sign in sign up
<<
Home , Artemisia Gentileschi, Aurelio Lomi, Bathsheba (painting), Giovanni Baglione, Orazio Gentileschi, Simon Vouet

290 EMWJ 2012, vol . 7 Exhibition Reviews

Review of : Storia di Una Passione . Curated by Roberto Contini and Francesco Solinas . Palazzo Reale, , 22 September 2011–29 January 2012 . On October 24, 2011, I eagerly hurried up the steps of the Palazzo Reale in Milan, notebook in hand, to see an art exhibition that promised to honor Artemisia Gentileschi, famous woman painter of the 1600s. This was the first show dedicated entirely to her work, so I returned to the exhibit on two more occasions to study it in detail, to hear the commentary in both Italian and English, and to admire some of the new discoveries. Though I did not attend this exhibition with the intention of writing a response, the review that follows essentially demanded to be written. In the promotion for Artemisia Gentileschi: Storia di una Passione, we are told that the curators wish to focus on Artemisia Gentileschi’s art, thereby introducing the gallery visitor to one of the great painters of the seventeenth century. If the intent is to lift Artemisia Gentileschi out of the stereotypes of the past, it is probably ill-advised to have us enter the exhibi- tion through an art installation consisting of a rumpled bed and a looped audio commentary reciting the explicit details of the rape of Artemisia Gentileschi by . The words of the rape victim from the trial record are delivered by a woman’s voice in Italian. The voice describes her unsuccessful attempt to repel Tassi and the inevitable penetration. It is a short segment, which repeats over and over and over and over again. When you enter the next room, with the words of the rape trial still ringing out behind you, you confront the Capodimonte version of Judith Decapitating Holofernes. It is the only in the room — a bril- liant work by Artemisia. The audio commentary suggests that the piece was probably devised, conceived, and requisitioned in by Grand Duke Cosimo II de Medici, shortly after the rape trial in . Apparently, simply being in the orbit of a great man like Cosimo II explains the excep- tional quality of the composition. The subtext of the audio commentary accompanying this exhibition is thus introduced in the first room and maintained throughout: you need only look to the great men in Artemisia Gentileschi’s life to explain her success.

EMW12.indb 290 8/28/12 12:30:43 PM Exhibition Reviews 291

First of all, she is born into a “long line of artists.” (In this review all direct quotations are taken from the audio commentary.) The family tree on the wall of the next room carefully demonstrates Artemisia’s lineage on her father’s side, including goldsmiths and painters. Interestingly, we have simply “first wife” or “second wife” (no names or dates) in the female line. Actually, Artemisia’s grandmother (second wife), a Lorenzini from Florence, also came from a family of goldsmiths and provided family con- nections in Florence for the goldsmiths in her immediate family. Even Artemisia’s mother has only her name listed, with no dates. Apparently it isn’t significant in this artist’s life that her mother died when she was just twelve, a life-altering event at that age. Looking at Artemisia’s family tree, visitors to the show cannot determine this fact for themselves. As Griselda Pollock proposed in her article, “Feminist Mythologies and Missing Mothers,” knowing this information about Artemisia has the potential to “shift the canonical meanings of her themes.” But in this family tree, it’s all about the men. One of the first in the family-tree room is a portrait of Artemisia Gentileschi by her friend, . To each side of this portrait are newly-discovered excerpts from letters that Artemisia wrote to her long-term lover, Francesco Maria Maringhi. These previously unpub- lished letters were discovered in the archives of and are available for the first time in the book Lettere di Artemisia, edited by Francesco Solinas. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his meticulous work on Artemisia’s letters, which offer countless potential avenues for future research and will no doubt help us locate more of the “lost” works. This large room in the exhibit also features a painting by Artemisia’s uncle, , along with two paintings by her father, : Saint Cecilia (1603–1605, an unpublished version from a private collec- tion) and Judith Triumphant with the Head of Holofernes, attributed to “Orazio and helpers.” So far in this exhibition we have been made aware of seven men: Agostino Tassi, Cosimo II de Medici, Simon Vouet, Francesco Maria Maringhi, Cassiano dal Pozzo, Aurelio Lomi, and Orazio Gentileschi. In the second room we have seen one fine painting by Artemisia, but in the next one we encounter several paintings by other artists and several

EMW12.indb 291 8/28/12 12:30:43 PM 292 EMWJ 2012, vol . 7 Exhibition Reviews

paintings with questioned or questionable attributions to Artemisia. The works credited to her in this room include some paintings previously not included in her oeuvre, perhaps with good reason. The amateurish Judith and Abra with the Head of Holofernes is described as “perhaps among the earliest works of Artemisia Gentileschi.” A Portrait of a Nun, first proposed by Roberto Contini (Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi, 2001) as a possible work by Artemisia based on a black-and-white photograph, is here pre- sented as hers despite the fact that the recently discovered original paint- ing is even less suggestive of her authorship than the photograph. In the far right of the room there are two versions of and Child. One comes from the Palatina in Florence and is presented side-by-side with another version very recently sold in to a private collector. They recall the more familiar Spada Gallery painting of the same name in Rome, but these two do not involve the child caressing the mother’s face. Here, both are considered to be very early works by Artemisia Gentileschi, although these attributions are not secure. In the next room we finally see The Penitent from the Palatina Gallery in Florence. It is an absolute joy to experience. However, directly opposite it is a huge copy of the painting, which has been mutilated. In the mutilated version, the entire section depicting the Magdalene’s head has been chopped out and no doubt sold separately. It is extremely jarring to be exposed to this, and I have to wonder why it was felt important to display it. Another room, with many mirrors situated in the middle of the space, is focused on Artemisia’s work in portraiture. No one can fail to be impressed by two new full-length portraits by Artemisia Gentileschi on display for the first time. The impressive Portrait of a Woman with a Fan was reduced in size at some time in the past, from its full-length version to the three-quarters version on display. Regardless, these two portraits alone would merit a visit. They demonstrate Artemisia’s exceptional ability to capture character and attitude while at the same time rendering fabrics and light with absolute virtuosity. Her portraits, however, if you believe the audio commentary, owe a great deal to another great man, , who arrived in Rome in 1621. Artemisia had already been painting portraits of the aristocracy in Rome after her return in early 1620. And

EMW12.indb 292 8/28/12 12:30:43 PM Exhibition Reviews 293

even though there is no evidence that Artemisia met Van Dyck, we are told that she likely saw his work and “naturally absorbed his style.” This is sup- posedly evident in the poses and attributes of her portraits. She also owes a great deal to Vouet with respect to portraiture, if you believe the audio commentary, which suggests she learned “shading and sophistication of expression” from him. A close examination of Vouet’s portrait of Artemisia (1623–26) actually reveals a painter who could learn a great deal from his subject, who paints with much more subtlety. The possibility that other painters copied Artemisia’s stellar compositions is not considered seriously enough in this exhibit. One huge is clearly a copy. And, unfor- tunately, some poor imitations of Artemisia’s work are among the best-lit paintings in the entire exhibit. A regrettable Cleopatra (from Fondazione Cavallini), dated unbelievably to 1620–25, is prominently placed as you round a corner. At the same time, other outstanding paintings, with widely accepted attributions to Artemisia, languish in dim light where it is nearly impossible to read the comments beside them. They are literally al buio (in the gloom). As we move along, the audio commentary continues to honor the great men whose art influenced Artemisia. We are told that ’s influence is evident in her large and impressive Esther Before Ahasuerus (1626), supposedly because a dog and a black page boy were originally included in the composition, then painted over, as revealed in x-ray examination of the painting. We are told that Artemisia was trying to use these Veronese-style figures but likely couldn’t succeed in painting them, so she left them out. Unbelievably, even the rapist Agostino Tassi gets credit in the commentary for this painting. We are told that the room in the painting has been constructed according to rules of perspective that she learned from him. And then there is . Baglione’s controversial Allegory of Painting was displayed in the 2002 New York exhibit Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi and unfortunately shows up once again in this exhi- bition. Baglione (or Filippo Vitale?) may well have painted this piece to ridicule Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi, and now he is given another opportunity to publicly taunt them. I distinctly remember being shocked by its presence in 2002. Here, the painting simply hangs on the wall in the

EMW12.indb 293 8/28/12 12:30:43 PM 294 EMWJ 2012, vol . 7 Exhibition Reviews

show with no commentary. Surely the viewer should be alerted to the con- troversy surrounding this work. The card to the side of the painting simply credits the painting to “pittore Napoletano della prima meta del seicento” (Neapolitan painter from the first half of the sixteen hundreds). It is a large painting occupying a full wall in this exhibit. Again, the average visi- tor (and I watched them go through) does not read the card, has no audio commentary, and probably assumes this to be Artemisia’s work. Why else would it be there? Why else indeed. While the show in New York in 2002 attempted to minimize the number of controversial attributions on display, this exhibition is over- loaded with them. Just over half of the paintings displayed in Palazzo Reale would be considered to have secure attributions to Artemisia Gentileschi. Also, approximately half of the paintings are from private collections, and several of them have recently emerged on the art market with attributions to Artemisia. This is interesting in itself and would make a fine show: “Newly discovered work attributed to Artemisia Gentileschi: Let’s Talk.” However, because these works are distributed throughout the exhibition, often with no commentary, they simply detract and confuse. And here is where the language of the exhibition audio commentary must be mentioned. Danae is described as receiving coins on her skin “in an almost indecent manner,” which alludes to Zeus “forcing himself on her” after “penetrating her fortress.” Add to this the following words used in ref- erence to other works: “This magic canvas [The Penitent Mary Magdalene] must have aroused the collecting ambitions of more than one patron.” The self-portrait with a lute is described as “an almost provocative image of Artemisia, the seductress and musician.” This language seems intended to titillate the viewer in a way that would not be contemplated for any other artist of her stature. While it is impressive to hear in the promotional literature that over fifty paintings are included in this exhibition, we are missing some pivotal works of Artemisia’s career. The Pommersfelden and the Elders and the English ’s Self Portrait as the Allegory of Painting are two obvious examples. Fully ten of the securely attributed Artemisia paintings included in the New York show in 2002 are not on display here. On a more positive note, the Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well,

EMW12.indb 294 8/28/12 12:30:43 PM Exhibition Reviews 295

from a private collection, is a most valuable addition to the exhibition of the oeuvre of Artemisia Gentileschi. It is displayed for the first time here and connects beautifully with a Christ Blessing the Children, earlier attrib- uted to Artemisia. The next-to-final room in the exhibition is a large one, and the huge variability in quality that shows up on these walls is overwhelming. It truly has the feel of a catchall. Anything that did not fit anywhere else, hangs here. The only conclusion one can draw is that Artemisia must have been very inconsistent in her production, an unfortunate final impression of the artist. It is possible that many will go away from this exhibition saying, “she had her moments,” but that is about it. This might not disappoint one of the curators, Roberto Contini, who writes in the catalogue for the show that he considers Artemisia Gentileschi’s art to be at a level beneath that of Orazio Gentileschi, Battistello, Stanzione, or Ribera but not beneath that of Baglione, Gramatica, Vouet, Beltrano, Finoglio, De Rosa, Guarino, and Palumbo. He also writes that Artemisia should not be included among the greats because of “meriti — se cosi puo dire — extracurriculari” (extracur- ricular merits, so to say) but based on her specific talent. Sadly, that talent is not truly represented in this exhibition. Why is a large Triumph of Galatea by Cavallino prominently dis- played here? Some of us would know that he was a young painter in Artemisia’s Naples workshop. Others might know that a Washington D.C. version by the same title had been credited to Artemisia (in collaboration). This exhibition’s version of Triumph of Galatea, sold at Christies in 2007, is of interest only to those few who follow her work closely enough to know this kind of background information. Most visitors by this point in the exhibition are absolutely exhausted from the effort of trying to locate Artemisia’s work amidst everything else on display. Others have breezed through, assuming everything is hers. Fortunately, the last painting in the last little room is Artemisia’s, a bookend to the first painting in this show. It is her second version of Judith Decapitating Holofernes, again a painting that will stop you in your tracks. If the visitor knows what to look for, Artemisia Gentileschi: Storia di una Passione offers some absolutely unforgettable art experiences, and it is not to be missed. If the visitor is new to Artemisia’s work, this exhibition

EMW12.indb 295 8/28/12 12:30:43 PM 296 EMWJ 2012, vol . 7 Exhibition Reviews

does the artist a great disservice. I only wish that some of the works by other artists, together with the paintings of questionable attribution, could have been displayed in a room of their own, as curiosities of interest to the studiosi, allowing the truly great works to speak to the gallery visitor directly. Instead, we are left waiting for the exhibition that will finally cel- ebrate Artemisia Gentileschi’s evolution as one of the greatest painters of her time. Note: An exhibition related to the Milan exhibition was presented in Paris: Artemisia: Power, Glory, and the Passions of a Woman Painter, curated by Roberto Contini and Francesco Solinas, 14 March–15 July, 2012, Musée Maillol, Paris Valerie Drummond Independent Scholar

EMW12.indb 296 8/28/12 12:30:43 PM Exhibition Reviews 297

Figure 1. Artemisia Gentileschi (1597–ca.1651). The Penitent Mary Magdalen, ca. 1620–25. Oil on canvas, 146 × 109 cm. Galleria Palatina, , Florence, . Photo credit and permission: Scala / Art Resource, NY.

EMW12.indb 297 8/28/12 12:30:43 PM