marianne and kind to Gillette’s subject. He was rude to his topic, Marianne, while he was creating his masterpiece. He quickly chooses Marianne to take over his wife’s part in the painting. Frenhofer may complete his last masterpiece later in the film with the assistance of Marianne. On the other hand, Marianne is horrified by Frenhofer’s final naked painting and objects to its public display. He goes above and above to ensure his painting is completed regardless of the repercussions and works tirelessly on it. He is an uncaring painter who has no affection for his topic.
Frenhofer has been presented as an influential artist willing to assist several new artists by encouraging and helping them develop their narrative abilities. He meets an untimely end to his artistic career when Porbus’ despair brings him to his death bed. That, in my opinion, is not a satisfactory conclusion to the narrative. In contrast, the writer would have used that experience to demonstrate to young artists that even at times of despair, they should not allow it to sink into their hearts and cause them to abandon their work of art.
Frenhofer was well-known; hence, he may have possessed enough talents in his work of art, which not everyone could notice. As a result, he could even teach aspiring painters how to look through the picture. He would have utilized that opportunity to demonstrate a fresh beginning for the art of the heart and mind instead of the art of the soul alone. Fraunhofer was permitted to reveal the depths of the art to Porbus and Poussin rather than criticize them by expounding on the value of art and nature. “You have the semblance of life, but not its fullness and opulence, that inexplicable something, possibly the soul itself, that envelops the contours of the body like a haze; in short, that bloom of life,” Frenhofer stated (Goldstein 22).
His description of burning his work in response to Porbus’s negative feelings reflects a very superficial view of his beliefs in art. I would have utilized Frenhofer’s work to demonstrate his final elegance as a means of exploring the mind’s art. It must be perceived not only with our eyes but also with our thoughts and hearts. I would conclude the narrative with a new beginning for Frenhofer’s triumph in soul painting.
Works Cited
Goldstein, Joseph L. “Balzac’s Unknown Masterpiece: Spotting the next big thing in art and science.” Nature Medicine Vol. 20, no. 10, 2014, pp. 1106-1111.
“The Beautiful Troublemaker (La Belle Noiseuse).” Colorado Springs Independent, 2020. Web.