In art history, art is classified into a certain period or style based on the overwhelmingly similar characteristics that individual works of art share with one another. Both time and style are among the many of determinates that help art historians classify art into such a classification. This classification can be taken one step further as demonstrated by Heinrich Wolfflin in his book “Principles of Art History.” Wolfflin wanted to make studying art more than a “dull recording of facts” (Minor, 110). He wanted to look at art with a scientific approach. With this in mind, we take a look at “Hagar and the Angel” painted by Louis de Boullogne the Younger around 1710.
To better understand the “Hagar and the Angel,” we should first understand the historical context in which it was produced. “Hagar and the Angel” came about between 1710 and 1720 in France. During this period Louis XV was the king of France. The Rococo is thought to be the final stage of the Baroque period. It lasted the span of Louis XV life 1715-1774. The term rococo comes from the French word rocialle meaning rock work. The rock works, like the paintings of this era, are light hearted, easy going when it comes to subject matter. The ov

In conclusion “Hagar and the Angel” is primarily a painterly painting, but still has a touch on linear to it. This painting is in the beginning of a transition to a new form, the Rococo, but has not forgotten its roots. This idea of moving on but still holding on is also evident in its figure field relationship in which the image presents its self in relation to the background. We also have a variation between fine detail and relative detail. This variation is in part an attempt to show distance between the focus image and the background. Obviously, objects that are far away show less detail. However, I do believe this is over exaggerated in this work. Right after you leave the foreground the painting becomes rather blurred and unrealistic.

When we looks at “Hagar and the Angel” for absolute or relative clarity, the answer is both. The cloth is for the most part absolute. It does lose some detail when it is protruding into the background but it is minimal. Overall, the fine details in the folds are explicit. However, this is very much different from the representation of the characters facial expressions. All three faces are having only relative clarity only showing minuet amounts of despair. This as a result makes the viewer imagine what the facial expressions would be. Also the detail on the structure is rather primordial, giving only the basic shapes of the architecture and no fine detail. Much of the artist’s absolute clarity is lost in an attempt to