Yes, it is Artemisia. When I first saw it, I was horrified. Now that I know a little of her background I just wonder whose head is being chopped off - or whose throat is being cut. I guess this was one very therapeutic way of dealing with the rape/s and the man who crushed her hand. I hope it worked out that way for her.
Depending on whose head it is, she certainly had the last word, didn't she?
I don't really suscribe to the theory that this was her own personal revenge, a symbolic beheading on canvas.
I can't discount the fact she was raped and then tortured and yes, deep down inside her was most certainly a bubbling boil of ugly things because of it... However, as an artist there is a more simple explanation.
One that has nothing to do with that ugly personal thing and is instead a purely artistic impulse.
It is obvious that the story of Judith beheading him was a historical/popular/mythical story to her, one she became preoccupied with. But it doesn't mean that it was because of her dark side.
Many artists become obsessed/fascinated by certain stories and their 'drama'. They become focused on one historical event or person. That is not 'abnormal' at all.
The death of Cleopatera is a good example. Many artists, including myself, have become preoccupied with the visuals of her death. it was not as grusome as being beheaded, but in all it is a pretty sick little story.
But when we see these beautiful works titled 'The Death Of Cleopatera' we do not really assume that the artist was acting out some kind of personal vengenge of his own by showing her dead/dying. We do not assume Cleopateras death was personal to the artist.
In a lot of ways this painting is no different than those painting, more graphic perhaps, but no real difference can be deciphered in the motives of those artists or her in their desire to explore such a dramatic visual subject.
I think it is wrong to assume that Artemisia was 'acting out' some great desire for personal vengence. I think she simply became focused on the visuals of this subject, but most artists would not show this scene because they were MEN and men rarely paint such a scene of women having the ultimate power of another man. In short, most men paint women as they see women, frail, emotional, devastated, bullied. They almost never paint women with the characteristics of men, cold blooded, violent, murderous. ruthless.
This painting is a perfect documentation of the story itself, nothing more, nothing less. However, because it was painted by a woman, a strong woman at that, she probably picked this scene because she understands the nature of men is also the nature of women.
It is the most dramatic scene of the story, she simply painted it and it is so shocking and violent that we assume it is her twisted mind at play.
I think the men who saw it were so shocked by it because, as I said, they never would have thought to paint it.
They would have painted the before or after images. Her beguiling him, getting him drunk, or her with his head in a basket.
If I were a man looking at this image, it would distress me too, because it would seem like a backwards view of nature. A helpless man and a murdering woman.
But because of what happened to Artemisia, I think she was unafraid to explore the feelings of it, she was unafraid of the visuals of it.
But in the end, it was probably just a story to her. I don't feel like it was personal, I really think it was an artistic choice, not a symbolic one.
You're right of course. And I think that in all of the arts - painting, writing, acting and so on - experience is the best teacher. I always tell myself that very thing whilst in the midst of an awful situation. This is valuable too.
No, there isn't anger and hate, except as it appears in the characters. The painting itself is very controlled.
5 comments:
Yes, it is Artemisia. When I first saw it, I was horrified. Now that I know a little of her background I just wonder whose head is being chopped off - or whose throat is being cut. I guess this was one very therapeutic way of dealing with the rape/s and the man who crushed her hand. I hope it worked out that way for her.
Depending on whose head it is, she certainly had the last word, didn't she?
ok - so I wasn't paying attention to whose head it was - still, it's gruesome but evidently deserved!
I don't really suscribe to the theory that this was her own personal revenge, a symbolic beheading on canvas.
I can't discount the fact she was raped and then tortured and yes, deep down inside her was most certainly a bubbling boil of ugly things because of it... However, as an artist there is a more simple explanation.
One that has nothing to do with that ugly personal thing and is instead a purely artistic impulse.
It is obvious that the story of Judith beheading him was a historical/popular/mythical story to her, one she became preoccupied with. But it doesn't mean that it was because of her dark side.
Many artists become obsessed/fascinated by certain stories and their 'drama'. They become focused on one historical event or person. That is not 'abnormal' at all.
The death of Cleopatera is a good example. Many artists, including myself, have become preoccupied with the visuals of her death. it was not as grusome as being beheaded, but in all it is a pretty sick little story.
But when we see these beautiful works titled 'The Death Of Cleopatera' we do not really assume that the artist was acting out some kind of personal vengenge of his own by showing her dead/dying. We do not assume Cleopateras death was personal to the artist.
In a lot of ways this painting is no different than those painting, more graphic perhaps, but no real difference can be deciphered in the motives of those artists or her in their desire to explore such a dramatic visual subject.
I think it is wrong to assume that Artemisia was 'acting out' some great desire for personal vengence. I think she simply became focused on the visuals of this subject, but most artists would not show this scene because they were MEN and men rarely paint such a scene of women having the ultimate power of another man. In short, most men paint women as they see women, frail, emotional, devastated, bullied. They almost never paint women with the characteristics of men, cold blooded, violent, murderous. ruthless.
This painting is a perfect documentation of the story itself, nothing more, nothing less. However, because it was painted by a woman, a strong woman at that, she probably picked this scene because she understands the nature of men is also the nature of women.
It is the most dramatic scene of the story, she simply painted it and it is so shocking and violent that we assume it is her twisted mind at play.
I think the men who saw it were so shocked by it because, as I said, they never would have thought to paint it.
They would have painted the before or after images. Her beguiling him, getting him drunk, or her with his head in a basket.
If I were a man looking at this image, it would distress me too, because it would seem like a backwards view of nature. A helpless man and a murdering woman.
But because of what happened to Artemisia, I think she was unafraid to explore the feelings of it, she was unafraid of the visuals of it.
But in the end, it was probably just a story to her. I don't feel like it was personal, I really think it was an artistic choice, not a symbolic one.
You're right of course. And I think that in all of the arts - painting, writing, acting and so on - experience is the best teacher. I always tell myself that very thing whilst in the midst of an awful situation. This is valuable too.
No, there isn't anger and hate, except as it appears in the characters. The painting itself is very controlled.
Controlled is a perfect word for it.
You are exactly right. no haste, no anger, no distorted perceptions.
On a technical level when you start breaking it down and ignoring subject, it really is a beautiful work.
Post a Comment