Peter Paul Rubens - Samson and Delilah, 1609 (The National Gallery)
Anthony van Dyck - Samson and Delilah, 1619-20 (Dulwich Picture Gallery)It is often a useful exercise to compare and contrast treatments of the same subject by different artists in an effort to hone your skills of visual analysis. We have now collected three different versions of the Biblical story of Samson and Delilah but, for the purposes of this exercise, let's consider these two versions above. It seems clear that van Dyck would have been aware of Rubens' picture since he was employed in the master's studio in his early career. There are clearly similarities in the treatment of Samson's betrayal by Delilah, but also some interesting differences.
Why do you think these artists were so captivated by this particular Bible story?
What similarities can you see in these depictions of the story? What about the differences? How have both artists approached the treatment of light? How would you describe each artists' handling of paint?
In what sense do both of these paintings belong to the style called Baroque?
Here are a couple of other versions of the Samson and Delilah story, one by van Dyck later in his career and another by Rembrandt.
Anthony van Dyck - Samson and Delilah, 1630 (Kunsthistorisches Museum)
Rembrandt van Rijn - Samson and Delilah, 1630 (The Rijksmuseum)
Why do you think these artists were so captivated by this particular Bible story?
What similarities can you see in these depictions of the story? What about the differences? How have both artists approached the treatment of light? How would you describe each artists' handling of paint?
In what sense do both of these paintings belong to the style called Baroque?
Here are a couple of other versions of the Samson and Delilah story, one by van Dyck later in his career and another by Rembrandt.
Anthony van Dyck - Samson and Delilah, 1630 (Kunsthistorisches Museum)
Rembrandt van Rijn - Samson and Delilah, 1630 (The Rijksmuseum)
4 comments:
The story of Samson and Delilah i think has captivated artists for many years because it is a story that speaks to every generation, including betrayal, courage and love. The story from the first testament is slightly less worthy than others, and would interest the illiterate audience it was required to speak to.
There are a few similarities with the first two paintings. The pose of the subjects, Samson and Delilah both stretch across the base of the canvas, and there is a diagonal line from the face of Delilah to Samson's foot. They also both include an old lady onlooker, creating drama and a sense of conspiracy in the paintings, peeking over Delilah's shoulder. Similarly, there are people at the doorway, ready to ambush the helpless Samson, ever emphasizing and strengthening the drama of the betrayal. Finally the feature of the expensive and elaborate fabric in both paintings mirrors the Baroque time and period they were both created in, displaying a degree of opulence and wealth that onlookers would be attracted to.
There are conversely, many differences between the two depictions, the handling of light primarily. Rubens features a specific light source, bringing consistancy and a sense of believeability. The source firstly picks up on Delilah's face and then consequently Samson's face, back and arm, the light adds shape and depth to the painting and sets the mood of the scene/night. In comparison, Van Dyke deals with light in a completely different way, there is so specific light source, and the distrubution of light is therefore not consistant at all. Delilah is strangely illuminated and provides a firstly a stark contrast to Samson, but then also to the rest of the painting. Parts of Samson that should be in light in context to Delilah's dress are not, like his forearm and face. One has to wonder whether this was done with intention to make Delilah the main focus of the painting, or whether the fact that the painter had different sitters/life models on different days and therefore could not reach a consistency. (Possibly leading to the other attempt ten years later.)
Another difference is the dipiction of Delilah herself, in Rubens' painting, she seems more sympathetic, almost reluctant, hesitant to betray Samson, looking longingly at him. She is passive whilst a man buts off his hair, one hand on his back, the other by her side, holding her up. Whereas, Van Dyke shows her more active in his destruction, keen. Her hands in comparison are instructive, one hand helping with the cutting of his hair the other pointing, instructing, her mouth open as if speaking, telling the others what to do.
The paint management by Rubens' is smooth, soft but at the same time, shapes and creates well the fabric and bodies of the main subjects. However when looking at Van Dyke, in my opinion he handles the paint more crudely, or lazily. The colours (and again) light are not consistent. The characters and subject's emotions are less believable, they seem more cheaply dramatic.
In conclusion, as you may have guessed I prefer the Rubens, the quality of the painting is more fluid and the subject matter is dealt with more sensitively, bringing a new element to the story, more human. One can relate to it and it seems more real.
I agree that the Rubens is a more accomplished work; more sophisticated in its visual effects. You do a good job of comparing the paintings Flo. They are almost mirror images of each other in terms of the basic composition but Rubens creates a deeper stage for the action, whereas Van Dyck's figures seem cramped. I do like the treatment of the old procuress in Van Dyck's painting who seems to be enjoying the spectacle of Samson's loss of strength with real relish. In terms of the way Rubens deals with light (and reflecting back on a previous discussion about Rembrandt's treatment of the same subject) you might want to have a think about the words "chiaroscuro" and "tenebrism", both of which are useful terms to describe the relationship between areas of light and dark in a painting (17th century onward). here's an interesting quotation from the art historian Rudolph Wittkower about Caravaggio's paintings:
"With Caravaggio light isolates; it creates neither space nor atmosphere. Darkness in his pictures is something negative; darkness is where light is not, and it is for this reason that light strikes upon his figures and objects as upon solid, impenetrable forms, and does not dissolve them, as happens in the work of Titian, Tintoretto and Rembrandt."
What approach has Rubens taken in this image? Does light strike objects as "impenetrable forms" or does it help to "dissolve" them? You describe Van Dyck's treatment of paint as "lazy". What do you mean? Can a looser treatment of paint sometimes be a very positive attribute? You may want to look at an early painting by Titian and compare it with a much later painting to get a sense of what I mean by this? Anyway, great post and don't forget to check out the brilliant Richard Long show at Tate Britain when you get a chance.
Greetings! I just found your blog through a random Google search. I particularly enjoy this post, since I'm an art historian that specializes in Baroque art.
It seems to me that these Baroque artists were all drawn to the Samson and Delilah story because of its dramatic nature, whether the drama was imbued in the tension of Samson's capture or in the moments before Delilah cut Samson's hair. This drama totally aligns with the aims of Baroque art.
Also, in true Baroque fashion, all of these paintings contain a lot of diagonals in their compositions (which consequently heightens the dramatic effect). I particularly like the swooping diagonal of Samson and Delilah's bodies in the Rubens painting.
Great post! I look forward to checking this blog often. If you are interested, I also have an art history blog: www.albertis-window.blogspot.com
Cheers!
Thanks for your contribution M. I'll add your blog to our list. Look forward to hearing from you again at some point.
Post a Comment