A Fork in The Road
Decisions Made in Art
Curated by Sydney Reed
When I look at this painting, all I see and hear is silence. There is no harsh movement, no overly dramatic light, nothing but the small cut, drops of blood and knife that allude to the act that has just been committed in the room. Marat rests alone in the tub in front of a peaceful, vacant space. Nothing about this painting reveals a painful and gruesome murder scene. Rather, the painting almost alludes to a heavenly ascent, as the light illuminates Marat, and his face appears relaxed, as if he is resting. So, why would David paint such an illustration of death-by-knife?
David had an agenda when painting this masterpiece: make Marat appear to be a saint, someone to look up to and worship. Why else would David paint Marat’s skin as pure and unscathed, except for the knife wound, when, in reality, Marat was sitting in the tub due to a skin disease? And why else would David allude to an almost heavenly ascent? But, why go to such lengths when painting an after-death-portrait of Marat? To answer all these questions, one must investigate why Marat was murdered. Marat was an influential figure of the Montagnards during the French Revolution, and was a chief informant on people whose loyalties were questioned. Marat published a paper in which he would ridicule those he did not trust or those who he believed did not have the same hopes for France’s future as he and his party. These people would then, most commonly, be taken and killed. As you can imagine, with Marat’s actions during the Revolution came enemies. Charlotte Corday, a Girondin, blamed Marat for causing the deaths of many and acted upon that anger one afternoon with knife in hand.
So, why would David paint such a portrait of a man who had enemies and could be blamed for the deaths of hundreds? But, on the other side of the coin, why did people despise Marat when he was helping the Revolution? Was Marat a hero or villain? Was he right in writing those letters, condemning people to death, or did he deserve the punishment he received? Is the space blank behind his deathbed to display a peacefulness that cannot be disturbed, or has no one arrived to mourn his death? David certainly had an opinion, and boy did he try to display that opinion to the viewers of the painting. However, no matter how hard any painter tries to sway the public's opinion, once the facts come into play, the viewer can either accept the artists' rendition, or choose to ridicule it. Thus, as much as the style of this painting influences the viewer, once the true story of Marat is revealed, it is up to the viewer to decide whether Marat was a hero or a man whose pen killed hundreds.
Editor's Note: Over the summer, the site will host student-curated exhibits. They will run for seven posts, and then move onto the next exhibit. This was the course's final project.
Decisions Made in Art
Curated by Sydney Reed
 |
| Jacques-Louis David, Death of Marat, 1793 |
When I look at this painting, all I see and hear is silence. There is no harsh movement, no overly dramatic light, nothing but the small cut, drops of blood and knife that allude to the act that has just been committed in the room. Marat rests alone in the tub in front of a peaceful, vacant space. Nothing about this painting reveals a painful and gruesome murder scene. Rather, the painting almost alludes to a heavenly ascent, as the light illuminates Marat, and his face appears relaxed, as if he is resting. So, why would David paint such an illustration of death-by-knife?
David had an agenda when painting this masterpiece: make Marat appear to be a saint, someone to look up to and worship. Why else would David paint Marat’s skin as pure and unscathed, except for the knife wound, when, in reality, Marat was sitting in the tub due to a skin disease? And why else would David allude to an almost heavenly ascent? But, why go to such lengths when painting an after-death-portrait of Marat? To answer all these questions, one must investigate why Marat was murdered. Marat was an influential figure of the Montagnards during the French Revolution, and was a chief informant on people whose loyalties were questioned. Marat published a paper in which he would ridicule those he did not trust or those who he believed did not have the same hopes for France’s future as he and his party. These people would then, most commonly, be taken and killed. As you can imagine, with Marat’s actions during the Revolution came enemies. Charlotte Corday, a Girondin, blamed Marat for causing the deaths of many and acted upon that anger one afternoon with knife in hand.
So, why would David paint such a portrait of a man who had enemies and could be blamed for the deaths of hundreds? But, on the other side of the coin, why did people despise Marat when he was helping the Revolution? Was Marat a hero or villain? Was he right in writing those letters, condemning people to death, or did he deserve the punishment he received? Is the space blank behind his deathbed to display a peacefulness that cannot be disturbed, or has no one arrived to mourn his death? David certainly had an opinion, and boy did he try to display that opinion to the viewers of the painting. However, no matter how hard any painter tries to sway the public's opinion, once the facts come into play, the viewer can either accept the artists' rendition, or choose to ridicule it. Thus, as much as the style of this painting influences the viewer, once the true story of Marat is revealed, it is up to the viewer to decide whether Marat was a hero or a man whose pen killed hundreds.
Editor's Note: Over the summer, the site will host student-curated exhibits. They will run for seven posts, and then move onto the next exhibit. This was the course's final project.
