Oh the article misses one of the best bits about his lifestyle.
The man run what essentially was a beautiful scam on churches. He was comissioned to paint saint and virgins. He would use local prostitutes as models (it is mentioned in the article he was condemed for the murder of a pimp). So when the paintings were presented to the church, the locals (and sometimes even the priests) would recognise the models and there would be some uproar of using the likeness of a streetwalker to paint the virgin mary. So the painting would get removed and most of the time a private owner (sometimes higher ups in the church) would buy them for their personal collection. Too scandalous for the public, but perfect for my own palace.
There was a very famous incident of this where he painted Mary's death. Usually this is a very holy moment in Christianity and it's painted as such. Caravaggio did not. He painted it in a dirty tent, in a very human way with her passing away. This was Strike One. Secondly he modeled the death after a famous body that was retrived from the river in Rome, a girl had drowned and tons of people had seen her lifeless body be pulled out of the water, and they could now see that same girl being virgin mary. Strike Two. And the last strike was that the woman was not any girl, but one of the most famous prostitutes of the city and one seen very regularly with Caravaggio. Painting your ex gf prostitute who died unceremonoiously drowned as the holyest figure outside of christ was a big issue at the time.
The painting however is still gorgeous and would urge anyone travelling to Paris (in the Louvre) to go see it. Not as "another virgin" painting, which you will find infinite Madonna paintings in Europe. But as one of the first paintings not sanctifying her death and as a sad goodbye from Caravaggio to someone important to him
Amazing color to add to this great story, thank you.
Reading your relation, I realized that this intermixing of "questionable" (at the time) art ended up in religious settings including bible printings back then, resulting in even worse results. My first recollection is of the scandalous chapter opening characters used in some of the earliest KJV printings that results in bankruptcy/ruination of the press owner/printer due to royal/religious offense and subsequent punishment!
Burial of St. Lucy in Syracuse is interesting as the painting is displayed at the original place where it was commissioned, on the way of his hectic getaway. Ghastly, the context of the painting feels to be similar to the one you described.
Caravaggio was an epic troll. His Crucifixion of Saint Peter has a pair of beautifully lit buttocks in the left foreground, which (it is thought) are not accidentally oriented towards the Carracci painting over the altar (Caravaggio's commission being for the less prestigious and remunerative side aisle).
Whilst I do agree there was an element (a sizeable element: Caravaggio was an asshole) of "fuck you" in his choice of models, there's also a coherent philosophy or theology (and maybe even politics) at work. Consistently in his religious paintings he shows holiness breaking into the ordinary world, through ordinary and even reviled people.
You see it in The Calling of Saint Matthew, where Matthew greets Jesus (who bears the merest hint of a missable halo) with a baffled expression and a "who me?" gesture.
You see it in (the first version of) Saint Matthew and the Angel where the saint holds the book and the pen like an illiterate, and seems astonished at what the angel is guiding him to write.
You see it in the Madonna of Loretto, where Mary and the Christ child are adored by a pair of instantly-recognizable pilgrims. (Pilgrims at the time, in Rome, were looked down upon and treated horribly, so depicting them in that scene was an implicit comment on their treatment.) This painting was also a magnificently petty troll, in that the pilgrims' bare, and very dirty, feet were directly visible above the officiant's head - it was originally an altar-piece - as he celebrated mass. It got moved to a side chapel soon after its unveiling.
You see it in the Penitent Magdalen, which dispenses with supernatural trappings, and places the emphasis on Mary's interior state. (Some have noted the broken necklace as a possible reference to, and comment on, the violence that prostitutes often faced.)
Coincidently (or not), the model for that painting, Anna Bianchini, was also the model (or the body, as it were) for the Death of the Virgin that you mention. Your gloss is excellent (and Caravaggio was certainly being provocative, and indeed perhaps validictory) but I think you miss one thing: the drapery. The top third of the canvas is taken up by a gorgeously-painted red cloth, the same colour as Mary's dress, which is an odd inclusion into this otherwise very realistic scene. It spreads across above the body, and then at the left is caught upwards, out of the frame, as though pulled by an invisible hand, or pushed by Mary's escaping soul. No one in the picture seems to notice, but it is in my opinion a vision of the Holy, as Caravaggio saw it, almost invisibly in operation just above, behind, and around the natural world.
it is, fixed. I heard about it while travelling on northern Italy, thought it was still in Italy. Haven't seen it in person, but something to look forward on my next trip to Paris
I always heard about Caravaggio from books and Internet, finding his paintings "ok, realistic, cool for the time, skilfully made".
Then I saw a few live.
The chiaroscuro theatre of shadow and light, the insane details, the dynamic of each painting, the mastery it takes to reproduce such art pieces, it all humbled me as an artist in a way I did not expect. This man had such an insane talent, vision and skill to produce some of these paintings, their harshness matching his lifestyle.
If you have a chance to see some of his works in person, go for it, it will definitely pay off.
Had to make an account just to reply that I had a similar experience with Thomas Cole. Saw a showing of “Course of Empire” and was astonished. Looking at a photo can’t prepare you for the impact of a wall-sized painting crammed with magnifying glass-sized details.
This. I had the same feeling on seeing The Triumph of Death by Pieter Bruegel the Elder in the Prado. [0] It's one thing to see the painting in a book. It's another thing to turn the corner into a room and see the full 20 square foot landscape in front of you. (It's still one of my favorite paintings of all time.)
Yes you are describing my experience exactly. This art is one of those arts that looks nice in photos and is just impactful (?) in person. Like, movingly painted somehow? It is emotionally arresting. He has captured something of the human spirit in some of his work.
Really? I get the exact opposite impression - how little actual detail there is. It seems it almost completely consists of few thick brushstrokes, made with insane precision.
The Supper at Emmaus seems to be an exception. It makes me think it actually isn't his painting.
I have heard the same thing (wrongly) said of Van Gogh, whose poor mental condition towards the end of his life was almost certainly caused by syphilis.
This is not to underplay the impact of poisonous paints: the entire cadmium range (cadmium red and yellow), Naples yellow ( lead antimonate), Flake white (lead again). For more horrors, check out the book artist beware.
Looking at the article you linked, the evidence for Caravaggio's death by lead poisoning does indeed seem conclusive. However, IMO it almost certainly was not through the use of paint itself, but from the careless manufacture of paint. In those days, most painters made their own paint by mixing powder pigment with oil. Powdered lead pigments is 100 times more dangerous than pigment locked into an oil emulsion.
A dear artist friend of mine died as a result of their art. God bless you Jim where ever you are.
He's one of my favorite painters. Such depth and emotion. It's so fun to know more about how awful an actual person he was. Super cool that all of this information is still accessible 400 years later.
My favorite painter! I highly recommend Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane by Andrew Graham-Dixon. That and the Derek Jarman film (as referenced by others) provide valuable insight into his grandiose and self-destructive behavior, along with the patronage system that allowed him countless second chances until he managed to burn every bridge available to him. Michelangelo Merisi teaches us a great lesson on the precariousness of talent mixed with recklessness.
So... Derek Jarman had a studio in one of the old warehouses alongside the thames before it became the yupified, soulless nonsence it is now. I was an artist but also modelled frequently for other artists and art schools (not unusual for a young artist).
DJ was in the process of producing Caravaggio, and I heard through a freind that DJ was looking for models not shy about being 'au naturel' in front of the camera. The shoot required that I dance naked, together with many other guys, at night around a large fire, located in an empty lot next to his studio.
I know that his Caravagio movie was in production (or development) and being openly discussed at the time and this was part of my motivation behind accepting the (unpaid) gig. However, from my single viewing of the movie, I cannot recal seeing any such scene.
There are plenty of similar scenes in his movie Sebastian, but the dates don't work out. It's concievable that he was just shooting one of his off the cuf experimental works... who knows.
The shoot itself was a bit chaotic. Most of the other guys there were gay and up for a party..., Very frisky. As a young straight lad, I was a bit freaked out, but Derik himself was a complete gentleman, and also very protective of me. Needless to say I did not return. However, I maintain very fond memories of DJ. He had a wiked sence if humour and was evidently a man a great humanity.
I do recal towards the end of the evening seeing him cry. Maybe it was because of the stress of the shoot, or maybe because of health issues (he was diagnosed HIV+ around that time but my memory of the dates is fuzzy).
He was part of a London that no longer exists... Punk, alternative, pre-yuppy. Much missed.
A lot of stuff gets filmed and then cut, so it might just be that. You might be on a director's cut DVD somewhere! (Though way less likely for old stuff, where the removed material may no longer even exist.)
I get that they're ginning up excitement with "Caravaggio's last painting was a murder scene!", but it's a bit of a schtick. As pointed out in TFA it was a commission, and so not exactly a "personal" painting. Furthermore, at the time of his death, Caravaggio was headed back towards Rome, with a pardon all but assured. He wouldn't have been painting Saint Ursula under a premonition of death.
If you want to see what was on his mind a few years earlier, when he really was in fear for his life, look at some of what he painted then: a Judith Beheading Holofernes; two Salomes With the Head of John the Baptist; a Beheading of John the Baptist (the only painting he ever signed - in the blood dripping from the evangelist's neck!); and, most memorably, David Holding the Head of Goliath, in which Caravaggio gives the severed head his own features. How metal is that?
Stop using Javascript on the Internet and you'll find yourself back in 1998. Advertisers, marketers and front-end devs have ruined it. Only selectively allow each JS source, fuck them.
