Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith and Her Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes

Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith and Her Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes.1625. The Detroit Institute of the Arts

 

Artemisia Gentileschi lived a stormy life, to say the least. A light­ning rod of sorts in her day (1593 – 1653) and at present, her trag­i­cal­lly vio­lent exis­tence cre­ates alter­nate real­i­ties for some. Years ago, I watched the movie, Artemisia, which I thought good, though inac­cu­rate his­tor­i­cally. Some of the inac­cu­ra­cies can be for­given, for they added beauty to the story, to the look and flow of the film. But one change is unfor­give­able, pos­si­bly uncon­scionable: the movie depicts a pas­sion­ate love affair between stu­dent and teacher, between Artemisia and the artist Tassi, who actu­ally raped her. Artemisia suf­fered addi­tional vio­lence dur­ing the sub­se­quent trial, as she was tor­tured by the author­i­ties to gain true con­fes­sion. Her hero­ism in the face of this is appar­ent in her per­se­v­er­ence as painter, in her even­tual suc­cess in that field, and in build­ing a fam­ily of her own. The movie gives us a sense of this hero­ism as well.

Impacted by Caravaggio, as many artists were in her day, the paint­ing above shows his influ­ence at its best: the dra­matic con­trast, the Baroque diag­o­nals and ges­tures, the strong chiaroscuro, and the high drama of vio­lent events, often taken from the Bible. Some crit­ics have sug­gested that Artemisia’s repeated use of Judith and Holofernes in her paint­ings is an obvi­ous sign of per­sonal trauma. A form of cathar­sis for her, per­haps. Others see it more as her desire to por­tray strong women in extreme sit­u­a­tions, and bris­tle at the idea that she was per­ma­nently dis­fig­ured, psy­cho­log­i­cally, by Tassi’s vio­lent attack. I think we can never really know what drove her to paint, and to paint what she chose to paint, and it’s a mis­take to set up boxes for her. A vio­la­tion of her free­dom, yet again.

The mys­tery of why. Why do we express our­selves in the way we do? Why does the pas­sage of time bring about a loos­en­ing of the desire for accu­racy, a greater sense that we have the right to dis­tort and alter and wash out events of our choos­ing? For some. For oth­ers, that pas­sage brings a sense of duty to adhere to his­tor­i­cal real­i­ties, even to strip away false­hoods in order to go back to the truth .… the way Michelangelo talked about sculpt­ing … that the truth was already there in the stone … that it was his duty to get to it, chip away the lies, chip away the triv­ial and the lit­er­ally superfluous.

Artemisia’s life and works have stood the prover­bial test of time. Her hero­ism moves me when­ever I think about it. Perhaps the diver­sity of reac­tion to Artemisia, when all is said and done, is merely a summa, a tes­ta­ment to that life of over­com­ing adver­sity, cre­at­ing art, becom­ing immortal. 

Related Posts: