Comparing Artemisa Gentileschi Painting And Artemisia's Hand
A Comparison Between “Artemisia Gentileschi and Caraveggisti Painting” by Henry Sayre and “Artemisia’s Hand” by Mary D. Garrard
When looking at the development of Western art history, people tend to focus on the male artists’ contribution but neglect the significant influence of female artists on the art world through their active engagement in the production of art. Artemisia Gentileschi, both as one of the the most accomplished Caravaggio’s followers and one of the first female artists to achieve an international reputation (Sayre 295), provided art historians with a feminine perspective on the establishment of Baroque style. By comparing Henry Sayre’s general survey “Artemisia Gentileschi and Caraveggisti Painting” with Mary D. Garrard’s …show more content…
scholarly essay “Artemisia’s Hand,” this essay will argue that Henry Sayre’s, provides a general overview of Gentileschi that brings up some biographical reasons to interpret the artist’s subject matter, while Mary Garrard’s analysis focuses on Artemesia’s depiction of hands in her various paintings to address issues around gender and representation of the artist’s female agency. This essay will start by a brief summary of each article, then it will examine in what ways the two accounts differ in their focus and modes of analysis, and how this difference contributes to the interpretation of Artemisia’s work.
Henry Sayre’s “Artemisia Gentileschi and Caraveggisti Painting” is a general survey excerpted from an undergraduate Art history textbook named Discovering the Humanities published by Pearson Higher Education in 2008. Sayre’s article is intended to serve undergraduate students as a learning tool that will present them the life story of the female artist Artemisia Gentileschi, and how her personal tragedy is reflected in her famous painting Judith and Maidservant with Head of Holofernes through a general formal analysis.
Whereas Mary D. Garrard’s “Artemisia’s Hand” is a scholarly article selected from an anthology named Reclaiming Female Agency, edited by Norma Broude and Mary D. Grreard and published by University of California in 2005. In this article, Garrard deals with questions of attribution in Gentileschi’s work by focusing on the manner in which the artist depicted her female protagonists' hands and gestures. In addition to issues of attribution, Garrard looks at portraits identified as Gentileschi to apprehend something of the character and attitude of the artist towards the male-dominated society.
Unlike Garrard’s essay which is intended to demonstrate Artemisia’s abiding interest in expressing female agency, and provide a feminine view of art for advanced level academic scholars such as art historians, theorists, and art history professors, Sayre’s general survey is targeted at undergraduate students at a beginner level, and it suggests that it is nearly impossible to see Artemisia’s paintings outside of her biography (296).
Artemisia’s life-changing event happened in 1612 when she was 19, she was raped by her teacher, a Florentine artist named Agostino Tassi. Soon after the rape, Artemisia’s father filed suit against Tassi for his injury to his daughter. However, Tassi accused that Artemisia has a previous history of sleeping with many men. Therefore Artemisia was tortured with thumbscrews to test the validity of her testimony, and was examined by midwives to find out how recently she has lost her virginity. In the end, despite the fact that Tassi was charged only one year in prison for his crime, Artemisia won the lawsuit (Sayre 295). Not long after the trail, Artemisia painted five separate versions of biblical story of Judith and Holofernes. In the first version, Judith and Maidservant with Head of Holofernes, Sayre claims that Artemisia transforms her own adversity in her paintings and treats Judith as a self-portrait of herself (296). Just like the Jewish heroine Judith who seduces and beheaded the lustful leader in the enemy Assyrian camp to protect her country, Artemisia also seeks revenge on the lascivious rapist Tassi and exercises her legal right not only as a lawful citizen, but also as an independent feminist. What’s more, both by the performance of female agency, Judith saved her country from being occupied by the enemy, and Artemisia saved herself on the court from suffering torture, insult and indignity. To sum up, Sayre’s general survey provides undergraduate students with basic biographical information on Artemisia’s personal life fighting
against the male-dominated society in the seventeenth century Italy, and links this to her artist career which involves many paintings depicting biblical and mythological heroines (Sayre 297). Yet in my opinion, Sayre’s article could have been more informative and inspiring as it only takes one biographical perspective on Artemisia’s work and does not encourage much original, independent thinking.
Compared to Sayre’s “Artemisia Gentileschi and Caraveggisti Painting,” with a biographical appoach, Garrard takes a feminist approach to interpret Artemisia’s work. In Garrard’s schalarly article “Artemisia’s hand”collected in the anthology Reclaiming Female Agency, Garrard specifically examines the firm, expressive, and forceful women's hands and their dramatic gestures in Artemisia’s work including“The Lute Player”, “Cleopatra”, “Judith and Her Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes”, and “Aurora” as a sign of female agency. For example, Garrard pointed out that in Artemisia’s painting “Judith and Her Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes,” the large, strong hands of Judith’s and her maidservant’s lead the viewer into the base of the picture, establishing the theme of female agency to be magnified above. Meanwhile, the flamboyant gestures of Judith’s hands also add drama and subtlety to the painting. With Judith’s right hand, she claims female domination, gripping Holofernes's sword with extraordinary bravery. The angle of her wrist parallels that of the defeated general's empty gauntlet on the table, as if to mock his loss of power and glorify her gain of it (Garrard 64-65). Garrard also compares Artemisia’s depiction of women's hands in her works such as “The Lute Player”, “Cleopatra”, “Judith and Her Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes”, and “Aurora” with recent attributions of “Female Martyr” and “Allegory of Painting” to Artemisia by modern art historians and connoisseurs. Based on the weakly, almost invisibly depicted hands, Garrard rejects these attributions (67-69). Besides issues of attribution, Garrard also looks at portraits identified as Gentileschi, for instance,“Allegory of Painting,” its ascription to Atemisia is supported by the inclusion of the picture in the Gentileschi exhibition (Garrard 68), however, the attribution is rejected due to both the biographical reason, that Artemisia would not paint such self-debasing and self-referring image, and the non-existence of Artemisia’s typical female firm, commanding hands. Interestingly, note that during the identification of the attribution of “Allegory of Painting” to Artemisia, both Sayre’s biological approach and Garrard’s feminine hands’ depiction approach work together to support the rejection of such ascription.
In conclusion, we can see that the different approaches by Sayre and Garrard to Artemisia’s work have different perspectives on the interpretation of her art work. While Sayre’s interpretation of Artemisia’s work relies on her personal tragedy biographically, Garrard takes another perspective by looking specifically at Artemisia’s depiction of hands and how it reflects her female agency. In my opinion, neither approaches should be used exclusively, as the interpretation would not be fully accurate if only one dimension of art is covered.
When looking at the development of Western art history, people tend to focus on the male artists’ contribution but neglect the significant influence of female artists on the art world through their active engagement in the production of art. Artemisia Gentileschi, both as one of the the most accomplished Caravaggio’s followers and one of the first female artists to achieve an international reputation (Sayre 295), provided art historians with a feminine perspective on the establishment of Baroque style. By comparing Henry Sayre’s general survey “Artemisia Gentileschi and Caraveggisti Painting” with Mary D. Garrard’s …show more content…
scholarly essay “Artemisia’s Hand,” this essay will argue that Henry Sayre’s, provides a general overview of Gentileschi that brings up some biographical reasons to interpret the artist’s subject matter, while Mary Garrard’s analysis focuses on Artemesia’s depiction of hands in her various paintings to address issues around gender and representation of the artist’s female agency. This essay will start by a brief summary of each article, then it will examine in what ways the two accounts differ in their focus and modes of analysis, and how this difference contributes to the interpretation of Artemisia’s work.
Henry Sayre’s “Artemisia Gentileschi and Caraveggisti Painting” is a general survey excerpted from an undergraduate Art history textbook named Discovering the Humanities published by Pearson Higher Education in 2008. Sayre’s article is intended to serve undergraduate students as a learning tool that will present them the life story of the female artist Artemisia Gentileschi, and how her personal tragedy is reflected in her famous painting Judith and Maidservant with Head of Holofernes through a general formal analysis.
Whereas Mary D. Garrard’s “Artemisia’s Hand” is a scholarly article selected from an anthology named Reclaiming Female Agency, edited by Norma Broude and Mary D. Grreard and published by University of California in 2005. In this article, Garrard deals with questions of attribution in Gentileschi’s work by focusing on the manner in which the artist depicted her female protagonists' hands and gestures. In addition to issues of attribution, Garrard looks at portraits identified as Gentileschi to apprehend something of the character and attitude of the artist towards the male-dominated society.
Unlike Garrard’s essay which is intended to demonstrate Artemisia’s abiding interest in expressing female agency, and provide a feminine view of art for advanced level academic scholars such as art historians, theorists, and art history professors, Sayre’s general survey is targeted at undergraduate students at a beginner level, and it suggests that it is nearly impossible to see Artemisia’s paintings outside of her biography (296).
Artemisia’s life-changing event happened in 1612 when she was 19, she was raped by her teacher, a Florentine artist named Agostino Tassi. Soon after the rape, Artemisia’s father filed suit against Tassi for his injury to his daughter. However, Tassi accused that Artemisia has a previous history of sleeping with many men. Therefore Artemisia was tortured with thumbscrews to test the validity of her testimony, and was examined by midwives to find out how recently she has lost her virginity. In the end, despite the fact that Tassi was charged only one year in prison for his crime, Artemisia won the lawsuit (Sayre 295). Not long after the trail, Artemisia painted five separate versions of biblical story of Judith and Holofernes. In the first version, Judith and Maidservant with Head of Holofernes, Sayre claims that Artemisia transforms her own adversity in her paintings and treats Judith as a self-portrait of herself (296). Just like the Jewish heroine Judith who seduces and beheaded the lustful leader in the enemy Assyrian camp to protect her country, Artemisia also seeks revenge on the lascivious rapist Tassi and exercises her legal right not only as a lawful citizen, but also as an independent feminist. What’s more, both by the performance of female agency, Judith saved her country from being occupied by the enemy, and Artemisia saved herself on the court from suffering torture, insult and indignity. To sum up, Sayre’s general survey provides undergraduate students with basic biographical information on Artemisia’s personal life fighting
against the male-dominated society in the seventeenth century Italy, and links this to her artist career which involves many paintings depicting biblical and mythological heroines (Sayre 297). Yet in my opinion, Sayre’s article could have been more informative and inspiring as it only takes one biographical perspective on Artemisia’s work and does not encourage much original, independent thinking.
Compared to Sayre’s “Artemisia Gentileschi and Caraveggisti Painting,” with a biographical appoach, Garrard takes a feminist approach to interpret Artemisia’s work. In Garrard’s schalarly article “Artemisia’s hand”collected in the anthology Reclaiming Female Agency, Garrard specifically examines the firm, expressive, and forceful women's hands and their dramatic gestures in Artemisia’s work including“The Lute Player”, “Cleopatra”, “Judith and Her Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes”, and “Aurora” as a sign of female agency. For example, Garrard pointed out that in Artemisia’s painting “Judith and Her Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes,” the large, strong hands of Judith’s and her maidservant’s lead the viewer into the base of the picture, establishing the theme of female agency to be magnified above. Meanwhile, the flamboyant gestures of Judith’s hands also add drama and subtlety to the painting. With Judith’s right hand, she claims female domination, gripping Holofernes's sword with extraordinary bravery. The angle of her wrist parallels that of the defeated general's empty gauntlet on the table, as if to mock his loss of power and glorify her gain of it (Garrard 64-65). Garrard also compares Artemisia’s depiction of women's hands in her works such as “The Lute Player”, “Cleopatra”, “Judith and Her Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes”, and “Aurora” with recent attributions of “Female Martyr” and “Allegory of Painting” to Artemisia by modern art historians and connoisseurs. Based on the weakly, almost invisibly depicted hands, Garrard rejects these attributions (67-69). Besides issues of attribution, Garrard also looks at portraits identified as Gentileschi, for instance,“Allegory of Painting,” its ascription to Atemisia is supported by the inclusion of the picture in the Gentileschi exhibition (Garrard 68), however, the attribution is rejected due to both the biographical reason, that Artemisia would not paint such self-debasing and self-referring image, and the non-existence of Artemisia’s typical female firm, commanding hands. Interestingly, note that during the identification of the attribution of “Allegory of Painting” to Artemisia, both Sayre’s biological approach and Garrard’s feminine hands’ depiction approach work together to support the rejection of such ascription.
In conclusion, we can see that the different approaches by Sayre and Garrard to Artemisia’s work have different perspectives on the interpretation of her art work. While Sayre’s interpretation of Artemisia’s work relies on her personal tragedy biographically, Garrard takes another perspective by looking specifically at Artemisia’s depiction of hands and how it reflects her female agency. In my opinion, neither approaches should be used exclusively, as the interpretation would not be fully accurate if only one dimension of art is covered.