Sur un tableau de Zurbáran

[qui me laissa sans voix samedi passé (8 fév. 2014) à Bozar]

Saint-Luc en peintre devant la crucifixion

[1640 ?, Prado, Madrid]

(...)

[extrait du catalogue]

Saint Bonaventure et Saint Thomas d’Aquin devant le Christ en croix

Christ de la clémence (1608), Martinez Montañes

History & arts

This Christ on the Cross with Saint Luke has always been considered one of Zurbarán’s most interesting images as it would appear that the figure of the saint is actually a self-portrait. Although Saint Luke was a doctor in Syria he is also considered the patron saint of artists because of a legend that says he painted the Virgin’s portrait. Therefore, Zurbarán chose his own face to represent his patron saint, depicting him holding his palette and gazing up at God. Next to the saint is Jesus on the cross, an image that breaks with the Pacheco’s iconographic rules for the subject which Velázquez always followed faithfully. Instead Zurbarán depicts Christ with his legs crossed and although he includes the four nails, he eliminates the ledge, giving the figure greater movement and making the foreshortening more dramatic. The artist follows the dictates of naturalistic tenebrism, creating very realistic images - to the point that he uses himself as Saint Luke. Although there is a certain element of idealization in the figure of Christ, it is surprising how the artist marks the ribs and thorax to make the scene seem even more real. The powerful light from the left creates the distinct contrasts of light and shade of which Caravaggio was so fond. The dark tones and the delicacy of the folds are specific characteristics of Zurbarán’s output.

Crossing Over

At first glance, another scene of the crucified Christ, fairly typical of 17^th century art, with maybe a patron or religious dignitary in attendance. But look more closely at that figure. Yes, he may display his hand on his heart- a gesture of fervent devotion- but in his other hand he’s grasping an artist’s palette. That’s right; it’s a representation of an artist with his paints at the foot of the cross.

If we’re seeking iconographical explanations, we could argue that the elderly man is meant to be St Luke, who is often shown painting the Virgin and Child. But St Luke has nothing to do with the representation of Christ. We might try to trace the source of this original picture in debates about the appropriateness of artists portraying Christ. I remember reading about some legend in Byzantine times in which God is graciously supposed to have given artists permission to portray his own son- but although that idea is certainly germane, I think it has little to do with Zurbaran’s painting.

Consulting Victor Stoichita’s highly recommended Visionary Experience in the Golden Age of Spanish Art, I’m offered a variety of explanations, as follows:  

1. It’s a representation of an imaginary dialogue encountered in contracts of 17^th century Spanish art.

2. The artist has projected himself into the painting for some reason or other.

3. The artist is empathizing with the suffering of Christ, by painting himself at Golgotha.

4. The painter is having a vision.

5. The painter is standing before a canvas in the picture.

All of these theories could fit the fact of the painted canvas, but I find the last the most suggestive, especially as in the last post I wrote about Velasquez standing before his canvas. Could Zurbaran’s artistic worshipper, or Zurbaran himself - is it a self-portrait with saviour - be visualizing the disegno interno of their painting. In other words, is the painted Christ a vision in the artistic sense? Is this what the artist has imagined in his mind’s eye? Or, looking at this from another direction, is this a representation of an artist surveying a picture he has finshed? If that’s the case, then why has he stepped into pictorial space disrupting the silent communion between spectator and artwork?  

Could Foucault with his jaw-dropping analysis of Las Meninas help with an investigation into the problems of representation and meaning in Zurbaran’s perplexing work. It occurred to me that what Foucault said about the "system of feints’ or deceptions around Velasquez’s studio, are applicable to the problems here.  

"... but when, in a moment, he (Velasquez) makes a step to the right, removing himself from our gaze, he will be standing exactly in front of the canvas he is painting; he will enter that region where his painting, neglected for an instant, will, for him, become visible once more, free of shadow and free of reticence. As though the painter could not at the same time be seen on the picture where he is represented and also see that upon which he is representing something. He rules at the threshold of those two incompatible visibilities."

In the case of Zurbaran, he - if we accept the self-portrait emphasis - has crossed over that threshold between the canvas and the space in which he has painted/is painting. OK. These are two entirely different situations - Zurbaran painted for monasteries and Velasquez for the court - but these issues of meta-painting, art which goes beyond its usual cultural and artistic limitations - seem to me to linked in terms of 17^th century representation.

As for the "reality effect", the details that, according to Barthes, introduce something resembling the real, then what about Zurbaran’s trick of painting signed cartellinos – cards - on the surface of his pictures. With this device, Zurbaran ensured that the artist was on the canvas, as well as looking at it.

__________

[...]