The painting ‘Crossing the Alps ‘was painted by David in early 1800’s.This painting is a portrait of Napoleon as he was crossing the Alps. Now without too much of introduction, I would like to come directly on to the arguments supporting my thesis. Does this painting actually depict the downfall of Napoleon?
On the first look the Painting looks vibrant. But when closely inspected we actually feel that this painting like many other have a rhetorical base, to which history does comply.Firstly let us discuss about the style of the painting. I would firstly like to discuss about the colors used in painting.The main colors used in this painting are blue , green and white.
According to the color psychology blue color displays depression , coldness and obscenity .The white color does represent purity and youth , but on the other hand it also shows defeat and death ( In eastern cultures).While the green shades, that are very much prominent, symbolizes aggression, inexperience, envy, misfortune, jealousy, money, illness. Also according to the ancient Greek mythology green was considered to be the color for the devil. There can be a counter argument stating that blue and green colors, both have positive traits also. But if that was the case why is the canvas painted in a very dull and depressive atmosphere? And thus I surely believe that the painting wants convey the negative symbolism of the colors.Now , taking Napoleon to be the point of consideration , he is shown to have a glorifying stance , which displays the might and confidence in him and his troops. But I ,would like to differ from this simple yet convincing analysis.
In the painting the horse’s rearing is substantially highlighted. Some people take this stance as a ‘mighty stance’, for some its style. But in the military discipline a soldier on a rearing horse symbolizes that he died in the battle. Napoleon’s scale also seems to be highly hyped up. The average height of the horses that were used were arong 16 hands. Which when converted comes to about 64 inches which further converted roughly comes to 5’8”. The horse’s ratio of torso : legs comes to about 2:1 that means that the torso is about 3.8ft and the legs 2 ft (which are folded). That means the torso of Napoleon would measure a roughly 3.8ft and according to Da vinci’s golden ratio the height of Napoleon comes to about 6ft. So taking everything in to consideration Napoleon’s height comes to 9.8ft (even if the approximations are taken in account it cannot get lower then 8ft ).Taking a look at the hooves of the horse. It is positioned right above Napoleon’s troops. This is a symbolic representation of his army getting trampled. A king normally is always seen in front of the troop. Here he is seen behind his troop which again signifies the depression in his mind. Also one soldier is shown up side down, which might mean that the troop was in great confusion.
· Also a kind of divine light appears on Napoleon. This light signifies that Napoleon had the support of the heavens. But as Napoleons’s death is discussed over and over , I prefer to agree to the argument that this divine light doesnot want to coney the support but actually wants to correspond to the call from the almighty.Which is again in syncronisation with the the arguments made previously.
· Taking a look on the torso of the horse, the expression on the face of the horse signifies some kind of terror.
· The position of the cape of Napoleon is also critical. It is is intersecting the horses head at the exact point which normally means the symbol of sacrifice. Also saffron color does symbolize sacrifice.
· The bridle of the horse is loose. When someone is in such a position the bridle is required to be tight. The loose bridle also signifies, that Napoleon is losing grip over is territory.
· Also the hand gesture of Napoleon seems as if he is asking his soldiers to escape, which again leads us to the hint that this painting was made to show is down fall. There can be an argument at this that this gesture can also mean that he is commanding his troop. But as seen in the painting, he is behind his troop. And a king cannot command from behind.
So now to the final question, was the painting really glorified?
According to logical and rhetorical analysis it seems that the painting was glorified in order to put a mental stress on who-so-ever sees this. And when people start glorifying things, there is some kind of timidity in their mind, which does symbolize that he was growing mentally weak.
