Joseph Wright of Derby was a painter of the 18th century well known for his rendering of light and shadow (as seen below), as well as his depictions of innovations of the Industrial Revolution. Is he one of the most famous artists of the era? Not by any means - his work is known, though often brushed over. However we do see that this artwork is not to be ignored: the message in it is clear and incredibly applicable to modern day global issues, whether the artist intended it to be so or not.
(above) An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump By Joseph Wright of Derby - National Gallery, London
This artwork above (An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump) is Wright’s most well known work. It depicts a scene of a scientist doing a demonstration of an experiment in someone’s home, commonly done amongst the upper classes in England for entertainment. The experiment done here involves the bird in the glass dome being deprived of air by the scientist to demonstrate animals’ need for respiration. The cruelty goes without saying.
Even without that whole explanation of what’s actually happening in the artwork, Wright has managed to capture an incredible eeriness in the scene. The obvious reason is the treatment of the poor bird, but also because of the various subjects’ expressions. You have the almost (but not quite) central scientist, the two lovers next to him, the eager boy engrossed in the experient, the profile of another young man, an older man appearing too absorbed in his own thoughts to watch the experiment, a girl covering her eyes at her father’s chest, a younger girl also clinging to her dad unable to keep her eyes away in horror, and lastly, half hidden in shadow, a boy hoisting the birdcage in the air. Each character seems to have a very different expression, showing a wide range of reactions to the treatment of the bird, possibly representing the various reactions of the viewer - the different kinds of people. That is perhaps part of the eeriness, as Wright has managed to capture many people’s different reactions to this kind of animal cruelty though just a few people.
One of the most striking expressions in the painting is that of the scientist. He looks directly at us, the viewers, while doing the experiment - not at the bird, whose life he controls, or his audience, but us. In his hand we see him holding what is controlling the flow of air into the glass dome containing the bird, controlling whether the bird will suffocate or not. His eye contact with the viewer causes us to be directly engaged in this scene. Some critics argue that this is demonstrative of the scientists’ power (and therefore science as a whole). While this may be true and may have been the artist’s intention, one could also interpret the scientist's look at this precise moment in the experiment to be questioning us: what would we have him do to the bird? Would we have him suffocate it? Or would we let it live? Instead of the scientist showing his own power and that of science, he is putting the viewer in the position of power. This directly questions the viewer’s morality, and therefore the morality of humanity.
When we look at most of the other subjects’ expressions, we find they are either not paying attention to the experiment and the bird, or that they are fascinated by it. We have the lovers, looking only at each other in this incredibly non-romantic moment, a man thinking too much of his own thoughts and pains to pay attention to the pains of others, and the young man who peers at the dome trying to get a better view of the bird suffocating. The pain of the bird is entertainment for some, and unimportant for others. Whichever of these categories people fall into, they do not hold sympathy for the bird’s pain. If these expressions of the unfeeling subjects are supposed to be representative of different people in society, we might ask ourselves: how moral are we as a society if that is our response to a creature’s pain?
In opposition to the rest of the subjects’ expressions, the little girl looks up at the bird from her father’s arms, seemingly the only one distressed by the bird’s pain. She appears to not be able to tear her eyes away from the bird, but in horror and fear rather than fascination. Her eyebrows scrunch together and her expression is very sorrowful, especially for a child. Her youth and innocence reminds the viewer of the natural response to such treatment of animals: as adults we may learn to lose empathy or to focus on other, less distressing things so we do not focus on the more painful elephant in the room (or rather the bird). Even the older sister of the child is hiding her face, and it is only the young child who both looks at the bird and shows any sadness for its pain. Because of the fact that it is only the young child who is sympathetic towards the bird, the painting demonstrates a lack of sympathy that comes with age. It not only shows how cruel society can be to animals and nature, but also how society teaches people to lack sympathy for them.
The ultimate touch that often goes unnoticed in this painting is the boy hoisting the cage in the background. We cannot read his expression well, only that he is looking at the bird, but the most important aspect is the cage itself. It was obviously the home of the bird, and from the boy’s positioning it is impossible to tell whether he is pulling the cage up or down. Pulling it up would mean putting it away, suggesting that it would not be needed as the bird has died. Letting the cage down would mean the experiment would end with the bird alive and it would be put back in its cage. This ambiguity allows the scientist’s stare at us, questioning us, to have a greater effect: there is no way to tell the morally right course of action other than to make the judgement for ourselves without relying on what we are told is good. This further allows us to fully question and assess the morality of society in this context.
We of course cannot speak for Wright’s intentions themselves - as mentioned before, this could be showing the power of science in this new era, as this was painted in the industrial revolution. It is actually likely that this was his intention in making it, and yet it is still applicable to a modern day society, though for different reasons. Where society in the 1760s may have been in awe of what science can show, we start to question the morality of humanity’s treatment of animals and the environment in general.
Whatever the intentions of Joseph Wright may have been, it is very difficult to argue that this does not make the viewer question society’s morality: it is ingrained into almost every element of this painting. It clearly and definitely asks us what level of pain to animals we are willing to put up with for the sake of science and entertainment, challenging our view of our personal morality and that of society.