December 09, 2003
Highlights: 3/13/03
Sometime ago, the Cranky Professor made a passing reference to Caravaggio's Judith and Holofernes. Well, I thought Judith and Holofernes would be a fine topic for an art history lesson, so here it is.
Caravaggio, Judith Slaying Holofernes, ca 1597-1600
As one might expect from anything created by Caravaggio, this image caused quite a stir. It's bloody, violent, and downright creepy. A beautiful girl calmly cuts the head off of a man who has just awoken to find himself under attack. If you cut the image in half, you see a violent image of a writhing man with blood gushing out of his neck. In the other half is a pretty girl, frowning slightly, attended by her old maidservant. It is a strange juxtaposition of what we would today call "sex and violence."
The theme of Judith and Holofernes was not uncommon in renaissance art. The story comes to us from the Old Testament, in which Judith is a wealthy young widow living in a city besieged by the warrior Holofernes. Judith bravely offers herself to Holofernes in order to get him drunk and kill him in his sleep. She is considered a heroine for her brave sacrifice and her enormous courage. But for all that she does, indeed, kill him mercilessly in his sleep, most images before this time were of the beautiful Judith with her maidservant and the head of the already dead Holofernes.
While Mantegna presents us with a studied, serene interpretation, Michelangelo allows us to see the nude corpse of Holofernes in the background, thereby reminding us of the brutality of the act that has just been commited. But it is still after the fact. Judith remains unsullied by the violence of her action.
Artemesia Gentileschi is one of those truly legendary artists of the Baroque, nearly as famous as Caravaggio, but for different reasons. The most telling reason is that she was a woman. The other reason is that she was raped by her supposed tutor and was never allowed restitution in the case. For this reason, many art historians, particularly those of the feminist persuasion, will look at the image below and see Artemesia exploring her frustrations and emotional torment in paint. In the referenced article, the author, quoting the "experts", says:
These distinctly different versions of the Judith figure are most likely due to the sex of their artists. Gentileschi's depiction of a strong, able Judith, can be attributed to her understanding of the female gender, as she "drew inspiration from her own sense of personal autonomy"-making her Judiths "Possibly the freest of masculine stereotype in the entire genre of Judiths."4 Caravaggio's work, however, does not escape the typical stereotype of a woman, however, as Judith is portrayed as a weak figure. She appears to be distant from the action, and she is both uninvolved and incapable. Caravaggio seems to have worked harder to create a highly individualized portrait of the Holofernes character than Judith, which is somewhat unusual as she is considered the central character of the tale. This is most likely due his better understanding and comprehension of the male character, than the female, making "Holofernes's pain and surprise more easily imagined than Judith's feelings at the moment."5
Artemesia Gentileschi, Judith Slaying Holofernes, ca 1612
But these feminist interpretations look only at the differences between these two works. Her addition of the young maidservant holding the struggling man down does add something to our possible interpretation of the image. But if we look at the similarities - the composition, the juxtaposition of beauty and violence, the calm expression on her face - we see that Artemisia is really copying from the master, just as every artist of her day did. Caravaggio was emulated throughout Europe in the 17th century, and Artemisia would not have been the only artist to copy this painting. It just so happens that she is the only female to have copied it. And we have two versions of her copy, both very similar and somewhat lacking in invention. While I believe that her personal life will have some effect on her work, I cannot say that we can see it here, especially when we consider her other versions of the subject.
Here she has returned to the more traditional imagery of the older masters. These versions show a much finer mastery on her part, for she is not attempting to create something conceived by another artist, but one more in keeping with tradition and her own style. These images are definitely better works of art in every way, and we should consider these as her true oeuvre, instead of the earlier, more derivative pieces.
As I have said before, art is not created in a vacuum. But in the 17th century, the most important influence on an artist's work was other artwork. Caravaggio stands out as an innovator, and we can perhaps, give him a little more leeway in our interpretation of how his life affected his art, but those who came after him looked to him for inspiration, and rarely sought it within themselves. This is not to say that they did not put something of themselves on canvas. Artemisia's version of Susanna and the Elders certainly presents us with an image of a virtuous woman wronged, whereas earlier versions had shown a tittilating image of voyeurs watching a beautiful woman bathing. So, yes, you could say that there is something of Artemisia's own experience showing through in this work. But, I would only caution against the over-interpretation of such images using our own modern perspective of the art as personal expression. Art was still done mainly for patrons, not for personal satisfaction.