Francisco Goya, The Third of May, 1814

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it. Goya's Third of May is a masterpiece. It's his best known work. The way he tackles the subject matter is brilliant. A print of the work hangs in the classroom. My kid certainly couldn't paint it. But you know what, I still don't like it. It's dark, depressing, and unpleasant to look at. I understand that mass murder isn't usually aesthetically pleasing, but I count Turner's The Slave Ship as one of my all time favorite works. It is brutal and horrifying, yet vibrant and beautiful. The Third of May on the other hand is an ugly amalgamation of brown, black, and gray.

Though I have many gripes with the work I ultimately have to admit that it deserves the praise given it by other admirers of art. Goya's talent as an artist shows in his mastery of human expression. Where Turner's nautical horrorshow leans upon his talent for grandiose landscapes, Goya evokes sorrow through the faces of the victims, especially those of the men directly in the line of gunfire. And though we can clearly see the faces of the victims, those of the soldiers are purposefully hidden from view. They appear as a mass of anonymous shadowy beasts, beings less than human.

Remember those ugly browns, blacks, and grays that I mentioned earlier? I may hate them, but in all honesty the use of these earthy colors makes the piece work. Rather, it's how these pigments are used that makes it work. The dirt and darkness truly bring out the horror of the massacre as they envelop the figures. The blood and earth blend together, the soldiers disappear into the black of night, citizens are bathed in light just as they meet their end. The burst of yellow and white in the center of the painting contrasts the darkness all about in a explosion of light so great you can almost hear the gunfire that rang out on the third of May.