Background

Monday, June 18, 2012

The Tempest


This jewel of a painting, glowing like a stained glass window, is more modern than it looks at first glance. We don’t know exactly when it was created (probably around 1508) and we don’t know its real name—The Tempest is a nickname to make it easier to identify. So what makes it so modern?


Giorgione (a nickname meaning Big George) was an astonishingly gifted Venetian painter who died young and left only a handful of paintings. The colors and textures are vivid hallmarks of Venetian painting, but in spite of its brilliance there’s a perplexing riddle at the heart of The Tempest: what the heck does this picture mean? It’s okay to scratch your head while studying it. Art scholars have been doing so since the picture was found in Giorgione’s studio after his untimely death from the plague at thirty-three.


In Giorgione’s day landscape art had yet to be developed, but this landscape is more than just a backdrop for figures. It’s a presence in its own right and will later point the way for future landscape painters. Lightning crackles in a sky choked with menacing clouds, and sultriness oozes from the painting. Gazing at it, I can almost feel my shirt sticking to my back. But the riddle doesn’t come from the steamy landscape; it’s harbored in the figures.


Is this a religious picture? On the right a woman sits, suckling a baby. Instead of looking at her child, she takes in the viewer with a challenging stare. Is this the way most women suckle babies? No. The baby is not on her lap but off to the side, as if Giorgione delighted in exposing her private parts. This has disturbed those who have wanted to interpret this as the Holy Family on the flight to Egypt. Venice was a licentious place, but not even the Venetians would have dared to depict the Mother of God this way. Is she a gypsy, or a prostitute? Is this Adam and Eve with their child Cain? A scene from classical mythology, and if so which one? How could a painter of Giorgione’s caliber have created something so confusing?


Take a look at the dude with the staff in the bottom left corner, smiling at we know not what. Who is he? He doesn’t even look at the mother and child. Does he know they are there? Is he a shepherd? If so what’s he doing in fashionable duds from a Venetian version of the Men’s Wearhouse? Is he a soldier protecting them, or are they hiding from him? We don’t know if he is flesh and blood or the spirit of a protective saint. Maybe he’s a member of a club for unwed men. If so, are the columns behind him signs of his steadfastness or phallic symbols advertising his sexual prowess? Either way, why are these columns broken? X-rays show that the artist had originally painted another nude female here before changing his mind, which could have made this a picture about women on the lam, a Renaissance version of Thelma and Louise.


Artists have always changed their minds, altered and refined their work, but here it seems as if Giorgione had no subject in mind. During the Renaissance, artists were considered mere tradesmen; they painted what they were told to paint; portraits flaunting wealth and status, a crucifixion for a church, the commemoration of a special event. Unlike modern artists, they weren’t free to paint what they pleased. The Tempest was said to have been commissioned by a Venetian nobleman, but who could possibly have commissioned something as vague, as peculiar as this?


This is not for those who shun mysteries, who like things tied and bundled with neat rules and explanations. Giorgione’s painting is like the city that inspired it—Venice, that labyrinthian marvel on the waves, a place of blurry twists and turns forcing you to question what you see. Like Venice itself, this painting floats on a sea of questions and improbabilities.


Giorgione has prepared a visual feast for us but we are expected to bring something to the party, our own interpretation. This is the beginning of something modern. We get to participate in the creative process by deciding for ourselves what this painting means. In the future this concept will be taken for granted, but here in 1508 it’s a steamy little revolution.


Welcome to the feast. What do you think is happening in The Tempest?

33 comments:

  1. Maybe this was the 1508 equivalent of a velvet Elvis painting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know what the guy with the stick is thinking, "Hey, I may be wearing clown biker shorts, but at least nobody stole my pants. Like with that chick over there."

    ReplyDelete
  3. And another thing...I wasn't aware you had to doff your britches to breastfeed. Of course, I'm a man of my gender and, thus, am not privy to the fine art of suckling (well, for nourishment, anyway).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm thinking the guy is a tad "excited" (based on the artist's rendering of his groin) watching her suckle. He's thinking he's next. She's looking at us saying "in your dreams, sheep boy". Plus not only does she refuse to cover up her suckling with the proper suckling cloth, she's daring us to say something...so she thought she's take off her pantaloons to drive home the point. Adam and Eve? Poppycock! The mother of God? Not so much...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think that woman has just given birth to the suckling child, hence her lack of proper attire. But I can't figure out the guy with the stick at all. Weird clothing on him for the period. The storm clouds in the distance seem to presage wrath at the woman for, perhaps, having her baby out of wedlock. She seems to have been surprised by the viewer of this painting. You're right, Stephen, it's a strange one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. By the way, doesn't she look a teensy bit like Lindsey Lohan?

    ReplyDelete
  7. LOL Maybe Bruce has it right :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm exhaused just considering all the possibilities! Better to just enjoy the beauty than to try to analyze it!

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is a mystery. She wouldn't have to be naked to breastfeed and where are her clothes? All she has is the long sheet-like piece of fabric that she kind of draped over her shoulders. And where is her other boob? She has this one big round one, but no indication of another one--like the one-breasted woman.
    And that guy looks like some kind of dandy-wanna-be. Not sure what the connection is between them, but how could he have missed her, you know? Love the stormy landscape and the bird on the roof.
    I haven't a clue what's going on. But from the looks of it, neither do they. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fascinating; maybe he saw politics or religion in some way as a veiled threat, looking like a kindly guard (who really pays no attention to you) or a nurturing mother (again, who ignores the one she nurtures beyond the basics to keep it alive), but roiling with much unseen in the background which would be menacing if known. Then again, maybe i just think too much.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmmm....very interesting. I think the expression on her face is more telling than the one on his.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I haven't a clue, but then I rarely do. I know nothing of art. I know what I like and that's about it. I wouldn't hang this on my wall no matter how much it was worth. Just saying.

    Have a terrific day. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. The man is thinking,'oh, that's what they're for..who knew?' Seriously, you are teaching me to appreciate art...something I've not had a clue about before this. Smiles - A.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have no idea about paintings and art.I am just looking at it and it is a nice piece.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I, too, think the man with a stick is smiling because he is showing off his aroused state of... well you know.

    And I'm confused as well, why pants have to be removed to breast feed.

    These things truly are mysterious. However, I do believe you've solved one mystery, inadvertantly.

    The true inspiration for the recent Time magazine ad of Mom and toddler suckling at her breast.

    heh heh

    ReplyDelete
  16. A commissioned poster for La Leche League circa 1500? Kind of an "I dare you to tell me not to breastfeed my baby in public". Very forward thinking. :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think he is the secret "god of peeping" making yet another naughty appearance.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm no good at interpreting paintings.

    Looks like somebody beat me to it. My first thought was, "She was a woman ahead of the Times." At least she's suckling an infant, not a toddler. My second thought was, "That dude is packin'."

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have absolutely no clue, but I'm fascinated by how many questions one painting can stir up!

    ReplyDelete
  20. What a bizarre painting, but your post was quite interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I love seeing and learning about this stuff!! fun to think about...

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have no idea what's happening, but is that a bare bottom I see before me? Yes, I mean the guy in front of me in Target's checkout lane. I encounter the most interesting folks in Florida.

    Love,
    Janie ala Junebug

    ReplyDelete
  23. As someone who is of limited experience with art I find your commentary fascinating.You made me take a good look at the picture. These artists painted what they were told to paint but they were very skillful in their craft. The paints they had to use were much harder to work with compared to what is available today.
    As for what's going on? I'll leave it to others.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I can't understand why she is looking in the direction that she is; unless she is daring or challenging the audience. He just looks ridiculous in those pants. The landscape is beautiful. Perhaps they are a couple and this is a private moment captured on canvas for the whole world to see. I would actually like it without the guy and with her looking at the child.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yes, you're right, nothing holy about this. I would guess it was the nobleman's idea. Perhaps the woman was his mistress, perhaps that's him (or a version of him) in the left hand corner. Still a bit of a strange idea for a picture, as usually in those days there was some kind of ostensible theme. But I think my next step would be to find out more about the guy who commissioned the picture, and his life.

    I'd never noticed that this picture was so odd, not having taken any particular interest in Giorgione before. Thanks for giving me something to think about, and I'll take a look at more of his work now, as it is lovely.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It is hard to comment when seen only on a computer screen. I do like your discussion of it and would love to spend some time seeing the painting now and thinking about all you have said. Thanks for the intro!

    ReplyDelete
  27. It's what make the piece so interesting, if you asked 100 people about it I bet you would get 100 different answers. Personal interpretaion makes for damn good art. Nice ta tas though!
    Cheers, Sausage...

    ReplyDelete
  28. hi--new follower---i think the woman is trying to tempt the guard or soldier!

    ReplyDelete
  29. There's something about unanswered questions that elevate art to its highest form.

    xoRobyn

    ReplyDelete
  30. The woman looks like the precursor to the "Are you Mom enough?" woman. The man, isn't. Okay, I guess I am not into deep analysis today. I will have to contemplate when I am not in a goofy mood.

    Cat

    ReplyDelete
  31. An invite to help? A request to come and see her pain or maybe her burden? Not really sure but in those days, it could have meant anything.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I have interpreted the painting as the Rest on the Flight into Egypt. All the elements of the painting, including the nude Madonna, are explained in a paper on my website at http://www.giorgionetempesta.com. I also discus the painting and other aspects of the Venetian Renaissance on my blog, giorgione et al.

    You say some have been deterred from seeing the painting as a sacred subject because of the nudity of the woman. To whom were you refering?

    Frank

    ReplyDelete