I don't see it the way they have interpreted this painting. They refer to the "old" hunter on the right. The youth on the right, the younger hunter is clean-shaven and certainly younger than the "older" hunter on the left, who has a full beard. Is the one on the right "older" because he is more experienced. I see the fellow with the double-barrel has at least three and possibly as many geese on the ground as the hunter with his day's success slung over his shoulder having finished the hunt. They are equally successful. One is poor and making do with what he has and the successful older gentleman on the left can afford newer and better.
I also see the youth admiring the newfangled double barrel breech loading shotgun as if to say one day I will have one of those, and maybe even some of those fine clothes.
I can't agree with their assessment of the painting, since anyone who calls the fowling piece a rifle and mentions one bullet compared to the shotgun which spreads shot does not know anything about the painting, guns, or hunting.
Industrial revolution? Yes for the shotgun and clothing. Perhaps a reference to the prosperity of the industrialists to the agrarian society. Maybe a nod the the carpetbaggers who came south and the poverty of the poor Southerner making do with what he has? That is why the Parker Gun was rare in my part of the South and everyone relied upon a single barrel until after WWII, but even then a Parker was out of reach. Heck, we knew everyone in the whole county who hunted with a Parker.
My 2 cents and opinion. So don't argue with it.
|