In June of 1816, the ship Medusa set sail with three other ships to the Senegalese port of Saint-Louis, which had been given to the French by the British as a show of good faith to the reinstated French king, Louis XVIII. The ship held nearly 400 people, including the new governor of Senegal and his soldiers and 160 crew members. The captain was Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys, a 53 year-old man who had not been to sea in twenty-five years and had never commanded a ship before.
Wanting to make good time, the Medusa stuck close to the African shoreline and quickly outpaced the other ships. Unfortunately, it was too close to shore and inevitably hit a sandbar. Attempts were made to throw overboard extra weight in the hope of raising the ship out of the muck and floating out with the tide, but de Chaumereys wouldn’t allow the crew to get rid of the cannons for fear of angering his constituents back in France.
Eventually, everyone was forced to abandon ship. The wealthy and well connected were given space on the lifeboats while the rest, 149 people, were forced onto a makeshift raft which was tied by a rope to one of the lifeboats. At some point, the raft was either intentionally or accidentally cut loose. What followed was a two week nightmare of stormy seas, brutal murders, insanity and cannibalism. Just fifteen men survived the ordeal, and five of them died shortly after their rescue.
The tragedy became a major news event and scandal of its day. De Chaumereys was court-martialed, then acquitted because the French feared ridicule from the British for putting de Chaumereys in charge in the first place.
Two years later, the artist Théodore Géricault revealed his massive (16’x23’) painting, Raft of the “Medusa” (see Louvre site for details and a larger image). Géricault had thoroughly researched the subject by reading a pamphlet written by two of the survivors; he went to hospitals and morgues to study the dying and the dead (and even severed body parts which he let decay in his studio) and he set a raft out on the sea to see how it rode the waves. He also worked from live models and interestingly, the artist Eugène Delacroix was one of them. He is the corpse lying face down, arms outstretched, in the center of the composition.
The painting is a Romantic painting, a movement that closely followed the Neoclassical movement in nineteenth century France. The style relies on the drama and fluidity of the Baroque movement and utilizes loose brushstrokes, a strong palette, the sharp contrast of light and dark, and dramatic poses. The subject matter for Romantic paintings often came from literature but also included social criticism.
Géricault was strongly influenced by Michelangelo, as were nearly all Neoclassical and Romantic painters, and therefore painted idealized, muscular bodies, which in this case would’ve been a strong contradiction to how the men really looked. Note there are twenty figures in the composition rather than the accurate number of fifteen.
Compare this painting to Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel to see similarities in figures.
The massive size of the painting is in keeping with traditional historical paintings, although the subject was a current event and unlike most historical paintings, there is no clear-cut hero(s). Instead we have victims. People who are literally cast off because they exist on the lower rungs of society; they are at the mercy of the more crass machinations of society and clearly, in the end, it’s every man for himself.
A striking feature of the painting are the interlocking triangles, a common feature in Renaissance and Baroque paintings, and one that expresses Géricault’s academic training. Much has been made of the fact that the figure at the apex of the pyramid, who is waving a flag to a distant ship, is an African man; a very uncommon choice at this time in history. The people on the raft are divided into four groups; the dead and dying are at the center, then there are those struggling to stand up, a third group is comprised of three figures huddled together by the mast with one gesturing, and the fourth group is capped by the African waving the flag. Studying the painting from left to right, the physicality of the figures intensifies but not necessarily the emotional drama. The figures in the foreground display deep anguish and despair while the faces of the more active figures are a bit blurred or hidden in shadow or not seen at all. Note the seated figure in the foreground of the despondent father who holds onto the body of his dead son.
And as to the ship in the distance, despite knowing the story, the viewer never knows for sure if the ship the Argus is coming or going. In fact, the Argus did indeed disappear for more than two hours, causing even more panic and despair, before reappearing and rescuing the survivors.
The sky and water are definitely Romantic in nature as they also depict drama, shadow and light, and convey the strong forces that humans are often at the mercy of. Géricault spent a year just working on the sky and ocean.
The scene is abruptly foreshortened to add to the drama. This combined with a receding horizon are effective tools to include the viewer in the scene. I can only imagine what the painting is like at eye level; Géricault wants our empathy.
At the 1819 Salon, the painting was titled Scene of a Shipwreck in order to avoid criticism from the French government; a disconcerting decision considering how obsessed Géricault was with the creation of the work. Unable to find a buyer, Géricault exhibited the painting to the public in continental Europe and England and charged an admission fee, a popular trend at the time. 40,000 people came to see the work in London and it was viewed with horrified fascination. Eventually, the work did sell. It was saved by the French government from a group of French nobility who intended to cut the work up and sell it piecemeal. It can now be seen at the Louvre. Géricault died about five years after its completion at the age of thirty-two.
The existential implications of this work are potent. In his brilliant novel, A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters, Julian Barnes writes of this painting, “We are all lost at sea, washed between hope and despair, hailing something that may never come to rescue us.”
I’m curious about the artist’s situation and motivations. This huge painting must have been expensive to create in both materials and time, not to mention requiring a large studio. Was Géricault doing well enough to easily afford it? Did he assume that because of the furor he could readily sell it, or was making the political statement important enough that he didn’t care?
June, would this be big enough to satisfy you?
Tree:
Thanks for bring this up. I predict forty comments.
Allow me to get all visual and suggest a painting of a drive-in theater replete with rows of hansom cabs. Everyone is eating baguettes and fish and chips while gazing at the Raft of the Medusa being projected on the screen. Gericault’s painting is that cinematic.
Great story and writing. Enjoyed reading it. The social and political messages of this painting resound even today.
“According to recent data from the IRS, the richest 1 percent of Americans earned 21.2 percent of all U.S. income and the income gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans grew to its widest levels since the 1920s”
Yes, this painting is indeed appropriate.
Also, the wind seems to be blowing the sails in the opposite direction to presumed deliverance (if you assume that the people on the raft are looking to the top right of the painting for Argus the wind seems to be blowing top leftwards). Again, parallels can be drawn to today.
Tree, excellent post. Didn’t realize that was Delacroix on the raft! Reading the history behind the shipwreck, it struck me that not much has changed. The French dealt with the situation much the same way as our government did with New Orleans.
I’ve always loved Géricault’s painting. Here’s one I did years ago in response: Jericho
Sunil:
Considering that much of the rich/poor divide in America involves access to a doctor’s care, we might slightly alter the title of the painting to “Raft of the Med-USA”. Good art speaks through the ages.
David,
I liked the Medusa hair.
Jay,
Excellent appropriation. Loved it.
David! I’ve seen the Jericho painting on your Web site more than once and never made that connection! I love it.
Steve, I don’t get the impression that Gericault was ever the starving artist. He met with early success yet took a long, self imposed exile in order to improve his skills. During this time he managed to travel to Italy, and the studio where he painted “Raft” was his own. Maybe he relied on family money? Not sure. He certainly made a fortune showing the painting and lived a luxurious life in England.
There are some contradictions with the work, I pointed out a couple, which leads me to believe he wanted to sell it AND make a political statement.
Gericault was tempestuous and obsessive. When he began this work, he shaved his head, like an initiate, and hung a rather dramatic “do not disturb” sign on his studio door. He was well suited for the Romantic Age.
As to all the comments regarding how little has changed in our society, I’d like to ask then if there is any point to works that criticize injustice? Whatever Gericault’s intentions, the facts remain that no justice came from the French government; and when shown, the painting was viewed by many as just gory entertainment.
I have the possibly naive hope that art changes both inner and outer worlds. But can it change an injustice?
I have the possibly naive hope that art changes both inner and outer worlds. But can it change an injustice?
No, I don’t think it can. But it can provide metaphors that link to more direct political action. Rock and roll didn’t end the Vietnam War, but it did provide a soundtrack for the protests.
David,
Funny you should mention Katrina: Wikipedia (sorry, Tree) alerted me to an appropriation of Géricault’s composition for a New Yorker cover by Kara Walker that can be seen here.
Early Frank Cappa.
tsk tsk, Steve. If you’d read the comments on Sunil’s blog, you would’ve learned about that without relying on the evil Wikipedia. ;-)
It’s a much-appropriated image. There’s also The Pogues’ album cover.
It would make a great image for a wedding invitation.
whoa. Did I kill the conversation?
(It was just a joke)
Did I kill the conversation?
Not at all, I thought it was pretty funny. If I got an invitation like that though I’d probably eat before going to the reception.
Tree:
Have the rafteurs throw rice and confetti.
Tree,
Sorry, I’ve been too busy lately to read much at all. I did happen to catch last month at Art Blog by Bob a post on Géricault that mentioned his very different, and I think very compelling, paintings of psychological patients.
Thanks for bringing some more art history to us.
Steve,
You’re welcome, it was my pleasure.
Gericault was not afraid to go to dark places when it came to his art. Good for him.
I hope there’s a little more discussion about this painting tomorrow, I think there’s a lot of different topics we can cover.
Tree,
Why did you choose this painting to write about?
Steve,
I suppose my mind is like a Rolodex with files on all kinds of artworks. I happened to mention this work on Sunil’s blog the other day so it was at the forefront of my mind. It could’ve just as easily been another painting and I would’ve enjoyed writing about it just as much as this.
Do you do requests?
LOL! Sure!
Should I get a tip jar?
Why not carry forward through some significant connections. From this starting point, how about a Delacroix?
Hold out your jar, I just tossed a coin your way. Hope my aim is good…
Tree,
Many thanks for a fine run-down of a painting I was vaguely aware of. I do resist the “existential” reading, which seems to me to squash the very real historical event. It wasn’t every man who was cut adrift on a raft — it was 15 specific people who were horribly treated by others with more money and status than they. In that, I think the Kara Walker art is exactly appropriate. I’m embarrassed to say that I had not remembered the Walker piece nor apparently caught the reference.
David, could you comment on how Jericho responds to the Gericault? Aside from the sea and the boat, I mean.
I know nothing about Gericault, but with Tree’s and David’s enthusiasm, I think I might have to pursue. Anyone have a title to recommend?
Finally, this might be large enough for me, although terribly crowded, Steve, and watch the snide remarks about Wikipedia. I’m taking it up as a cause.
Tree’s the snide one, that’s why I had to apologize to her.
Moi? Snide? heehee!
Now that’s odd. I just typed out a long, incredibly intelligent and witty comment and it didn’t post. I’ll try again although I do detest reheated genius.
June,
A good work by Gericualt to study is An Officer of the Imperial Horse Guards Charging. This was his first great success and is a fantastic painting. If you get a chance, compare it to works by Ingres or David, especially David’s Napolean Crossing the Alps. You can see how art in the 19th century broke off into two branches and all that is considered Modern followed the Romantic art dictates rather than the Academic dictates.
As mentioned here, Gericault’s portraits of mental institution patients are compelling, although this topic can be controversial.
What do you mean about Wikipedia? I’m curious.
I take everything I read in Wikipedia as the truth.
uh oh
Almost forgot, did anyone notice the Hottentot Venus in the Kara Walker piece mentioned earlier in this thread?
Re; Wikipedia — has come a long long way, which makes sense when you figure out that it can be improved by anyone with a computer and an internet connection. Things improve by the minute, and those that get trashed get untrashed and the trasher’s computer banned. As someone said, a vandalized page only remains about 5 minutes.
If there’s inaccurate info on any Wikipedia page you see, Edit it out!
They have just a couple of rules: Neutral point of view, no personal observations, and give references for anything that isn’t common knowledge.
Jer (housemate and husband) has taken up editing Wikipedia and is having a grand time. I’ve taken up assuring people that it’s good and if it’s not good, it’s up to them to fix it.
Hello.. i have a question, this is for my school… can somebody pleaseeee help me with this…
Why wasn’t the raft of Medussa well recieved in the 1918?
Ayesha,
I found the following on Wikipedia. Not that it’s necessarily authoritative, but it’s a good starting point, and the article is loaded with references to follow up on.
Géricault had deliberately sought to be both politically and artistically confrontational. Critics responded to his aggressive approach in kind, and their reactions were either ones of revulsion or praise, depending on whether the writer’s sympathies favoured the Bourbon or Liberal viewpoint. The painting was seen as largely sympathetic to the men on the raft, and thus by extension to the anti-imperial cause adopted by the survivors Savigny and Correard.[14] The decision to place a black man at the pinnacle of the composition would have been controversial, and was an expression of Géricault’s abolitionist sympathies; the art critic Christine Riding has speculated that the painting’s subsequent exhibition in London was planned to coincide with anti-slavery agitation there.[49]
Gericault came from a wealthy family and therefore did not have to please his patrons. Painting what he wanted, without self-censorship, makes him an early ‘modern artist’ in my view.
Public response to the events surrounding the tragedy on the raft was split between factions in France. Depending on your predispositions you could choose to believe one version or another. The dramatic recreation of the human tragedy that took place on the raft focused public outrage and kept the underlying issues alive. Other survivors also met tragic fates, but the experience of those left behind on the grounded Medusa, or those who died after surviving the overland trek to safety are less well known, in part, because they weren’t chronicled in art. Art has a function in society, something easy to forget in the current market driven art ‘market’.
The Bourbons never learn.
The one piece of the story i cant understand is why was de Chaumereys given responsibility over the whole fleet.
Every text i have read fails to go into detail.
Help?
mary,
It appears de Chaumereys owed his command to his political connections at court. In addition, he was a fervent royalist, while many of the experienced navy officers had served under Napoleon. There’s more detail in The Wreck of the Medusa by Jonathan Miles.
Thanks for that!
looks like l’ll have to take a trip out tomorrow to get my hands on that book.
After reading Arabella Edge’s novel “The God of Spring”, a fictional account of Gericault’s endeavors in painting The Raft, I became really amazed in his passion for the arts. This is a really great painting.
Hi Fun and Fearless!
I just finished The God of Spring this morning wanting to be done with the dark, horrific topic and all of Gericault’s drama. I wanted to see the painting in detail and have been visiting the various sites to read about comments. Edge’s descriptions do justice to the work and it would be something to see this on the wall at eye level in full life size. If I ever get across the Pond to the Louvre I imagine I will spend the bulk of my time there in awe.
Steve;;;
hey Steve! I am actually writing my paper on this piece, so I have a fair amount of background info on Géricault. Basically when he was young, his mother died and she left him with a generous amount of money so I’m positive he used a portion of that money to buy the supplies and everything!
Having been introduced to this painting only 1 year ago, I have read and studied the work a little, even enjoying a street artist recreating in actual size the painting on canvas on the streets of Sydney, Australia. All your comments have helped me understand the artist and the painting a little more, so thank you. Oh and BTW tree, I just broke your prediction of 40 comments. Have a nice day all!
the man who holds the dead body of his son, in the front, makes me think deeply. Can anyone meditate so deeply in such a urgent situation, in such a death risk? What do you think of his deep thinking? ?s it simply because of the shock that the death of his son causes?
After reading one of the above comments, I had to make a correction about the number of people that were put on the raft. According to my text by Laurie Adams, Art Across Time Vol II, there was originally 149 passengers put on this raft after the six lifeboats aboard the Medusa were full. The captain cut the rope from the lifeboat and left these people to fend for themselves. They endured a thirteen day voyage where the “raft became a floating hell of death, disease, mutiny, starvation, and cannibalism. Only 15 people survived” (Adams 715). Hope this helps anyone needing it!
Tree:
I have been tasked to come up with some kind of argument for Géricault. Would it be safe to say that he dove into researching for this painting so much, with the whole secluding himself in his studio, and living among decaying limbs to understand the conditions that those on the raft must have experienced, that he could have caused some type of psychological damage to himself? Explaining how he met the Psychiatrist for whom he painted portraits of the insane…
hi all,
Thank you for the info. We are making a piece of theatre about this painting. There was one woman on the raft. She was a cantiniere. Do you know anything about her ??
is there any successful and scholar to interpret the raft of medusa from aesthetic
point of view….immediately needed help.