The Massacre of the Innocents
The painting has used the common imagery of a household rug to divide itself in two panels. That of an outer panel which contains a series of borders, and an inner panel containing a series of shapes and ornaments. In fact the inner panel has been based upon a portion of a painting by Peter Paul Rubens named “The Slaughter of the Innocents”.
However than making this artistic reference explicit it has been hidden behind a complex designed pattern. That is, the figures within this painting have been converted into conventional floral patterns and ornaments familiar to the format of a Persian rug. Patterns have also been used from a woman’s wedding 2odni” (shawls) of the Rabari shepherd caste, from the Badin District of Sind Pakistan, in order to contrast with the subject matter Ruben’s painting. As such there is a contrast between the subject and object. The subject being the terrible slaughter of women and children, while the object is a Persian rug, a familiar image in a domestic setting. Salient details add to its fullness. For example, in the outer panel, the blue and red border depicts two men carrying pears and two women in a repeated design. This was used as a visual linkage between the inner and outer panel, in order to give some clues to the viewer as to the nature of the inner panel.
In its illusionary function, it has connotations of the Surrealist practice of looking at rugs in order to gain imagery used later in paintings. What the Surrealists saw in them, they believed, was imagination in the primitive state. This painting responds to their same efforts, but depicts this process at the beginning, rather than at the end, at the start of the conversation rather than at its conclusion. It thus represents a surrealism related conceptual picture that is similar in representation to Jasper John’s “American Flag” paintings. The painting is argumentative and questions one’s assumptions about the world, about the relationship between a painted and a real object.
Automatically upon viewing it, parallels have been made between the work and paintings by Georges Seurat due to the pointillist manner in which it has been painted. This technique was employed because it proved useful in unifying the picture surface. Also used was his and Georges Braque’s practice of repetition of shapes in order to increase surface decoration. However there is a fundamental difference as the primary concern in Seurat’s painting was the conflict between the synthetic and the real. This painting concentrates on the synthetic, and thus utilizes the artistic vocabulary of a manmade object in its execution.
However than making this artistic reference explicit it has been hidden behind a complex designed pattern. That is, the figures within this painting have been converted into conventional floral patterns and ornaments familiar to the format of a Persian rug. Patterns have also been used from a woman’s wedding 2odni” (shawls) of the Rabari shepherd caste, from the Badin District of Sind Pakistan, in order to contrast with the subject matter Ruben’s painting. As such there is a contrast between the subject and object. The subject being the terrible slaughter of women and children, while the object is a Persian rug, a familiar image in a domestic setting. Salient details add to its fullness. For example, in the outer panel, the blue and red border depicts two men carrying pears and two women in a repeated design. This was used as a visual linkage between the inner and outer panel, in order to give some clues to the viewer as to the nature of the inner panel.
In its illusionary function, it has connotations of the Surrealist practice of looking at rugs in order to gain imagery used later in paintings. What the Surrealists saw in them, they believed, was imagination in the primitive state. This painting responds to their same efforts, but depicts this process at the beginning, rather than at the end, at the start of the conversation rather than at its conclusion. It thus represents a surrealism related conceptual picture that is similar in representation to Jasper John’s “American Flag” paintings. The painting is argumentative and questions one’s assumptions about the world, about the relationship between a painted and a real object.
Automatically upon viewing it, parallels have been made between the work and paintings by Georges Seurat due to the pointillist manner in which it has been painted. This technique was employed because it proved useful in unifying the picture surface. Also used was his and Georges Braque’s practice of repetition of shapes in order to increase surface decoration. However there is a fundamental difference as the primary concern in Seurat’s painting was the conflict between the synthetic and the real. This painting concentrates on the synthetic, and thus utilizes the artistic vocabulary of a manmade object in its execution.
There are no likes
Comments 0
Say something