There is no rest of the world in the painting because there is no rest of the world in the mind of Narcissus: there is only himself, and the image of himself. His fingertips almost kiss the still surface of the waters he is leaning forward to peer at this vision of divine loveliness that is himself, utterly entranced and totally absorbed. There is enough solid earth to delineate the edge of the water and to give Narcissus a place to rest his lovesick body, and that is all. ![]() ![]() It instead focuses, as Narcissus focuses, on the only relevant part of the image: the beautiful boy staring into the water. Unlike many other depictions of Narcissus, this studio-posed painting does not show off an artistic ability to include the idyllic forest clearing in which Narcissus fell in love (apart from anything else Caravaggio was often criticised for being apparently unable to use his imagination that much). To me this painting embodies the absolute essence of the story of Narcissus, the inward-facing, world-denying self-obsession which leads to him – depending on your version of the story – either wasting away gazing tenderly at his own reflection or, in more pro-active stories with less patience, trying to embrace his own reflected body and drowning. I also have a tattoo of Narcissus’s reflection rising from the waters to kiss him, as drawn by the exceptional Gillian Blekkenhorst & tattooed by Owen Williams at Living Image. I am uncommonly fond of the myth of Narcissus anyway: one of my university final projects was a post-modern reworking of the story (displayed, appropriately enough, on a large mirror) which got me into trouble with the admin department at the time because apparently not everyone saw the joke in covering a work of literature in pictures of masturbating men. I am fond of many of his works, and forever sad that if he produced a St Sebastian it never survived, but I’ve chosen Narcissus to talk about because of how it handles the subject matter. He mingled the sacred and the profane and delineated it all in pools of stark light and shadow, and while it would be wrong to paint him as a revolutionary maverick (his style was after all influenced by others), he was certainly eye-catching. He modelled the Holy Virgin on a dead whore. And he produced these exceptionally beautiful paintings full of vivacity and drama and gore and ugliness and beauty. To me that is part of his allure: he wasn’t “a bad boy” in the romantic sense, he was a fucking tool. He was precisely the kind of person you would cross the street and possibly the city to avoid. He was an oath-breaker, a fraud, a disloyal friend, a reneger on contracts, a murderer, a relentless shagger, a vengeful tit, an arrogant swaggering fucktard, and a bully. no, Michelangelo Merisi was also a prime twat by the standards of the time. He wasn’t just a dickhead from the perspective of the modern observer, the way so many historical figures are, to be mincingly redeemed with the non-excuse of “well it was normal for the time” for people to invest in the slave trade, beat prostitutes, abandon their wives, vomit on the poor, etc. Caravaggio is interesting because he was an astronomical dickhead. my father is a artist) or at best their tribulations just sound like an episode of Eastenders. 1597-1599.īefore I talk about the painting: I am pretty fascinated by Caravaggio the man, which is unusual for me as most artists tend to annoy or bore me (ref. ![]() ![]() Narcissus, by Caravaggio (Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio), c.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |