The Son of Man by Rene Magritte, 1946
René Magritte’s The Son of Man is a painting you recognize instantly—even if you don’t know its name. A man in a trim gray suit and red tie stands by a stone wall, blue sky and restless sea behind him, a neat green apple hovering where his face should be. The bowler hat is there too, perched jauntily, as if it might tip itself in greeting if only it weren’t so busy concealing something.
Magritte, that sly Belgian surrealist, loved to play with the boundaries of the visible and the invisible. Here, he gives us a figure that’s at once mundane and mysterious. The man is ordinary—middle-class, proper, almost cartoonishly so. But what’s ordinary, Magritte reminds us, can also be deeply, stubbornly strange.
What makes The Son of Man endure isn’t just the visual joke of the apple (though it’s a good one). It’s the way Magritte gets us to confront the everyday—clothing, fruit, the persistent urge to peer behind the obvious—and realize how much remains out of reach. The painting is both an invitation and a gentle rebuke: Here’s a man, Magritte seems to say, but you’ll never really see him. The apple insists on its privacy, just as we insist on ours.
There’s something almost cinematic about the way Magritte frames the scene, like a still from a film that never quite starts. The composition is deliberate but not stiff; the colors are cool but never cold. It’s a painting that feels both familiar and uncanny—an image that floats somewhere between memory and dream, never quite settling down.
Ultimately, The Son of Man asks us to acknowledge the limits of looking. Magritte gives us a face, then takes it away, and leaves us with an apple—green, glossy, stubbornly present. It’s funny, a little sad, and wholly irresistible. Like much of Magritte’s work, it lingers in the mind, quietly rearranging the furniture of how we see.
The Colossus – Francisco Goya, 1808-1812
If you ever wanted to see a painting that feels like a waking nightmare, look no further than Francisco Goya’s The Colossus. Painted around 1808–1812, probably during the Peninsular War, it’s less a scene than a surge of feeling—a vision that’s at once grand and unsettling.
The basic image is simple, almost blunt: a mountainous giant, half-shrouded in cloud and shadow, strides across a mottled landscape. Below him, a scatter of tiny people and animals flee in all directions, some with a sense of panic, others frozen in confusion. The world below is chaotic, unmoored, as if the ground itself were buckling under the weight of disaster.
Goya was a painter of extremes—of courtly splendor, but also of human anguish and irrationality. The Colossus lands firmly in the latter camp. There’s something unfinished about the giant; his head is slightly bowed, his eyes turned away, as if lost in troubled thought. He’s both menacing and melancholic—a force of nature that doesn’t seem entirely at home in the world he’s disturbing.
What makes the painting remarkable is how Goya uses ambiguity. Is the Colossus an avenger, a protector, or simply an indifferent force of fate? We don’t know. Goya never spells it out, and the painting’s smoky colors and rough, almost ghostly brushwork only add to the sense of uncertainty. The whole scene feels like a collective fever dream—Goya channeling a country’s terror, exhaustion, and awe into one lumbering, uncertain shape.
Despite—or maybe because of—its ambiguity, The Colossus still holds power. It’s about fear on a vast, impersonal scale: the way anxiety can become its own towering presence, shaping the landscape of everyday life. But there’s also a strange sort of empathy here. Goya’s giant isn’t gloating. He seems as bewildered as the people below, caught up in events too big for anyone to fully understand.
If Goya is the great poet of ambiguity and anxiety, The Colossus is one of his most direct and affecting verses—a painting that looks straight at the heart of uncertainty, and finds something at once monstrous and achingly human staring back.
Woman with a Parasol – Madame Monet and Her Son – Claude Monet, 1875
Few paintings capture the lightness of a passing moment quite like Claude Monet’s Woman with a Parasol. Painted in 1875, it’s a portrait—of sorts—of Monet’s wife Camille and their young son Jean, but really it’s a portrait of air, light, and the pleasure of being outdoors on a breezy day.
Camille stands on a rise in the grass, her white dress catching the sunlight and fluttering in the wind. She looks down at us, face shaded by a green parasol, while Jean is almost lost in the tall grasses further back—a small, steady presence in a world shimmering with movement. The sky is a swirl of quick, feathery brushstrokes; the grass below seems to ripple with every stroke of Monet’s brush.
Monet was a master of atmosphere, and here he turns the everyday act of a stroll into something poetic. The painting feels almost improvised, as if Monet painted it on a whim, in a rush to capture a particular quality of light before it changed. There’s an immediacy to it—brushwork that’s loose, spontaneous, and alive, pulling us into the sensation of standing in that field, feeling the wind and sun on our skin.
What’s striking is how little Monet tells us about Camille herself—her features are softly blurred, her figure nearly merging with her dress and the sky. Instead, the painting invites us to feel what she might be feeling: the comfort of shade, the rush of the wind, the peacefulness of a summer day. There’s a kind of democracy to Monet’s attention—everything in the scene matters, from the grass at her feet to the clouds overhead.
Woman with a Parasol is both specific and universal: it’s Camille, but it’s also any of us who’ve paused in a field to watch the sky change. Monet isn’t interested in drama or narrative, only in the beauty of a single moment, fleeting but unforgettable. In a world that often demands answers and explanations, Monet gives us something gentler: the pleasure of simply being, surrounded by light and air. It’s enough.
The Doctor – Sir Samuel Luke Fildes, 1891
Sir Luke Fildes’ The Doctor is one of those rare paintings that manages to feel at once utterly Victorian and strikingly modern—a quiet, almost cinematic study of compassion in the face of uncertainty. Painted in 1891, it centers on a rural physician watching over a sick child through the night, with the child’s anxious parents hovering in the shadows behind.
What immediately strikes you is the stillness. The room is humble, lit by the soft glow of dawn or a fading lamp. The doctor sits on a simple chair, hands clasped, his gaze unwaveringly focused on the little girl lying fragile and pale atop a makeshift bed. He’s not performing any dramatic procedure, not wielding any impressive medical instrument. Instead, he’s waiting, thinking, hoping—doing what so much of medicine really is: being present, attending, bearing witness.
Fildes paints the parents as quiet participants in the drama—watching, praying, desperate for any sign of improvement. Their presence amplifies the tension but also the humanity of the scene. The mother slumps forward, face buried, unable to look. The father stands helpless, caught between hope and dread. There are no heroics here, just the long, slow ache of waiting for fate to decide.
What makes The Doctor so affecting is its refusal to offer easy sentimentality. Fildes doesn’t romanticize illness, or pretend that every crisis can be solved. Instead, he gives us the dignity of effort: the doctor’s steadfastness, the family’s love, the sense that even in powerlessness, care matters. The painting’s detail—worn furniture, scattered medicine bottles, the gentle gradations of morning light—grounds the scene in the real world, with all its hardship and grace.
The Doctor endures because it captures something timeless about caregiving. It’s not just about medicine; it’s about the way we watch over one another, especially in moments when there’s little else we can do. Fildes gives us a scene of quiet endurance—a reminder that sometimes, the most important thing anyone can offer is simply to stay.
Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani (Lady with an Ermine) – Leonardo da Vinci, 1489-1491
Leonardo da Vinci’s Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani—better known as Lady with an Ermine—may be more subtle than the Mona Lisa, but it’s every bit as captivating, and perhaps even more quietly radical. Painted around 1490, it’s a portrait that feels like a fresh breath of Renaissance air: clear, direct, and brimming with life.
The sitter, Cecilia Gallerani, was just a teenager at the time, yet Leonardo gives her an air of poised self-possession that’s hard to miss. She turns, almost mid-conversation, eyes alive with intelligence and curiosity. The pose is fluid, her body angled one way, her head another—a hint of movement that makes the painting feel spontaneous, even cinematic.
Then there’s the ermine. In her slender arms, Cecilia cradles the white animal with a gentleness that’s striking, even now. The ermine is both symbol and living creature—a nod to her patron, Ludovico Sforza, whose nickname was “the white ermine,” and a testament to Leonardo’s fascination with the natural world. He gives the animal as much personality as the sitter herself: alert, almost mischievous, entirely present.
What makes this portrait remarkable, though, isn’t just its realism or symbolism. It’s the sense of psychological depth, the subtle suggestion of a life unfolding beyond the edge of the canvas. Leonardo captures something that feels both eternal and fleeting—a moment of genuine connection between painter, sitter, and viewer. Cecilia is not simply an object to be admired; she’s a person, and you feel it.
The light, of course, is pure Leonardo: soft, enveloping, bringing out the delicate curves of Cecilia’s face and hands. Her dark blue dress, the almost translucent veil, the glow of her skin—all rendered with breathtaking care and confidence. There’s intimacy here, but also respect. Leonardo lets Cecilia—and her ermine—exist fully on their own terms.
Lady with an Ermine is a masterpiece not because it dazzles, but because it pays attention. Leonardo’s gift is to see, and help us see, the complexity and dignity in every person—teenage girl or duchess, artist or animal. In that sense, the portrait still feels modern: a study of grace, intelligence, and the small, unguarded gestures that reveal who we really are.
Related Posts:
