When it was discovered that a man named Jean Michelin made the painting in 1656 it was debated that he must have been in assistant because, as stated by the MET bulletin, the painting was “painted in the style of the Le Nain brothers”. Even after the discovery of the signature and date Michelins identity remains a mystery because although it is mostly agreed upon that Jean Michelin (1616-1670), there were three other Michelins working in the same period and not much is known about the one most agreed upon. This lack of information caused me to rethink my approach. It didn’t seem like I could find out anything about the artist that indicated his reason for painting this scene except that it resembles the le Nain brothers, so I began a different approach to my research of the painting, an analyzing of the image as a …show more content…
When looking closely at their clothes it becomes clear that their state of poverty is as severe as originally thought. Hyatt Major express this in Children Are What We Make Them by stating that “the little beggar (on the left) wears clothes cast off by the grown ups. Even his wooden shoes are too big for him”. This idea of cast off clothes isn’t something just used to express the boys poverty, it’s something used to express the boys future, because as major’s title states Children Are What We Make Them. The cast offs represents the little boy’s future as a poverty stricken baker in France. The too big shoes are ones that he will probably grow into and then pass on to his own child as well. This idea can even be seen in French nobility with the passing off of titles, so its not surprising that poverty is something that can be passed on too. This then brings forth my topic and expresses how social class really works. If this child had been born in a family of higher social standing he would have been given the cast offs of wealth instead of