Artemisia Gentileschi and Elisabetta Sirani--two women of the Italian Baroque

1612-3 Judith Slaying Holofernes -- Artemisia Gentileschi



1620 Judith Slaying Holofernes -- Artemisia Gentileschi



1664 Portia Wounding he Thigh -- Elisabetta Sirani




Artemisia Gentileschi was born in from 1593, and died at an uncertain date, from 1652 to 1656. She was the daughter of another painter, Orazio Gentileschi, who was very much influenced by Caravaggio. She was born in Rome, introduced to art through her father's work. In the studio she showed talent much greater than that of her brothers, yet in 1612 the all male Roman art academies refused to admit her into their program. Orazio then tried to hire one of his colleagues, Agostino Tassi, as a private tutor for Artemisia. But, this did not exactly work as planned—Tassi raped Artemisia, and charges were only brought against Tassi when it was found out that Tassi did not intend to marry Artemisia. The trial then lasted seven months, bringing notoriety to the artist. The minutes from this trial still exist today, and reveal a good deal about the social conditions of women in the early baroque era. Artemisia moved out to Florence in 1614, and worked there until 1620, when she returned to Rome, and traveled to Venice. In Florence she was quite successful as a painter, and while there, she did become the first woman admitted into the Academy of Drawing. She was able to gain friendship with the Grandduke and Grandduchess, contemporary artists of the area, and other important figures of the area, like Galileo Galilei, with whom she maintained some correspondence even after leaving Florence.

In Florence she focused on a few religious stories in which women play a significant role. She painted multiple works of the repentant Mary Magdalene, the prostitute and general sinner who meets Christ, repents, and converts to a life of servitude to god. These representations tend to emphasise her desperation and agony. There are paintings of Judith beheading Holofernes, and of Susanna with the elders. Both these stories are included in Catholic versions of the bible, but excluded from the Protestant versions. The story of Judith has its own book in the Catholic bible, included as part of the Old Testament. Judith is upset at the Isrealites for failing to trust God to deliver them from their oppressors, so she takes matters to her own hands. She goes to the enemy's general, Holofernes, and slowly gains his trust. Once she gains access to his tent, she takes the opportunity to murder him, with the assistance of her maid. She brings the head of Holofernes back to the Israelites, and the Assyrians, who have been oppressing them, disperse about, departing in a disorganised manner, having then lost their general. Judith becomes celebrated as a heroic figure, and she is courted, though remains unmarried for the rest of her life.

In the modern Catholic bible the Susanna story is included as an appendage to the book of Daniel. The conflict over whether to include Susanna in the canon, which occurred in the baroque era, adds a political dimension to artistic representations of the scene. In the story of Susanna, Susanna is falsely accused of infidelity. Two elders come upon her while she is bathing in the garden, and threaten to send out false accusations against her, unless she allows them sexual gratification. Susanna refuses this blackmail, and the elders make public accusations against her of promiscuity. When Susanna is about to be put to death, Daniel arrives and convinces the judges to question the two elders separately. When they are apart, the elders' stories disagree, and it becomes obvious that they are lying, so Susanna is released. It has been speculated that Gentileschi's use of this story is related to her own rape, that she used the story partly as a way to insert an autobiographical element to her work. Her use of Judith Beheading Holofernes, as well, which she first painted around 1612 to 1613, has also been speculated to be related to these events in her own life, though rather than a direct depiction of her life, rather as a means of expressing a desire for revenge. But, these psychological hypotheses about Artemisia's work remain very much speculative; there really isn't enough of an historical record to offer any input on the matter.

In 1630 she went to Naples, and in 1638 she and her father went to England to work on a commissioned ceiling painting. Orazio died the next year, though Artemisia stayed in the country to work on her own commissions. It is not known how long she stayed there, but she left by 1642, when a civil war broke out in the country. Little is known about her whereabouts after this period, though she did return to Naples. Records are sparse from this time, though in her latest known letter, of 1650, Artemisia states that she is still actively involved in making art. Due to the sparse historical record, it is not known whether she died around 1653, as has been usually believed, or if she died later in a plague that swept the city in 1656, as per another speculation.

In general, Gentileschi's style is usually quite influenced by that of Caravaggio, though it is indirect. Her exposure to his style came from her father's use of the techniques. This included primarily the use of tenebrism and chiaroscuro. Tenebrism refers to the use of very intense shadows. It comes from the Latin term tenebre, which refers to shadows. In particular, tenebrism refers to the kind of very intense shadows in which the background is nearly a flat black, and the forms being depicted have very uncertain edges. Much of the forms themselves can be covered in the same shadows that dominate the background, and only particular lit surfaces are visible. This was a rather new technique when Caravaggio began using it in the late sixteenth century, and it would still have been considered a fairly new development in painting in Artemisia's time, though it was a few generations after Caravaggio's work. Chiaroscuro is a somewhat related concept, but it is more general than tenebrism—it simply refers to the strong contrast between light and dark spaces. Later, it came also to refer to the technique in drawing of working on a coloured paper, and drawing in both dark outlines as usual, along with a layer of white for highlighting. Artemisia Gentileschi came to master the use of both tenebrism and chiaroscuro in her paintings. This is especially evident in her earlier works, like in her two versions of Judith slaying Holofernes—one was painted in 1612 to 1613, and another version was made in 1620 using a very similar composition. Compared to Caravaggio's work, however, Gentileschi's forms are rendered more realistically rather than idealistically. Her figures tend to have heavier bodies, which in combination with the more realistic treatment and the often violent subject matter, communicate an intense kind of strength. The figures often resemble Gentileschi's self portraits, especially in their facial features and their heavier forms.

These aspects are quite evident in her two versions of Judith Beheading Holofernes. The earlier version, made around the time or soon after her rape trial, is currently located at Naples. Both the Naples version and the later painting, made around 1620, are shown online at newexpressionist.blogspot.com. Both show Judith at the right, driving a sword through Holofernes' neck. Holofernes is lying in a bed, positioned so that his head is nearest to the viewer, and the rest of his body extends back and to the left. Both Judith and her maid are also on this bed. The maid is in the centre of this cluster of figures, holding Holofernes down. Judith is at the right, extending her arms to the left, one to hold Holofernes' head in place, and one to pull the sword in. The cut begins from the outside; Judith hods the sword down, and pulls in toward her.

The painting is compositionally intense; the six arms of the three figures converge on the central point around Holofernes' neck, though in a fairly disorganised manner. It is full of diagonal lines and triangular forms, which are visually quite active. In the 1620 version of the scene this effect is increased by the addition of space to the left, which allows for the inclusion of additional diagonals for Holofernes' legs. There is pressure being exterted in all directions from this central point. Judith is clenching her fists tightly, at the handle of her sword and below that, the side of Holofernes' head. His hair is visible between her fingers, being pulled violently, and the skin on his face wrinkles from the pressure. Holofernes reaches up to the maid, tightly grabbing the collar of her dress, and the maid presses down at Holofernes. In the 1620 version a stream of blood shoots up toward Judith, adding another dynamic line, and to the overall level of violence in the scene.

Compared to one another, the main difference evident is the wider view in the 1620 version. Additional space is included above, below, and to the left in this version. The 1612 version is somewhat of a compressed image; the maid's head seems pressed in at the top of the canvas. Also, Judith's sword is smaller in the 1612 version, the lower part of it almost seeming, because of the way the light is painted falling on it, to be something printed onto the bedsheets rather than an extension of the same sword that Judith grasps. This effect is eliminated in the 1620 version, in which it is wider and lit somewhat strongly along its edges, and extends farther down. In fact, in the 1620 version the sword itself can be said to add to the dramatic pressure of the image.


From here we move on to another artist, Elisabetta Sirani. She lived from 1638 to 1665 in the north Italian city of Bologna, the capital city of the province Emilia-Romagna. Her father, Giovanni Andrea Sirani, was also a painter. Bologna was a strong centre for painting in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, rivaling Rome and Florence. For an amount of time, Elisabetta Sirani was one of the most important and well known painters in the Bolognese school. She achieved fame for her virtuosity of technique—her ability to complete paintings at an impressively quick rate, and for her pure character and demure personality. Patrons, art aficionados, and others curious about her painting would come to her studio and watch her work. At the peak of her fame, when she was just 27 years old, she died under suspicious circumstances—at least one close friend believed that the artist had been poisoned, but this was never confirmed.

Her 1664 painting, Portia Wounding Her Thigh, from just one year before her suspicious death, shows a scene from Plutarch's Life of Marcus Brutus. Brutus was one of the conspirators in the murder of Julius Caesar, and Portia was his wife. In the end of the story, she commits suicide to demonstrate her loyalty to her husband, in the original version, by suffocating herself with burning coals. The scene in the painting is an earlier one, as Portia is just beginning to sense that her husband is involved in a dangerous plot of some sort. Here is the passage from Plutarch:

This Porcia, being addicted to philosophy, a great lover of her husband, and full of an understanding courage, resolved not to inquire into Brutus's secrets before she had made this trial of herself. She turned all her attendants out of her chamber, and, taking a little knife, such as they use to cut nails with, she gave herself a deep gash in the thigh; upon which followed a great flow of blood, and, soon after, violent pains and a shivering fever, occasioned by the wound. Now when Brutus was extremely anxious and afflicted for her, she, in the height of all her pain, spoke thus to him: "I, Brutus, being the daughter of Cato, was given to you in marriage, not like a concubine, to partake only in the common intercourse of bed and board, but to bear a part in all your good and all your evil fortunes; and for your part, as regards your care for me, I find no reason to complain; but from me, what evidence of my love, what satisfaction can you receive, if I may not share with you in bearing your hidden griefs, nor be admitted to any of your counsels that require secrecy and trust? I know very well that women seem to be of too weak a nature to be trusted with secrets; but certainly, Brutus, a virtuous birth and education, and the company of the good and honorable, are of some force to the forming our manners; and I can boast that I am the daughter of Cato and the wife of Brutus, in which two titles though before I put less confidence, yet now I have tried myself, and find that I can bid defiance to pain." Which words having spoken, she showed him her wound, and related to him the trial that she had made of her constancy; at which he being astonished, lifted up his hands to heaven, and begged the assistance of the gods in his enterprise, that he might show himself a husband worthy of such a wife as Porcia. So then he comforted his wife.

This, again, is the source text for the scene in Sirani's painting Portia wounding her Thigh, from Plutarch's Life of Brutus. Sirani chooses a rather obscure scene for this painting, probably in part because there was a demand in the baroque for images of strong women, which would have also been satisfied as well by the last paintings we saw, Gentileschi's depictions of Judith slaying Holofernes. Portia demonstrates her strength by demanding that she be treated as an equal, rather than as a pet-like creature too delicate to be allowed awareness of the brutal world of politics. From the modern standpoint, it seems odd that a demonstration of loyalty to her husband would be taken as an image of a strong female character. Certainly the two characteristics are not exclusive of one another, but increased loyalty to one's husband is still not seen as the usual route for beginning to assert one's strength as a woman—it is usually instead some sort of act of independence that is expected. The scene with Portia shows a strong female character from the existing cultural context of the baroque period, in a manner that does not subvert existing gender roles, but expresses a greater strength within them.

In terms of the technical aspects of the image, Portia is shown at the right side of the frame, sitting on a bench in front of a flat wall with a dark curtain draped over the right edge. This wall takes up approximately three quarters of the image, and at the left there is a doorway through which Brutus and his colleagues are visible conspiring and discussing the important matters in which Portia wants to be involved. They are shown in a mistier lighting situation, without heavy shadows, being that they are in the background. In the foreground Portia is wearing a bright red dress which falls loosely off of her left shoulder. She extends her leg out, so that her shin extends a bit beyond the door frame. Her skirts are pulled up to reveal her thigh being stabbed. Her foot of the leg that is revealed is cut off at the lower part of the frame, and the other is concealed under a massive pile of crumpled fabric. She is holding her right arm up, grasping her small dagger, preparing to stab. Two small wounds are already visible on her thigh, though she does not appear to be bleeding profusely yet. Her eyes look intently and unemotionally at the point she wishes to stab.

The upper right corner of the painting is filled by a dark corner, in front of which Portia's head and shoulder are positioned. This creates a kind of tenebrist or chiaroscuro effect with Portia's very light skin. Bolognese painting at the time was noted mostly for its emphasis on classicism, but this aspect of Portia Wounding her Thigh shows that Sirani was aware of modern trends in painting, and could use them to her own advantage. There can even be inferred a symbolic significance in using the more modern technique around the woman in her expression of strength. The use of violent subject matter such as this was also more characteristic of the Baroque than earlier periods. This painting shows the artist's ability to mix classical compositional elements, like the triangular arrangement of figures in the background, with a more modern sensibility. It is certainly less radically violent, and less extreme in its use of chiaroscuro, than the earlier work of Gentileschi, but both were aware of these techniques, and with them and additional influences, were able to develop their own artistic styles.