|
Death must be somewhere in a society; if it is no longer (or less
intensely) in religion, it must be elsewhere; perhaps in this image which
produces Death while trying to preserve life. Contemporary with the
withdrawal of rites, Photography may correspond to the intrusion, in our
modern society, of an asymbolic Death, outside of religion, outside of
ritual, a kind of abrupt dive into literal death. Life/Death: the paradigm
is reduced to a simple click.
Roland Barthes
And loathsome canker lives in sweetest bud.
Shakespeare
In Anne MacDonald's
Ophelia, flowers, emblems of the tragic heroine's beauty and fragility,
float in a symbolic black void. 'As isolated as suicide’ noted the critic
Elwyn Lynn of the cortege of fifty-two images, each individually framed in
funereal black, strewn across the gallery space like the scattered coronet
in Shakespeare's weeping brook. In 1994, Ophelia was
distinguished as the first photographic work to be selected for the
prestigious Moet & Chandon touring exhibition of contemporary
Australian art. (MacDonald's work was also selected for the two subsequent
Moets.) MacDonald has a knack for distilling a complex interplay of
meanings in her allegories of the transience of life. Her referents are
literary, social and art historical.
Last year, she was one of seven artists invited to participate in
Death, an exhibition instigated by the Trustees of the Rookwood
Necropolis in
Sydney.
Rookwood is the largest Victorian cemetery in the southern hemisphere; it
contains a special burial ground where members of ethnic communities bury
and mourn their dead in accordance with their religious customs. Many of
these rituals involve the symbolic placement of food on grave sites. The
food is left to stink and rot. Here then, the timeless association of food
with celebration fuses with the taboos of death. Macdonald produced
Vanitas for the Death exhibition. While this spectral image of a
decomposing wedding cake draws on the symbolic life/death ambivalence of
food at Rookwood, other, submerged, meanings surface via the photograph's
association with peak moments in Western art's long romance with death.
VANITAS AND ITS MEANINGS - To the literary minded,
Vanitas is a clear allusion to Miss Havisham's ghastly wedding banquet
in Great Expectations. MacDonald's ravaged wedding cake is in an
advanced stage of decay, draped with sticky cobwebs, its virginal
whiteness sullied by the dark spots and running spores of cancerous mould.
In the novel, the celebratory status of food is also a symbolic link
between beauty and loss, life and death: that living corpse, Miss Havisham,
proposes to be laid out amid the grotesque festive remains at her death.
However, time has not yet reduced MacDonald's cake to the gothic ruin of
that memorable banquet. Vanitas is a deeper meditation on decay and
death than the blighted nuptials and dashed hopes personified by the
yellowed Miss Havisham.
To the art-historically minded, the work refers to Dutch vanitas
paintings of the seventeenth century, allegorical still lifes which
symbolised the vanity of human desires, the futility of luxury and wealth,
and the evanescence of life. In these meticulously painted, splendidly
illusionistic renderings of the good things of life, subtle hints of
incipient decay trouble luscious surfaces: a faint bruise on a peach, the
transparency of a petal, the droop of a stem. Vanitas paintings
cross over with other still life categories of the period: flower, fruit,
dessert and confectionery, Ontbijtjes (Laid Tables) and depictions
of the five senses. (Miss Havisham's banquet is narrated as a Laid Table
still life inextremis.) MacDonald's Vanitas fuses these
various categories and refers to many of the traditional meanings
associated with them. The more elaborate vanitas paintings show a
disturbance in a perfect arrangement of food and the evil agent of that
disturbance, usually a mouse or an insect - often a spider. In
Vanitas
these agents of defilement reside in the viscous depths of the rotting
cake; the gloomy tatters of their handiwork contrast ominously with the
bouncy coils of festive ribbons in the crowning bouquet.
Sugar was introduced to
Europe in the early 1600s, replacing honey as a sweetener. Confectionery
still lifes reflected the interest in desserts which came to a climax at
this time when numerous delicacies had been introduced as new luxuries.
The seemingly innocuous and often curious arrangements of crystalised
sugar, candied fruits and biscuits dusted with icing sugar carried a
powerful moral message. Initially, sugar was a metaphor for spiritual
sweetness; confections formed part of religious table scenery, along with
bread and wine. When it was discovered to be addictive, sugar became the
symbol of lust. A lover's aria of the time begins, ‘The memory of sugary
lust inspires me with fear. Damned food, it will harm me in a worldly way.
If one has tasted something and is not supposed to taste it again, then it
becomes empty and pathetic.’ Sugar in a still life, by its very presence,
indicated corruption. These two meanings became fused as they are in the
more modern symbolism of the iced wedding cake, whose coating of virginal
white encases that other morally ambiguous confection - candied fruit.
Just as fish or bread in vanitas paintings were symbols of Christ,
so MacDonald's wedding cake may be read as a metaphor for the body.
For followers of recent photography, the aesthetic of Vanitas
can be compared with, say, The Morgue series by the American
photographer Andres Serrano. These photographs of corpses strangely and,
to some, disturbingly, transform harrowing images of violent death -
suicides and victims of murder, burning or drowning - into art objects of
seamless beauty. As in a Serrano, MacDonald's Vanitas is sealed off
- embalmed - in its own technical perfection. A discomforting tension is
established between its aesthetic beauty and the presence of death at the
heart of its subject, manifested as the camera's intimate scrutiny of
corporeal decay.
For students of photographic discourse, Vanitas establishes
an elaborate dialogue with photography's paradoxical status as both 'flat
death' and that which captures and preserves life's fleeting moments. In
Camera Lucida Roland Barthes writes of the shift in the practice of
commemoration since the advent of photography. Earlier societies erected
monuments to immortalise Death (and the memory of the living). A
photograph - the fugitive testimony by which we now preserve memory - is
itself ephemeral: 'By making the (mortal) photograph into the general and
somehow natural witness of "what has been" modern society has renounced
the Monument.' Vanitas resonates with these ideas about the nature
and role of photography. The rotting cake is like a ruined funerary
monument, with its architectural structure, fluted columns, stuccoed
surface, even its marbled bouquet of fading roses. Its mural size is in
itself monumental, suggesting, as MacDonald writes in her notes to the
work, 'the elemental density of a sepulchral monument constructed out of
stone or marble'. Photography's symbolic association with death is
predicated on its being a framed cut in real time; this is further alluded
to in the image's evocation of time: Vanitas has recorded a late
moment in a process of decay rather than a 'fleeting moment of life': we
have the sense that the process of decomposition is taking place before
our eyes.
How does a work of art convey death? A recent publication which
explores the subject claims it is impossible. For many years a famous
painting exerted a fascination over me. Until recently its power was
largely a mystery. Strangely, for it has been neither a source nor a
referent of her work, nor have I ever discussed it with her, it was Anne
MacDonald who led me to see why. As I became more familiar with her work
over a period of three years, the secrets of this masterpiece began to
unravel like the unfolding plot of a detective novel.
ART AND DEATH - In Art and its Objects Jeanette Winterson
writes of being profoundly moved to an appreciation - and ensuing
investigation - of the power of superior works of art by her chance
sighting of a painting in an
Amsterdam gallery window. Her awakening occurred when she was in her
mid-thirties. These moments of epiphany, even for one who spends one's
life looking at art, are rare. No work of art is truly universal in the
sense that anything approaching a majority of people are swept away by
their response to it. Simone de Beauvoir makes this perfectly clear when
she writes of her disappointment and boredom with the Parthenon.
My moment of epiphany occurred twenty years ago in
Brussels on sighting Marat assassine (The Assassination of Marat,
1793) by Jacques-Louis David. I glimpsed it on the far wall of a gallery
in the Musees Royaux and had to look away. (Our first instinct is to avert
the gaze from death. Moreover, this is a work of breathtaking beauty.) As
I stared sightlessly at other works in the museum I regained my
equilibrium by rationalising my response before I returned to it. As a
student of art history I simply couldn't get over the fact that a
neoclassical work - that coldest and most rational of figurative styles,
with its supreme control, its restraint, its grandeur of design and heroic
calm – could convey such tragic vulnerability, such terrible poignancy.
(This emotive stuff was the business of romantic painters like Delacroix
and Gericault.) And to be, at the same time, formally, so austere, so
perfectly simple, so consummately graceful, so exquisitely beautiful.
Eventually I realised that what had moved me was largely inexplicable. It
was the power of the painting's presence.
When I returned to it I recognised that I was in the presence of
the supreme portrayal of death.
The Marat is heroic in scale; the hero’s death, for the
first time in art history, is unheroic, as existentially lonely and
bewildering as being suddenly murdered in your bath, as Marat was. The
‘friend of the people’ lies slumped, like a Grunewald Christ who has
collapsed off his cross, in his strangely sheeted and table-clothed bath,
which doubles as his writing desk. His life’s breath is almost depleted;
death is imminent. Apart from a crude packing case and a few clues to his
martyrdom, the rest of the tableau is bare.
Afterwards I read that Marat assassine had, shortly after
its completion, been adopted as the icon of the French Revolution during
the Reign of Terror. Given its effect on me, I was not surprised to learn
of its role in shifting the Revolution back in upon itself. I also learned
that the supreme painter Jacques-Louis David was one of the six leading
political figures of the Terror, along with Robespierre, Danton and Marat.
David had signed countless death warrants and watched as hundreds
confronted the horror of the guillotine. He was genuinely grieved by the
murder of the loathed and dangerous Jean-Paul Marat, so was emotionally
equipped to depict him as a kind of Everyman whose death represented
martyrdom for the Revolutionary cause.
David's biographer, Anita Brookner, describes him as being in a
hypermanic state - en delire - during this period when he produced
his greatest works: 'It is as if David is animated at a subliminal level
by a sense of the historically apposite... murder and treason are in the
air he breathes. 'This explains the power of Marat assassine. Here
is an artist who understands death. More to the point, he presides in its
company, colludes with its terror. In 'the divine Marat', as
Baudelaire called it, the presence of death is, through some process of
osmosis, subsumed into the very fabric of the work.
Metaphysics accounted for the uncanny power of the painting but not
for how the presence of death is achieved formally. Outside of the quest
for formal perfection and the centrality of death, what can an
eighteenth-century painting of a dying martyr have in common with
contemporary photographs of flowers, luxuriant draperies and a
time-ravaged wedding cake? Whenever I looked at Anne MacDonald's works I
thought of the Marat and I couldn't say why.
As I became more familiar with her techniques and innate sense of
theatre, I saw that my literal reading of the painting was blinding me to
its formal devices. (Brookner states how the Marat established an
art-historical precedent: for the first time art and life were fused.) I
discovered that its formal simplicity - its seemingly accurate reportage
of the circumstances of Marat's death -masked a highly complex and
brilliantly stage-managed piece of theatre. Jacques-Louis David was not
the Revolution's Director of Public Festivals for nothing. For a start he
had transformed the physically repugnant Marat, with his ugly face and a
body encrusted with the disgusting sores of his leprous skin disease, into
a quasi-religious image of Christlike beauty, his form arranged with all
the balletic grace of a performance by Nijinsky.
Beauty in art is commonly thought of as existing 'for its own
sake'. This is not so; beauty is always inextricably bound up with the
meaning of a work. Through MacDonald's Ophelia, where barely
perceptible hints of decay despoil the flowers' succulent surfaces, I
learned that in art death must be conveyed through beauty. David's
beautification of Marat went beyond serving the cause of the Revolution,
though an attractive martyr is more likely to inflame the passions of the
populace than an ugly one. Beauty was a necessity. This is because its
formal perfection represents intactness, and it is thereby an analogy for
that which is alive. And this is why Marat is shown at the point of death
rather than actually dead. Death cannot be revealed; rather it must be
sensed as a silent, insidious presence. (This is why personifications
of death in art, skeletons for instance, seem melodramatic or
border on the comic: to reveal death just doesn't work.) A work of art
hints at death through defiling beauty's intactness. The more exquisite an
image of transience, the more we are affected by its death. (Andres
Serrano knows this: his most shocking images are also the most beautiful
ones.) It is the same in Vanitas. Anne MacDonald's task has, in one
sense, been more difficult - to make us see that a cake was once an
object of great decorative beauty, of architectural magnificence even.
At some point another connection between MacDonald and the Marat
dawned on me. I had always, unconsciously, thought of the Marat
not as a figurative painting at all, but as a still life, as, in fact, a
vanitas painting. David had had the audacity, the genius, to
transpose the devices of the still life painter onto the representation of
a dying human body. The whole mise-en-scene of the Marat is
reminiscent of the Laid Table still lifes, which often contain finely
painted table-cloths and draperies. Anne MacDonald's Annunciation
series showed me that draperies can have connotations of a shroud. I now
saw that the draped sheets, the turban, the green cloth in the Marat
are in effect his shroud, imparting to the whole the sense that Marat's
bathroom is also a morgue. MacDonald's habit of casting her images with
blue to seal them in the cold light of death corresponds to the eerie
green light suffusing the Marat, which culminates in the deathly
silence of the stark greenish wall behind him that occupies nearly half
the picture. The same blank silence hangs in MacDonald's black voids. The
faint bruise on the petal, the brown spot on the apple, has been
translated into the small searing red cut in Marat's healthy flesh, and
its faint dribble of blood, just below the collar bone. This modest though
deep wound sets the teeth on edge, just as we are unnerved by the absence
of the piece of icing in the top tier of Vanitas. We don't care to
think about what dark state of mush the interior body of that cake might
be in beneath its decent envelope of icing, what cloying odour of
putrescence it might give off. And above it, ossifying, sits the
antithesis of the putrid - flowers.
Marat wore a vinegar-soaked turban on his head (he wears it in the
painting) to ward off infection which, at the time, was believed to be
carried by foul-smelling miasmas emanating from decomposing flesh and
fissures in the earth's crust. The rent in his flesh would have been
keenly felt by a contemporary audience. Clefts, cuts, fissures, were
causes of deep anxiety. While this is obviously bound up with the
psychology of the Terror, our own horror of the body's internal organs is
no less neurotic. As Wendy Steiner has written of Serrano's The Morgue
series:
The form of the body - the skin, the comely exterior - hides contents that
are as shapeless and nightmarish as Freud's id. One of our primal terrors
is that this form will spring a leak, letting the insides - fluids,
organs, life - spill out, to become visible and, in the process,
deathly... The flawlessness of bodily form is a reassurance of mortal
safety and a denial of death.
This terror of the internal erupting through the skin leads to the
final lesson about the Marat, which I came to understand through
MacDonald's Vanitas. It is to do with prescience and a stillness
which suggests imminent movement. The most hidden of the secrets of
David's evocation of Death's presence is the trace of tension in Marat's
slumped form, which suggests this latent movement. (In the countless
copies that have been obsessively painted of the masterpiece in the past
200 years, not one, to my knowledge, has managed to capture this: in them
Marat looks doped or merely asleep.) Marat's body is at that critical
point of passivity where soon, when he exhales his last breath, it will
sag completely and his head will loll right over the side of the bath. The
painting's pathos is in its moment.
In the bottom tier of the wedding cake the icing has parted, leaving a gap
which suggests something more final than cadaverous insides. The base of
the cake is beginning to sag; soon the whole structure will collapse into
the penultimate stage of decomposition - formlessness. It will become an
obscene heap of liquefying matter. The shuddering thud of that sudden
collapse, the ensuing formlessness, these are the ultimate horrors.
Vanitas and Marat assassine both prefigure this moment.
Victoria Hammond |