Comparing Portraiture In Mill And Constable's Flatford Mill

The portraits both adapt and exploit the conventions of portraiture. They both include the classic elements of landscape portraiture, such as vast backgrounds and foregrounds depicting a certain place or type of landscape. In saying this, they also exploit the traditional conventions of portraiture, as in both portraits the figures are not distinct. The children in Constable’s Flatford Mill appear as indistinct figures, as the viewer should only refer to them as subjects that are needed to clarify the context and relation to Constable’s childhood, and to ensure the focus is mostly on the landscape. Friedrich’s Wanderer also exploits the conventions of traditional portraiture as the viewer is only shown the back of the dark figure, leaving one with the mystery of who the man is that is depicted. In this instance the fact that his face is not seen could seem
The notion of the individual is evident in this portrait as even though his face is not seen the viewer is connected with the figure as the emotion the man is feeling is undoubtedly depicted through the stance of the man and by the landscape he is gazing upon. Although it is unlike most nineteenth century portraits, the notion of the individual is almost more striking as the ambiguity of the figure introduces certain feelings to the viewer. Constable’s Flatford Mill responds to the evolving notion of the individual in a different way in comparison to Friedrich’s portrait. The landscape reflects the artist’s childhood and depicts aspects that are personal to him as an individual. The notion of the individual may not be depicted in a physical form in his portrait, depending on if the viewer were to believe one of the children depicted could be a portrayal of a young Constable, but more so in a way where the artists life is radiating out of the