Ruskin, Church, and Cotopaxi

OR: Tone 101: How to Create Mood Lighting

Cotopaxi - Frederic Edwin Church


I scoured the internet for a usable picture of Mt. Rainier, but I didn't like any of the ones I found. The consolation prize, I suppose, is this pretty badass painting of an erupting volcano called Cotopaxi, which is somewhere in Ecuador.

What struck me most in relating the reading to this particular painting was Ruskin's description of "tone." A lot of Ruskin's description of art I either don't agree with or is over my head, but I did like how he described tone in relation to landscapes, and how tone has two aspects:

[F]irst, the exact relief and relation of objects against and to each other in substance and darkness, as they are nearer or more distant, and the perfect relation of the shades of all of them to the chief light of the picture, whether that be sky, water, or anything else. Secondly, the exact relation of the colors to the shadows to the colors of the lights, [...] so that the whole of the picture (or, where several tones are united, those parts of it which are under each,) may be felt to be in one climate, under one kind of light, and in one kind of atmosphere; this being chiefly dependent on that peculiar and inexplicable quality of each color laid on, which makes the eye feel both what is the actual color of the object represented, and that it is raised to its apparent pitch by illumination. (Ruskin II.I.1, page 141) 

I don't nearly have the expertise in art that I would like, but what I think it boils down to is that the work should have a consistent and realistic relationship between its light source and the objects within, and that a gifted artist will be able to "illuminate" certain colors and shapes using those light sources. The better a work's lighting, the higher the work's quality of tone.

Why I find this description of tone particularly useful in analysis of Cotopaxi, is because this work has multiple light sources working harmoniously to form a rich picture, and the bright colors seem to pop off of the canvas (or in this case, out of the monitor) brilliantly. According to my count, the work has one main light source, the sun, but because of the ash coming out of the volcano the sun doesn't dominate the lighting of the painting and allows for three more secondary light sources: the lake directly below the sun, the waterfall at the bottom slightly toward the left, and the unobscured patch of sky in the top left sixth.

These light sources somewhat distort the actual colors of the painting as to what we would typically see. The trees in the bottom left corner are not green, but are multiple shades of black and red; the cliff faces aren't sandy beige, but look like glowing coal embers. The flat lake looks more like a pool of lava than a cool pond. The ash coming out of the volcano tints the sun, and therefore tints everything else.

However, the sky to the left of the volcano has not been obstructed by ash, and is the typical light blue. This gives the painting some depth and a touch of realism that Ruskin covets so greatly. Because of the patch of blue sky, the viewer is reminded that the distorted color scheme is due to natural forces, not just some hellish vision of the artist. Also, the waterfall reflects white and blue, in part due to the sky as a light source, but also because rapidly moving water naturally reflects all spectrums of light.

Church understands Ruskin's principles of tone: he wanted to paint Cotopaxi in passionate tones of red and black, but in order to do this he had to invent a natural way to distort the color scheme (the volcano wasn't actually erupting, and the waterfall wasn't actually there). The work is still part of the artist's imagination, but it fits the laws of nature. Therefore, Church's work gets the Ruskin stamp of approval.