In on some level have identified with Judith, and

In what ways
has methodology/theory determined the historiography of Gentileschi’s –

“Judith
and Holofernes” and Rego’s “Dog Woman”? What theoretical tools
could be

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

used to
contribute further or fresh interpretations of these works and shared theme of

“The Body”?

 

Artemisia’s
master composition, the Judith
Slaying Holofernes known
in two versions (Rome, ca. 1612–13 and Uffizi, ca. 1620)i
depicts two capable women slaughtering a helpless man—one of the most chilling
demonstrations of female power ever created—is obscenely converted into a
sexual pantomime, in which Artemisia/Judith surmounts Tassi/Holofernes and
slithers into coition with him. Artemisia the rape victim must on some level
have identified with Judith, and though some have sought to minimize the Judith’ s
symbolic violence by calling the work a mere revenge picture, it is generally
understood that the painting’s expressive force was likely to have been fueled
by sublimated personal emotion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Artemisia’s Gentileschi in Florence c. 1620 and now in the Uffizi, is
one of the most bloody and vivid images of the scene, surpassing the version of
Caravaggio, the arch-realist baroque Rome, in its immediacy and shocking
realism. Artemisia was certainly familiar with the Caravaggio picture of this
subject; her father Orazio, who was responsible for her artistic training, was
a friend of Caravaggio and an artist. Caravaggio, inspired, and perhaps even
contested, by young Artemisia.

Comparison between the two shows is not only her duty to the old artist,
but also a number of pointed changes that intensify the intensity of physical
struggle, the amount of blood spilled and the physical and psychological
strength of Judith and her maids, Abra. In the Artemisia picture the blood
sheets are in the foreground, next to the space of the viewer. The muscular
body of Holofernes dynamically protrudes into the depicted space, since bold
areas of light and darkness draw attention to its powerful limbs.

 

And most importantly, while Caravaggio joins her delicate Judith with a
haggard servant who just looks at her, her eyes are wide open with disbelief,
Artemisia portrays two strong young women working in unison, their sleeves
folded, their views are focused, their pens are solid. Judith of Caravaggio
gracefully departs from her terrible task; Judith of Artemesia does not flinch.
Instead, she clings to the bed as she presses Holofernes’s head with one hand
and pulls the big sword across the neck to the other. The wrinkles on her
wrists clearly show physical strength. Holofernes fights in vain, the pull of
his hands is opposed to the more power movement of Abras, Judith’s accomplice
in this terrible act.

 

Uffizi “Judith and Holofernes”
is the second story of Artemisia about this narrative. The first, executed in
Rome c. 1611-12, and now in the museum of Capodimonte in Naples, a dynamic
composition is presented, focused on traction and oncoming traction of long
limbs. Artemisia specified the composition in the second (Uffizi) version.
Small but significant adjustments show her growing technical skills, her
understanding of the local Florentine taste for luxurious fabrics and her
thoughtful consideration of the expressive potential of every detail. Fragments
of anatomy and proportions have been corrected (for example, the Holofernes),
the colors and textures of the tissues are now richer (note the red velvet
draped over the Holofernes and the gold damask of Artemisia’s dress), and
Judith’s hair is more closely curled, according to the emphasis on the biblical
text on her self-esteem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most striking, however, is the image of blood. The version of Uffizi
reduces the blood that was raging from the neck of Holofern. Like Caravaggio,
the Uffizi painting places a special emphasis on this detail and does it with
even greater realism.

 

Raised by Judith’s hands, the streams of blood are now blowing and
dropping into droplets, which are waving their arms and clothing. The pattern
described by boiling blood suggests that Artemisia may have been familiar with
the research of her friend Galileo Galilei on parabolic trajectories.1
The sword, here longer and held all the more vertically, unmistakably denotes
the artistic creation’s focal hub which stretches out from Abra’s arm to the
blood that keeps running down the edge of the bed. This powerful visual axis
enhances the power of women and violence over the case. It is not by chance
that the fist that clutches Judith’s sword is at the very center of the
composition; filled with the divine power, the hand of this widow is now the
hand of God, protecting the Israelites from their enemies.

The unique image of Artemisia Judith and Abra prompted scientists to
argue that Artemisia was identified with the main character of the story as her
male colleagues did not. This association is associated not only with their
common sex, but also with their own traumatic experience of Artemisia.
Artemisia was raped at the age of 17 by the painter Agostino Tassi, a close
friend of her father.2
When Tassie did not marry her, as the social dictatorship of that time
demanded, her father sought legal recourse. During the test, Artemisia describes
her struggle with Tassi and her attempt to attack him with a knife. She also
remembers the sense of betrayal that she felt when she realized that her female
companion had conspired with Tassi and agreed to leave them alone. The first
version of Judith Slaying Holofernes refers to this difficult period in the
artist’s life. The memory of this event was probably connected with the
participation of Artemisia with the history of Judith. Especially significant
is the image of Artemisia Abra as a young, strong and fully involved in helping
Judith, as opposed to an accompanying person who deliberately abandoned
Artemisia at his hour of need. In the picture of the Uffizi Artemisia adds a
small detail that supports her identification with Judith. One of the cameos of
the bracelet, Judith, seems to portray Artemis, the ancient goddess of chastity
and hunting.

 

 

Although Judith’s story probably had a personal significance for
Artemisia, it is important to note its wider cultural valence. The history of
Judith was especially popular during the Baroque period not only in the visual
arts, but also in literature, theater and music. An example of the victory of
virtue over vices, the protection of God from his chosen people from their
enemies, Judith was also seen as the Old Testament antipode of the Virgin Mary
and, as a continuation, as a symbol of the Church. This association partly
explains the increase in Judith’s images in the late 16th-17th centuries, when
the Catholic Church participated in conflicts with both Protestants and Ottoman
Turks, whose eastern origin facilitated their identification with Holofernes.
Artemisia and her contemporaries took advantage of this popularity, often
depicting not only the moment of decapitation, but also the moment immediately
after her, when Judith and her maid come out of the enemy camp. The dramatic
potential of the story made it an ideal object for the strong theatricality of
the Baroque art.

 

Artemisia Gentileschi was clearly proud of the Uffizi Judith Slaning
Holofern, signing it in the lower right corner. In it, she demonstrated her
mastery of the baroque-realism language, using her emphasis on proximity to the
picture plane, strong chiaroscuro and realistic details to create an especially
powerful image of the dramatic climax of history. The bold spontaneity of this
finely tuned composition has succeeded too well, because at the end of the 18th
century, disgusted with the horror of the scene, the Duchess of the Medici
banished this masterpiece into a dark corner of the Uffizi where he remained
until the end of the twentieth century. To this day, he impresses his audience
with both disgust and fear of the art of the artist, who so convincingly turned
the paint into blood.

 

 

The Capodimente version of the picture was written by
Artemisia during those seven months after a loud trial of the artist Agostino
Tassi of desecrating the honor of Artemisia, and she was forced to flee from
Rome to Florence.

 

This scandalous episode ousted Artemisia from the history
of art for a long time. Only in the last century the artist’s work was
thoroughly studied and re-evaluated and she was recognized as one of the most
talented painters of her generation.

 

Artemisia’s works are a reflection of her bitter
experience. In them we meet various mythical and biblical heroines – women of
strong, warlike, unhappy and suffering. The story of Judith is often present in
the artist’s work. So no wonder that under the guise of Holofernes she
portrayed her lover Agostino in the picture, and in the image of Judith – herself.

 

All subsequent life Artemisia will choose for pictures of the plot,
where a woman is forced to either tolerate violence, or somehow fight it. The
Old Testament Susanna in her painting suffers the filthy harassment of the
Babylonian elders. Jael, a Kenene tribe, drives an iron stake into the body of
the enemy commander of Sisera. The Roman heroine Lucretia decides to commit
suicide after the experience of violence. Judith and her servant-accomplice,
more than once for the career of Gentileschi will keep in hands the severed
head of Holofernes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paula Rego’s long effect joined early works from arrangements of the
1950th and 60th, and arrangement with wildlife animals of the 80th years and
enormous structures, pastels and arrangement of the prints, inscriptions and
lithographs. This blast was constructed on

her imagination and children’s memoirs.3
Her primary assignment is the visual story of the abnormal and intriguing
history, with the rest subordinated to this reason. Her photos are base on
understanding of the adolescence, her relations with individuals around and
family existence with every one of its challenges. The spouse Victor Villing

determined its subject of pictures by the words “domination and mutiny,

suffocation and escape”. Rego’s invents own stories, freely interprets
the taking

place events and emotions.

 

Paula’s childhood furnishes the clue to roots of her graphic art, there
was a

loneliness and misunderstanding, fascinating stories told by
grandmothers and

grandfathers, traditions of a painted Portuguese tile, Cruikshank, Dore
and

Gilroy’s illustration, later opening for themselves Dubuffet and, of
course, Goya,

art of outsiders.

 

The style of the artist is often compared to comics. As well as in caricatures,
she

often represents animals in human shape and everyday situations. The
pictures

of Rego’s are often similar to ominous fairy tales in which harm of
domination of

the person over the person is declared.

Her later works are performed in more realistic style, but sometimes she
comes

back to a subject of animals, as in The Woman Is the Dog series (the
1990th

years). In this Rego’s series in the equipment of pastel represents
women in

various dog poses (on all fours, barking at the moon, etc.). The
exhibition of her

acrylic pictures “Girls & Dogs” has gone over with success in Edward
Tot’s

gallery. After this exhibition, Paula had entered the Marlborough Fine
Art

Association.

 

Rego’s bravely represents sharp social realities, which cause polemic in
society.

Striking example of it is her Triptych (1998) devoted to problems of
abortions,

has been written in 2000 in response to the forthcoming referendum in
Portugal

concerning abortions. There a feeling of anger of the author and an
appeal to

hear her voice is expressed, a series carries on the traditions of
political graphics.

Clothes of characters play an important role in the pictures Rego’s as
bright

expression of her visual stories. Often she dresses the models in those
clothes

which she wore herself, being still a child in Portugal. The artist
considers that

the character of clothes is expressed, if the worn clothes tighten the
body, giving

feeling of integrity, and the person lives and makes acts in the
clothes.

 

Inspired
by the story, a friend wrote for her, Paula Rego’s draws her dog in the past,
referring to the crude physicality of Degas’s drawings. “To be a dog woman is not necessarily to be downtrodden; that has very
little to do with it,” She explained, “In
these pictures every woman’s a dog woman, not downtrodden, but powerful. To be
bestial is good. It’s physical. Eating, snarling, all activities to do with
sensation are positive. To picture a woman as a dog is utterly
believable.”ii

 

In her paintings, Rego’s never takes the side of the character.
Dichotomies, good and bad, do not attract her. She likes things randomly. In
the work of Rego’s, as in the stories telling about her life, there is no
search for rational explanation. What interests her is exactly what is
distracted from our rational attention. Her look and the look of the characters
in her photographs are completely subjective. In the work of Rego’s, the world
of the imagination becomes a larger reality and we can see things that we
usually prefer not to see.

 

And always its subject is, apparently, familiar – bourgeois, domestic,
family relations – characters that we must recognize, mothers and daughters,
girls with their dogs. But somehow now it turned into a grotesque fantasy. It
is probably fair to say that most of her paintings dramatize desire and guilt.
Her figures stick to these two psychological paradigms.

 

Gentileschi’s, Uffizi version of “Judith and Holofernes” requires an
emotional, almost physically active response. The figures are situated from the
dark and forbidden background; black – frame for the intensity of the face and
body of the heroine; white bed under a simple canvas for expressive violence in
the dash. Each figure carries a red item in their drapery, a premonition of
extreme violence that ultimately unites the three figures, as red blood spills
out of the neck of Holofernes to spray the hands, and busts of Judith and her
maid. The artistic sphere in which this picture was presented was solely in the
power of men’s ideals about how gender and femininity should act, making this
established scene unexpectedly problematic, as it was done by a woman. However,
Butler argued that gender is not fixed: “The
sex/gender distinction and the category of sex itself appear to presuppose
generalization of “the body” that pre – exists the acquisition of its sexed
significance”4.

 

In comparison Rego’s “Dog Woman” similarly can be seen as a resistance
to the desire of her contemporaries to classify her within a sustainable female
identity that is consistent with gender norms. As M.M. Ponty mentions: “Thus the permanence of one’s own body, if
only classical psychology had analyses it, might have led it to the body no
longer conceived as an object of the world, but as our means of communication
with it, to the world no longer conceived as a collection of determinate
objects, but as the horizon latent in all our experience and itself ever –
present and anterior to every determining thought”.iii

 

 

The fulfilment of cultural habits and norms associated with masculinity
in the contemporary context of “Dog
Woman” is an important aspect in the analysis of Rego’s and her art. This
essay explores how the adoption of these practices, according to Judith
Butler’s theories on gender indicators, enabled Rego’s to adapt her own persona
and to respond to the patriarchal society in which she lived, and to the masculine
society in which she released her art. Some possible misconceptions among
scholarships about how Rego’s contributed to her own were set out and
critically evaluated in order to reveal a fully implemented gender identity in Rego’s
heroines depicted in her paintings. Henceforth she had adopted the artistic
language established for the representations of male objects in order to combat
the pressure that she felt compelled to work under her patriarchal environment.
The expression of the figure in the painting is looking violent and extreme yet
is able to deliver a message similar to that of a renaissance painting of
Judith.

 

“A body can be
anything, it can be an animal, a body of sounds, a mind or idea, it can be a
linguistic corpus, a social body, a collectivity”, G. Deleuze
and Guattariiv.

The body may have multiple forms and may propose that message of the
feminism may have been carried in a grotesque from of Rego’s “Dog Woman” as well as Judith.

Artemisia Gentileschi became a well-respected
female artist during the Italian Baroque era, when male artists were the norm.
Using a social psychology approach this paper addressed cultural standards in
the seventeenth century in order to analyse the Judith paintings in a new
context. By looking at the culture of the seventeenth century, this paper
showed Gentileschi’s process of overcoming the initial trial in 1612. Through
this investigation, I described and analysed Gentileschi’s paintings on a
linear timeline by connecting her life event and paintings, relationships with
her life, and the differences between the male and female representations of
the same subject. Connections were particularly made between Judith’s story and
Gentileschi’s life within the paintings. Judith was a strong female character
who overcame a strong male character.

Gentileschi was able to create her own style,
influenced by both Mannerism and Caravaggism. She was able to refine the
technique of chiaroscuro to highlight the areas of the paintings. This investigation
has shown the value of connecting social psychology to the works of Gentileschi
suggesting that we may be able to find some new interpretations by exploring
routes that were not chosen by previous scholars.

 

Word Count: 2760

 

 

Endnotes:

1 Leonardo Mann, The Story of Passion (Berkley CA: Mizan
Press, 1989).

2 Mary Garrard, Female Hero in Italian
Baroque Art (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1989).

 

3 John McEwen, Paula Rego, (Phaidon Press: 2nd
Edition, 1997).

4 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (Routledge, 2006), 56.

i Keith Christiansen, “Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi”.  (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2013), 49.

 

ii Fiona Bradley,
“Paula Rego (Modern Artist Series)”. (Tate
Publishing: 1st Edition, 2002), 28.

 

iii Maurice
Merleau – Ponty, “Phenomenology of
Perception”. (Routledge, 2013), 14.

 

iv Gilles Deleuze, Robert
Guattari, “Ethology: Spinoza and Us”.
(City Lights Publisher, 2001), 92.

 

­­­­­—————————————-

 

Bibliography:

 

1.        
Mann,
Leonardo. The Story of Passion. Berkley
CA: Mizan Press, 1989.

 

2.        
Garrad,
Mary. Female
Hero in Italian Baroque Art.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.

 

3.        
Christiansen, Chris. Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2013.

 

4.        
McEwen,
John. Paula Rego. Phaidon Press: 2nd
Edition, 1997.

 

5.        
Bradley,
Fiona. Paula Rego (Modern Artist Series).
Tate Publishing: 1st Edition, 2002.

 

6.        
Butler,
Judith. Gender Trouble. Routledge,
2006.

 

7.        
Merleau – Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception”. Routledge, 2013.

 

8.        
Deleuze,
Gilles. Ethology: Spinoza and Us.
City Lights Publisher, 2001.