Joseph Désiré Court, Scene of Deluge, 1826

In the biblical book of Genesis God flooded the earth, sparing only Noah and his family who had been instructed to build an ark. All others perished in the great deluge. Instead of illustrating the life of Noah, Court gives us a scene from the other side of the story. Here a man has to choose between saving his own son or his father. He chooses his father who, despite the man’s efforts, has just slipped out of his grasp. The painting can be read as an allegory about clinging to the past. If you always look to traditions and the past, you will miss out on all the possibilities that the future can bring.⁠

15 Comments

Add Yours →

If we have to look at the past, then let it be looking at past experiences and remembering the lesson to help one focus on getting better. Period!

Он должен спасти отца. Жена будет, сын будет, а отца ему не заменит никто. Это христианская, идеология.
А спасая жену и сына, – это идеология запада

Полый бред. Где у христиан написано забудь о сыне и жене?

Иисус Христос в Евангелии от Матфея 19:5: сказал: «Посему оставит человек отца и мать и прилепится к жене своей»… Адам и Ева не имели родителей, но Бог им сказал, что у них будут дети, которых они должны будут отпустить, для создания новой семьи. «С того дня, когда в семье появляется ребёнок, Бог возлагает на родителей ответственность начать готовится к тому дню, когда он оставит семью, в которой вырос, чтобы основать свою собственную».

На западе кстати большая часть христиане. Христиане все ко верит в Иисуса Христа как спасителя. О есть и католики и методисты…. Вы явно не ту Библию читали и понятия не имеете что такое христианство.

“The painting can be read as an allegory about clinging to the past. If you always look to traditions and the past, you will miss out on all the possibilities that the future can bring.⁠” Was this the meaning intended by Joseph-Dezire Court? Or is this a modern reinterpretation to strike controversy?

literally who cares LMAO , how does that strike controversy ? you either agree with it or you don ‘t . no controversy here . It ‘s a beautiful painting , i ‘m sure that you agree . keep it like that .

The boy is dead, wife’s already holding on to the branches. So it’s only logical to save the drowning father. This is a great example in rapid response. Don’t be distracted by emotions but focus on saving maximum lives.

I toonfind the description quite whimsical.
In the picture, the lady has a momentary relief as she could hold on to the branch, sobshe could wait for a while. But his father did not have that support, logically it is justified that the man will first approach who needs the help first.

Perhaps his wife had been having an affair and the child was not his, hence the decision to try and rescue his father who had cared for him all his life unconditionally.

The mother and child are safe for the time being, so it is logical to help the person who is most in need. I wonder what the painter would have said.

I don’t see the meaning of holding onto the past I see a babies head above water, a wife holding on not going under or floating away and a oldman with no support and needing help more so than the others.

Leave a Reply