Judith Slaying Holofernes is possibly my favourite painting of all time and I get unreasonably excited when it pops up in my day to day life so thank you for writing this! I had the privilege of seeing the painting in person in the Uffizi in Florence a few years ago and I was totally spellbound by its brutality- that spurt of blood and the expression on Judith's face... *chef's kiss*. However, the true moment of female rage for me was watching all the other tourists walk right past Gentileschi round the corner to see Caravaggio's Medusa (1597). I couldn't help but feel that it was a particularly cruel curatorial decision to have such an emotive depiction of female vindication be overshadowed by the painting of a more famous male artist, the subject of which has now become synonymous with male violence against women. If they had been exhibited in reverse order the story would have been entirely different, and made considerably more sense, I think.
I think this is my favorite piece of yours yet! I love the connection you draw between the importance of female authorship in depicting female rage, and it was so cool to learn about Gentileschi! I hope this exhibit is still open this summer when I go to Paris!
Aw thank you so much! Yes this is a bit more politics and theory-heavy than my other posts but I’m goad you liked it! I would also love to see the exhibit
Yes, "rage" and "angry" don't remotely equate. Would be a poorer world without female depictions of male rage and male depictions of female rage, though something special comes out in, say, "minority" depictions of "minority" rage. And given this age of increasingly acknowledged gender fluidity....
I work through depictions of human rage and human anger both male and female in a serialized novel "Most Revolutionary" which ideally would be directed by a woman or non-male as movie or TV series, given the inevitable layering of experience and biology, psychology that comes with that: "During a killer Iowa blizzard, fearless DAPL militant and radical plant nursery grower Sabia Perez first saves then kidnaps the stranded President of the USA to ransom a better world."
Rage and anger can both clarify and overwhelm the minds of the actors (agents) and any audience both.
An awesome article, Rebecca! The more I talk to men, the more I realize how few of them even try to empathize with a woman's point of view - it's so foreign that they can't even imagine it. How sad is that? Thank you for this - my blood is boiling! Here's to Women's Day!!
Yes, I become more aware of this as I get older! But some men really do try, and they respect women and appreciate the struggles we have. Of course… not ALL men do…
Thanks for this brilliant writing! I saw the original last year in Florence, so powerful. The great women artists podcast was where I first heard about Artemisia, worth a listen.
so interesting, I wasn't familiar with Artemisia Gentileschi's work prior to this and am so excited to delve deeper into her depictions of women in art!
Forgive me. I do have a few thoughts about the two Judiths however. These paintings would have been performances of the Biblical myth. Personal intentions would have been incidental and largely irrelevant to contemporary viewers. My view is that the underlying contemporary importance was as a homily on agency or free will, or crime as an expression of free will. For Catholics, especially post 1517 and Martin Luther, agency as a genesis of sin is a foundational concept. (That Judith was Jewish is not unimportant, either.)
You are absolutely right that this is a representation of a biblical parable. It’s certainly interesting to question whether Judith acted of her own free will or whether she was an agent of God’s will. Did she enter the enemy camp of her own free will? If so, did she murder Holofernes under false pretences? etc.
However, I do not think it’s unimportant that Artemisia Gentileschi painted the most violent painting of her career - a painting of a woman murdering her would-be rapist - one year after she was tortured at her own rape trial!
The story of Judith is somewhat obscure. Holofernes is not characterized as a rapist as much as simply too trusting. All the violence seems to be on Judith's side.
“Judith was left alone in the tent with Holofernes, who lay sprawled on his bed, for he was drunk with wine…. When all had departed, and no one, small or great, was left in the bedchamber, Judith stood by Holofernes’ bed and prayed silently, “O Lord, God of all might, in this hour look graciously on the work of my hands for the exaltation of Jerusalem. Now is the time for aiding your heritage and for carrying out my design to shatter the enemies who have risen against us.”
I don't know how Gentileschi understood the story, but her painting may not be about retribution but female empowerment.
Yes, Tassi was convicted of raping Gentileschi. I will defer to your understanding of female retribution and empowerment in this context. I am not wholly convinced by the Holofernes as Tassi interpretation, but I know little about the genesis of this iteration of the story. It is a surprisingly popular theme, and what the largely illiterate 17thC population would have been intended to understand by these painting I don't know. What I like to do, though, is pick at received wisdom. While you may be right and Holofernes is Tassi for Gentileschi; I think the context, even for Gentileschi, was/is richer than that.
Judith Slaying Holofernes is possibly my favourite painting of all time and I get unreasonably excited when it pops up in my day to day life so thank you for writing this! I had the privilege of seeing the painting in person in the Uffizi in Florence a few years ago and I was totally spellbound by its brutality- that spurt of blood and the expression on Judith's face... *chef's kiss*. However, the true moment of female rage for me was watching all the other tourists walk right past Gentileschi round the corner to see Caravaggio's Medusa (1597). I couldn't help but feel that it was a particularly cruel curatorial decision to have such an emotive depiction of female vindication be overshadowed by the painting of a more famous male artist, the subject of which has now become synonymous with male violence against women. If they had been exhibited in reverse order the story would have been entirely different, and made considerably more sense, I think.
I think this is my favorite piece of yours yet! I love the connection you draw between the importance of female authorship in depicting female rage, and it was so cool to learn about Gentileschi! I hope this exhibit is still open this summer when I go to Paris!
Aw thank you so much! Yes this is a bit more politics and theory-heavy than my other posts but I’m goad you liked it! I would also love to see the exhibit
Great post, and thank you for linking the exhibition. I hope I can make it. I am a fan of her work.
Yes, "rage" and "angry" don't remotely equate. Would be a poorer world without female depictions of male rage and male depictions of female rage, though something special comes out in, say, "minority" depictions of "minority" rage. And given this age of increasingly acknowledged gender fluidity....
I work through depictions of human rage and human anger both male and female in a serialized novel "Most Revolutionary" which ideally would be directed by a woman or non-male as movie or TV series, given the inevitable layering of experience and biology, psychology that comes with that: "During a killer Iowa blizzard, fearless DAPL militant and radical plant nursery grower Sabia Perez first saves then kidnaps the stranded President of the USA to ransom a better world."
Rage and anger can both clarify and overwhelm the minds of the actors (agents) and any audience both.
Thank you, Rebecca, for this wonderfully written essay!
You have opened my eyes to the concept of female rage. And I now appreciate the difference between depictions of it made by women vs men.
I’ll try to be better, I promise!
Haha, thank you John!
An awesome article, Rebecca! The more I talk to men, the more I realize how few of them even try to empathize with a woman's point of view - it's so foreign that they can't even imagine it. How sad is that? Thank you for this - my blood is boiling! Here's to Women's Day!!
Yes, I become more aware of this as I get older! But some men really do try, and they respect women and appreciate the struggles we have. Of course… not ALL men do…
great post rebecca 💕
Thanks Juju!! 🥰
Oh what a good piece! All the connections, so clear and concise, a bunch of ideas (and paintings, texts) to follow-up on and think about. Thank you.
Thanks for this brilliant writing! I saw the original last year in Florence, so powerful. The great women artists podcast was where I first heard about Artemisia, worth a listen.
so interesting, I wasn't familiar with Artemisia Gentileschi's work prior to this and am so excited to delve deeper into her depictions of women in art!
Ms Marks, do you believe in free will? Just curious.
*Dr Marks :)
Forgive me. I do have a few thoughts about the two Judiths however. These paintings would have been performances of the Biblical myth. Personal intentions would have been incidental and largely irrelevant to contemporary viewers. My view is that the underlying contemporary importance was as a homily on agency or free will, or crime as an expression of free will. For Catholics, especially post 1517 and Martin Luther, agency as a genesis of sin is a foundational concept. (That Judith was Jewish is not unimportant, either.)
You are absolutely right that this is a representation of a biblical parable. It’s certainly interesting to question whether Judith acted of her own free will or whether she was an agent of God’s will. Did she enter the enemy camp of her own free will? If so, did she murder Holofernes under false pretences? etc.
However, I do not think it’s unimportant that Artemisia Gentileschi painted the most violent painting of her career - a painting of a woman murdering her would-be rapist - one year after she was tortured at her own rape trial!
The story of Judith is somewhat obscure. Holofernes is not characterized as a rapist as much as simply too trusting. All the violence seems to be on Judith's side.
“Judith was left alone in the tent with Holofernes, who lay sprawled on his bed, for he was drunk with wine…. When all had departed, and no one, small or great, was left in the bedchamber, Judith stood by Holofernes’ bed and prayed silently, “O Lord, God of all might, in this hour look graciously on the work of my hands for the exaltation of Jerusalem. Now is the time for aiding your heritage and for carrying out my design to shatter the enemies who have risen against us.”
I don't know how Gentileschi understood the story, but her painting may not be about retribution but female empowerment.
Do you think retribution and female empowerment are mutually exclusive in this context? I think they are one and the same!
Holofernes may not outrightly be characterised as a rapist, but Tassi certainly was…!
Good Morning Dr Marks,
Yes, Tassi was convicted of raping Gentileschi. I will defer to your understanding of female retribution and empowerment in this context. I am not wholly convinced by the Holofernes as Tassi interpretation, but I know little about the genesis of this iteration of the story. It is a surprisingly popular theme, and what the largely illiterate 17thC population would have been intended to understand by these painting I don't know. What I like to do, though, is pick at received wisdom. While you may be right and Holofernes is Tassi for Gentileschi; I think the context, even for Gentileschi, was/is richer than that.
Do you really not see the difference in passion between these paintings?
Of course, but my experience of the world suggest to me that motivation is seldom so black and white. There is much of interest in the halftones.
I would LOVE to see it in person!! Was it very powerful?