"The Dead Christ And The Angels" by Édouard Manet
This large painting by Manet was part of the exhibit from the Met at the Houston Museum of Fine Arts. I find the painting arresting, first of all, because Jesus truly looks dead. There's no evidence of the pinkish hue to the skin tone, which seems to be present in many of the paintings of Jesus after his death - as though he's not really dead.
Second, the setting of the painting is inside the tomb, before Jesus' Resurrection, which makes it unusual, if not unique, as both Holbein and Mantegna painted Jesus in the tomb. As you see, he is supported by one angel bearing an expression of what, to me, appears to be shock, and the other sitting beside, who seems devastated.
This is one of only two religious paintings by Manet, the other being "The Mocking of Christ". Manet was not a believer, and it is perhaps because of this that the Christ in the painting appears totally human, no light around him, no halo, a quality of the painting which I find quite moving.
I must mention that I have no expertise whatsoever in art, and this account of my experience of the painting is purely personal. My reaction to any work of art is first and foremost emotional and spiritual. I know very little about technique, brush work, and composition. All of my knowledge and study of those elements comes after the emotional attraction and spiritual connection or lack thereof.
Is that a sufficient disclaimer?
By all means, click on the painting to get the larger view.
It will be a sad day indeed when one requires "expertise" to appreciate art.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's not to depreciate the importance of art education. One can spend a lifetime deepening one's knowledge and honing one's perception. But God help us if enjoying becomes a specialty, or when those without proper "credentials" feel too sheepish to speak up.
I think it is often true that non-believers produce religious art as perfect as that produced by believers. Sometimes an artist's devotion enhances the work, but sometimes it gets in the way. I would not want all work produced with a "cold eye," but I wouldn't want it entirely absent either.
My favorite example? Pier Paulo Pasolini's "Gospel according to St. Matthew."
Rick, I have not seen the movie, but it's going on my list.
ReplyDeleteIt will be a sad day when only experts can love art.
I was thinking that if you keep this up, you will have to post under the name Sister Mimi! ;-)
ReplyDeleteI love what you've done so far!
Susan, thanks. Sister Mimi? It has a ring.
ReplyDeleteI just love putting up the pictures. I've got another one coming which I had to get permission for. I was pleased that I got it. And for free! Not like the National Portrait Gallery in London which wanted to charge me the equivalent of $38.00 for their portrait of Jane Austen. Forget it.
I've been so enjoying your posts.
ReplyDeleteJill, thank you and welcome. Come visit again.
ReplyDeleteI love Manet. This is a wonderful picture. Thanks for sharing it, Meems.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you had to be an expert to enjoy and appreciate art, the worlds artists would be doomed. Thank goodness they've left their work around for all us novices to enjoy!
Aye, Eileen, aye. 'Tis true.
ReplyDeleteGorgeous, gorgeous painting. And it's one that you don't usually see in art history classes. Honestly, I had no idea Manet did any religious paintings at all!
ReplyDeleteI love the serpent among the rocks in the lower right-hand corner. Didn't even see it until I clicked on the larger view.
PJ, yes. Upon looking again, I believe there may be a ring-type halo, also.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite a large painting, and I'm sure I must have seen it at the Met, but after I've been looking at art for a while, I get tired and stop seeing.
Thanks - how great to see it in "real" -- I remember the first time I saw ART in a museum and not in a book - wow.
ReplyDeleteAnn, it's truly an impressive work, and, of course, no photograph does it justice.
ReplyDeleteThe Met sent the crème de la crème from its collection for the exhibit. One of the signs at the exhibit said that this was the first time many of the works had gone out on loan, and that they probably would never leave the Met again. I'm thinking a huge amount of money must have changed hands.