Aurora and Cephalus c. 1810

Editor: Here we have Anne-Louis Girodet's "Aurora and Cephalus," painted around 1810. The ethereal quality of the figures almost makes it look like it's rendered in pastel, though I believe it is primarily oil on canvas. I am curious as to how we can unpack it beyond its face value. What do you see in this piece? Curator: The materiality itself tells a compelling story. Consider the pigments Girodet used. Where did they come from? The deep blacks probably relate to new explorations into the uses of industrial waste in pigment creation; Aurora's luminescent flesh may employ innovative techniques to disperse light within the paint layers themselves, perhaps attempting to imitate the popular Neoclassical forms of the period through technological means. Editor: That’s a perspective I hadn’t considered! I was so focused on the mythic aspect, but the "how" is just as critical. Curator: Exactly! Think about the canvas too – what kind of weave? What was the socioeconomic context of linen production in early 19th century France? And consider the societal function of academic painting at this point in time: How are works like "Aurora and Cephalus" meant to function in constructing ideologies about idealized bodies, luxury, and access to divine encounters? Editor: So, it's less about a simple story of mythological figures, and more about a snapshot of industrial developments, the labour involved, and societal aspirations being translated through these specific materials? Curator: Precisely. We examine painting no longer simply as imitation, but as material labor reflecting larger economic and power structures. The surface gleams due to these very processes. Editor: That reframes the entire experience of viewing it! I appreciate how thinking about the materials opens up these avenues for interpretation. Thanks for broadening my perspective. Curator: It’s these close observations that will illuminate any work of art for you! Materiality matters.