While many often refer to home as the place or community one lives in, a loving relationship is where home starts for me. Consider this scenario: the young son of a wealthy man, who after receiving his share of the property, left, squandered everything away, then found himself having to live among the swine. Returning home proved to be a better option after he realised his folly. Still, from afar, the compassionate father saw and ran out, throwing his arms around him. This is a painting entitled ‘Prodigal Son’ – an all-too-familiar parable presented by Jesus, to a community of sinners in his time.
Painted with intense colours and intricate details, this is a well-crafted piece by a painter who made many careful decisions in order to make a story come to live and make viewers feel its intended effect, especially at first impression. But, he might have over-complicated an otherwise simple parable, consciously or not. Allow me to suggest that while he tried hard (and did well) in illustrating the story’s significant points, some decisions compromised and others are even contrary to details common to our understanding of the parable of the Prodigal Son.
It is clear what this painting first intends its viewers to consider, and it has done so extremely well, as if bringing us into the intensity of that moment. Certainly returning home is a much better place to be in, and in the painting we can almost feel the shame the son felt, imagine what a pain it must have been for the father, and we can also sense the father’s eagerness to restore his son to his former glory. I will next highlight some of these examples.
Notice how the artist sets this in the garden of the house, as opposed to under the shelter of the building, or outside the gates of the house. On one hand, being out in the open allows a play of lighting effects; it gives us an opportunity to observe elements that would not have been possible under a roof. For example, we see clearly the reflection of light on the son’s skin, making obvious his well-defined physique. Why would a tanned and burly young man kneel before an old man less strong as he? Put this thought together with the idea of kneeling uncomfortably on an uneven stone floor, the tension in pressing his cheek against the father, and reaching upwards to receive the embrace. Assuredly, this is a man demonstrating utmost humility, returning with nothing but so little pride left in him, yet so desperate for this father’s acceptance!
On the other hand, being within the boundaries of the house (and not outside) subtly emphasizes the splendour and dependability of home. This allows the artist use elements found within the house to be evidence that home is indeed a better place to which the son returned. The pruned and neatly arranged potted plants, for example, boasts vividly-coloured flowers, hence sets itself against the bare trees we see beyond the walls of the house. Pillars and walls are well constructed and they look sturdy. Besides, he gives himself so little space to reveal the outside, almost as if avoiding potential interpretations that the outside might not actually be that bad a place.
Now, look at the posture of the father - he bends down, but his hands reach for the bottom of his son’s elbow, as if picking him from his knees up to the same level as himself. This painting radiates his eagerness to restore his son and also the grief he felt for his son. His eyes focus on his son, his brows furrow and one can almost see a crease in between, the corner of his lips is also slightly depressed. This is a pained facial expression, which is effectively accentuated against the cheerful backdrop.
What a heartfelt painting we have seen – so far.
But look further; we uncover paradoxes. While it might not have been the intention of the artist to mislead us on what the actual story of the Prodigal Son is, the same elements he used that meant to heighten the painting’s effect also dishonoured (whether knowingly or not) other portions of Jesus’ parable.
We see how the lack of proper robes and its raggedness give us an idea of the son’s deprived state, having left home for a period of time. Yes, the idea of a strong young man bowing before his father implies a great extent of his humility. Herein lies the first paradox. The son is known to have starved, with neither a job nor a roof over his head. In fact the Biblical text accounted that he was desperate enough to eat pigs’ pods! No way could he have been so bulky, body so healthy-looking and ‘sparkling’ clean, and his hair could not have been neatly shaven. (In addition to his obvious body contours, we see plenty of effort to depict a thin, shaven layer of hair.) Besides, bright royal purple is not a colour someone who went through such an unkind experience would be wearing. (At the very least, the robe could have been spotted with dirt.) Unfortunately, the use of vibrant saturated tones, which often aim to attract attention, created more inconsistencies than directed our attention towards the robe’s raggedness.
The second is this: while it was a clever move to set this painting out in the garden of the home to bring out desired effects, we also understand from the original parable that the father was the one who, from seeing his son from afar, ran out to hug him. Granted that people’s perception of ‘from afar’ differs, the choice of venue still seems slightly odd. The garden is neither a place fully inside the house, nor fully outside – rather, it is in between. Being in between, the painting allows us to catch a glimpse of both extremes. While we earlier understood the usefulness of revealing some parts of the outside, notice that black hole (presumably the interior of the house); it leaves a sense of darkness and secrecy. Shouldn’t the house be a bright, cheerful place that the son returned to, and more so the inside of the house? This could have been mere neglect on the painter’s part, but by virtue of fact that this black hole is in the painting suggests otherwise. (He could have painted more flowers, for example, in place of that.) Deliberation or neglect, one thing is for sure: it works against earlier efforts to highlight the splendour of the home.
The last paradox has got to be the father’s facial expression. It is no doubt that the father went through much anguish during his son’s absence. I reckon though, that overwhelming joy or relief from anguish (not anguish itself) is a facial expression much more appropriate now that his long lost son has finally returned. Furthermore, in addition to looking grieved, the father’s face also looks as though he is deep in thought even while welcoming his son – much to my puzzlement. Either way, it still seeks to complicate the story as we know it.
The parable of the Prodigal Son is a meaningful story told by a person of great authority at that time, with the intention of changing the hearts of sinners whom Jesus spoke to. Even to the common man, this is a simple story with positive principles. For sure, this painter did well in his job as an artist by capturing important details of the parable and invoking positive responses to it. His efforts were not in vain, so to speak, but there are subtle paradoxes that confuse viewers at a closer examination of the painting – some to the extent of arousing suspicion. Perhaps to the unwary eye, these conflicting elements catch none of their attention. That said, even if these paradoxes were merely an overlook by the painter, I reckon that staying true to the details of the original parable would do better in invoking the responses from viewers that also stays true to what Jesus intended for his hearers.
An essay submitted under Writing & Critical Thinking class… Hours, sleep poured into this… Many drafts and conferences, stages of refinements… Well, this is the class that I’m weakest in, but I’m most keen on… it’s stretching me quite a bit! :S Still got a more than half of the sem left of this mod, i’m excited! ",