Raft "Jellyfish"

The plot of the picture is based on a real incident that happened on July 2, 1816 off the coast of Senegal . Then, on the shallows of Argen, near the African coast, the frigate Medusa crashed. It was planned to use frigate boats to evacuate passengers, for which it would be necessary to make two voyages. It was supposed to build a raft in order to transfer cargo to it from the ship and thereby contribute to the removal of the ship aground. The raft 20 meters long and 7 meters wide was built under the supervision of geographer Alexander Correar. Meanwhile, the wind began to intensify, and a crack formed in the ship's hull. Considering that the ship could break, the passengers and crew panicked, and the captain decided to leave it immediately. Seventeen people remained on the frigate, 147 people switched to the raft. There was little provision on the overloaded raft and no controls and navigation.

In conditions of pre-storm weather, the crew on boats soon realized that it was almost impossible to tow a heavy raft; fearing that the passengers on the raft would panic into the boats, people in the boats cut off the tow ropes and headed for the shore ^[1] . All the survivors in boats, including the captain and the governor, reached the coast separately.

The situation on the raft, left to its own devices, turned into a disaster. The survivors were divided into opposing groups - officers and passengers on the one hand, and sailors and soldiers on the other. On the very first night of the drift, 20 people were killed or committed suicide. During the storm, dozens of people died in the struggle for the safest place in the center near the mast, where they stored scarce supplies of food and water, or were washed away by the wave overboard. On the fourth day, only 67 people survived, many of them, tormented by hunger, began to eat the corpses of the dead. On the eighth day, the 15 strongest survivors were thrown overboard the weak and wounded, and then all weapons, so as not to kill each other ^[1] . Details of swimming shocked modern public opinion. The captain of the frigate, Hugo Duroy de Chomarei, a former emigrant who was responsible for most of the deaths of raft passengers, was appointed under patronage (he was subsequently convicted, received a suspended sentence, but was not informed about this) ^[1] . The opposition accused the government of what happened. The Navy Ministry, trying to hush up the scandal, tried to prevent the publication of information about the disaster in the press ^[2] .

In the fall of 1817 the book “The death of the frigate“ Medusa ”” was published. Eyewitnesses of the event, Alexander Correar and the doctor Henri Savigny , described in it a thirteen-day wandering raft. The book (probably this was its second edition, 1818) fell into the hands of Gericault, who saw in history what he had been looking for for many years - a plot for his large canvas ^{[K 1]} . The drama "Medusa", unlike most contemporaries, including his close friends, the artist perceived as a universal, timeless story ^[3] .

A kind of prologue to "The Raft ..." was the painting " The Flood " (influenced by the painting of the same name by Poussin ), which Jericho wrote in 1814. Even then, he chose a strict black-and-white gamut, developing a “landscape drama”, however, which did not receive further development in French painting (with the exception of Yue and Isabe) ^[4] .

Gericault recreated events through a study of the documentary materials available to him and meeting with witnesses and participants in the drama. According to his biographer, Charles Clement, the artist drew up a "dossier of testimonies and documents." He met Correar and Savigny, talked with them, and even probably painted their portraits. He carefully read their book, perhaps in his hands fell the 1818 edition with lithographs that accurately enough conveyed the history of raft passengers. The carpenter who served on the frigate, performed for Gericault a small copy of the raft ^{[K 2]} . The artist himself made wax figures of people and, placing them on a raft model, he studied composition from different points of view, perhaps using the camera obscura . Gericault was one of the first in a series of European artists who practiced the development of a visual motif in plastic ^[5] .

According to the researchers, Gericault might have been familiar with Savigny’s pamphlet, “Review of the effects of hunger and thirst, experienced after the death of the frigate Medusa” (1818). He visited hospital morgues, doing sketches of dead heads, emaciated bodies, severed limbs, and in his studio he, according to the artist O. Raffe , created something like an anatomical theater. No one has ever approached with such attention to the image of death. A trip to Le Havre completed the preparatory work, where Gericault wrote etudes (not preserved) of the sea and sky ^[6] .

The art critic Lorenz Eitner singled out several main plots that Gericault drew attention to in his creative search ^{[K 3]} : “Salvation of victims”, “Battle on the raft”, “ Cannibalism ”, “Appearance of“ Argus “” ^{[K 4]} . In total, in the process of choosing a plot, the artist created about a hundred studies, the scenes of rescue of surviving passengers and cannibalism on a raft turned out to be the most interesting for him ^[7] .

Finally, Gericault dwelled on one of the moments of the highest tension in history: on the morning of the last day of the raft drift, when the few survivors saw the Argus ship on the horizon ^[8] . Gericault rented a studio in which a grandiose canvas conceived by him could fit (his own studio was insufficient), and worked for eight months, almost without leaving the workshop ^[9] .

According to the testimony of a student of Vernet and a friend of Gericault, Antoine Montfort, Theodore painted directly on an untreated canvas (“on a white surface”, without undermining and colored soil ), on which only a preparatory drawing was applied. However, his hand was firm:

“I watched with what close attention he looked at the model before touching the canvas with a brush; he seemed to be extremely slow, although he actually acted quickly: his smear went exactly in its place, so that no corrections were necessary ” ^[9] .

In the same way, David wrote in due time, the method of which has been familiar to Gericault since his apprenticeship with Guerin ^[10] .

Achieving greater expressiveness of volumes, trying to unite the figures in a common tone, the artist darkened them more and more, and filled the shadows with almost black. Enhancing the contrast between light and shadow, he resorted to using bitumen - a transparent material of a dark brown tone. Subsequently, bitumen and actively used Gericault oils with desiccants led to the darkening of the picture, having absorbed a few “splashes” of bright colors, made its color colder, and craquelures appeared in the paint layer ^[11] .

Gericault was completely absorbed in the work. Before, he led an intense social life, but now he didn’t leave his house and even cut his hair so as not to try to return to his former pastime ^[1] . Only a few of the friends went into the workshop. He began to write in the early morning, as soon as lighting allowed and worked until the evening. Gericault posed by Eugene Delacroix , who also had the opportunity to observe the artist’s work on the painting, breaking all the usual ideas about painting . Later, Delacroix recalled that when he saw the finished picture, he “in ecstasy rushed to run like a madman, and could not stop until the house” ^[12] .

Gericault created a composition of four groups of characters, abandoning the classical constructions using parallel lines, he formed an energetic diagonal. From the bodies of the deceased (“the“ frieze of death ”of the six defeated giants") ^[14] and the father bending over his son, the viewer's gaze is directed to the four figures at the mast. The dynamic contrast of their restraint is made by people trying to rise, and a group of signaling towards the ship.

The naked dead in the foreground - an appeal to the themes of the Dance of Death and the Triumph of Death, traditional for European art - the nudity of a dead person is interpreted as the “absence of all blessings” and contrasted with the nudity of “natural”, “divine” and “criminal”. Death is even worse when no one notices it, when no one mournes the dead ^[14] . The bodies of people who spent two weeks almost without food and water should have been more exhausted, but the artist wrote beautiful athletes. Thus, he achieves greater universalization, raising private drama to a universal tragedy ^[1] .

The ocean does not take up much space on a huge canvas, but the artist managed to convey the feeling of "the scale of the raging elements" ^[15] . The faces of the characters are turned to the ship, disappearing on the horizon, thereby the space is even more open, and the audience of the picture is involved in the action ^[1] .

The giant canvas impresses with its expressive power. Gericault managed to create a vivid image, combining in one picture the dead and the living, hope and despair. There is no central hero, the artist reveals his plan through the actions and emotions of each raft passenger ^[16] . Subtle colorist Gericault, unlike his other works, relied on dark monochrome shades that emphasize the tragic atmosphere. It is possible, however, that initially the colors were more intense, and later the colors darkened a lot. The artist gave the figures of characters in double lighting: in order to avoid a silhouette image against a bright sky, to sculpt the volumes of human bodies, he flooded the raft with a diagonal stream of light from the lower left corner to the upper right, repeating the general movement of people ^[17] .

The painting was completed in July 1819. In front of the Salon, large canvases were collected in the lobby of the Italian Theater . Here Gericault saw his work in a new way and decided to immediately redo the lower left part, which seemed to him insufficiently convincing as the basis for the pyramidal composition. Right in the lobby of the theater, he rewrote it, adding two new figures: a body slipping into the sea (Delacroix posed for him) and a man standing behind his father with a dead son. Two crossbars in the center of the raft underwent alteration, and the raft itself was lengthened on the left - thus giving the impression that people were crowded on that part of the raft that is closer to the viewer ^[18] .

Gericault exhibited “The Raft of the Medusa” in the Salon of 1819, and, as V. Turchin noted, “it is surprising” that this painting was generally allowed to be shown. The Salon of 1819 was replete with works glorifying the monarchy; the main genre on it was historical, allegorical and religious subjects were also widely represented. Religious painting was patronized according to a special program and easily bypassed hitherto popular mythological subjects. Perhaps the painting Gericault appeared in the Salon thanks to the efforts of his friends ^[19] . To reduce the topicality of the canvas, it was exhibited under the name "Scene of a shipwreck" ^[20] .

The "raft" was placed in the Square Hall, above the door to the Grand Gallery. The place was honorable, but the picture did not produce the impression that those few who saw it in the studio and in front of the Salon in the theater lobby did not experience. The large distance between the viewer and the canvas did not allow him to feel what the artist put into him, making him only an “unhealthy fantasy in the Girode style”. Through the efforts of Dedreux-Dorsey, two months later, the picture was moved to another, more suitable place - in the bottom row ^{[21] [1]} .

King Louis XVIII , who spoke of the painting in such a way, drew attention to the “Medusa Raft”: “Here, Mr. Gericault, a catastrophe that could become a catastrophe for the artist who portrayed it.” These words, published in the official press organ, the newspaper Le Moniter , at first were perceived as a recognition of the success of Gericault, and were repeated in different ways ^[22] . A little later, the observer of the same Le Moniter, Emerick Duval, analyzed the picture, noting the artist’s “somewhat abstract inspiration”, which, nevertheless, in the opinion of the critic, “perfectly expressed all her horror” ^[23] .

The author of an article published in the royalist newspaper “ La Cotidien ” pointed to the incorrect design allowed by Gericault where “the purity and correctness of the lines should be achieved”. This was done, according to the critic, for the sake of the “main effect”. The coloristic decision of the picture was not made - a single brown tone. Similar comments regarding the “Medusa Raft” at that time were voiced by many critics who did not accept the picturesque language of Gericault ^[24] .

O.-I. Keratri wondered if the artist should even take up such an “unworthy” plot. S.-P. Landon wondered why Gericault had chosen the large format for his painting. In his opinion, such a painting is not suitable for a public building, or for the “monarch’s palace” or the “cabinet of the art lover”, his fate is to remain in the artist’s workshop ^{[K 5]} . Landon also pointed out the shortcomings of the compositional structure that could not be sustained "in a single manner", "gray and monotonous" lighting, and the wrong pattern ^[26] .

Etienne Delecluse , a representative, like Landon, of David’s school, noting that Jericho had high expectations, nevertheless reproached him for his fascination with “light effects” and confirmed the truth of those who criticized the overall tone of the picture. However, he noted the merits of “Raft ...”: “this is a strong idea, well expressed, which unites all the characters, this is the gradual development of images of the unfortunate, though rather monotonous. It is possible to regret that the artist opted for such a plot ... ” ^[27] .

The audience - the opposition with approval, and the royalists with indignation - noted in the picture a political orientation, criticism of the government, due to which the passengers of the Medusa died. Someone, such as, for example, the author of the pamphlet The Most Noteworthy Works Exhibited at the Salon of 1819, Go de Saint-Germain, saw the exclusively political focus of the Medusa Raft ^[28] .

According to the first biographer Gericault, Louis Batissier, people of art, accustomed to sublime and abstract subjects, did not appreciate the canvas. Only a small part of relatives and masters who are open to the new congratulated the artist on his success. According to Batissier, Gericault did not pay attention to criticism, however, as documents later discovered show, he perceived negative reviews very painfully. In one of his letters, he notes: “An artist, like a buffoon, must be able to relate with complete indifference to what comes from newspapers and magazines.” Then Gericault ridicules the desire of the press in painting to see only the artist’s desire to approve this or that idea, to seek political background in any work of art. “The unfortunate people who wrote such nonsense, of course, did not go hungry for two weeks, otherwise they would know that neither poetry nor painting could fully convey the horror experienced by those remaining on the raft ...” ^{[K 6] [29]} .

The work on the monumental canvas exhausted Gericault, he wanted to go to the East in order to escape from illness and hardship in his personal life, to get new impressions, but his friends dissuaded him. Soon, the artist met with the English entrepreneur William Bullock, a tenant of several exhibition halls in London, known as the Romanesque Gallery. Bullock shortly before meeting with Gericault organized a successful exhibition of one painting - Guillaume Letier’s paintings “Brutus condemning the death of his sons” (in England, free from the dictates of academic circles, private exhibitions of individual works took root). Gericault, wanting to improve his financial affairs (the artist received part of the admission fee), convinced Bullock to show in London "The Raft of the Medusa." Gericault hoped that in a country with developed maritime traditions, his work would be understood. The plot, which formed the basis of his canvas, was known to the British public thanks to the English translation of the book of Correar and Savigny that appeared in 1818 ^[30] .

Bullock took the idea enthusiastically and began an advertising campaign in the press. On June 10, 1820, selected visitors — the aristocracy and local art circles — were given the opportunity to see the painting in a private show, and on June 12, the exhibition opened to the public. The painting was exhibited until December 30, and it was seen by about 50 thousand people ^[31] .

Gericault, who arrived in England, received what he lacked in his homeland - recognition of his work by spectators and critics. All newspapers wrote about the exhibition, and the production of “The Death of Medusa, or the Fatal Raft” appeared on the stage. “Medusa” was called a masterpiece, they saw in it “the real truth”, “nature”, and Jericho was awarded a comparison with Michelangelo and Caravaggio . The British, who did not know well modern French painting, mistakenly ranked him among the representatives of the David school. A critic from The Times noted the "coldness" inherent in this school, and found in Jericho's painting "coldness of color, artificiality of poses, pathetism." The London exhibition was successful and financially - Gericault, who was entitled to a third of the proceeds from the sale of entrance tickets, received 20 thousand francs. However, in Dublin ^{[K 7]} , where Bullock weakened the advertising pressure, the picture did not arouse such enthusiasm among the public, and the local press did not honor the exhibition with its attention ^[32] .

After the death of the artist in 1824, the painting, along with other works and collections of Gericault, was auctioned. The head of the Department of Fine Arts, Viscount de Larochefoucault, who was contacted by the director of the Louvre de Forben, asking for a canvas, offered 4-5 thousand francs for it, although it was estimated at 6,000. There was concern that collectors who were going to share the grandiose would buy Medusa canvas in four parts. The painting was bought by Dedreux-Dorsey for 6005 francs, acting as an intermediary in the transaction ^[33] . In 1825, de Forben managed to find the right amount, and the main work of Gericault took his place in the Louvre ^{[34] [35]} .

It is characteristic that interest in the painting of Gericault intensified during the years of political crises and revolutions. According to G. Laviron and B. Galbaccio ("Salon of 1833"), the picture "brought the revolution closer." The journalistic pathos of “Plot” was in demand during the fall of the Second Republic , marking the death of society. Gericault’s masterpiece was often accessed in the 1960s and 1970s, linking it with modern realities (for example, members of the Malassis group performed panels for a shopping center in Grenoble based on this work) ^[36] . Surrealist Luis Bunuel was inspired by her ^[37] to create the film "The Fighter Angel " (1962) about a group of people whom rock isolated from the outside world - but not on the raft, but in the living room of a luxurious mansion. In 1968, the German composer Hans Werner Hentze wrote the oratorio “The Medusa Raft”, the production of which (Hentze performed it together with Ernst Schnabel ) resulted in a political scandal - the oratorio was dedicated to Ernesto Che Guevara ^[38] . A year later, Vercors novel “The Raft of the Medusa” ( Le radeau de la Meduse ) was released.

In 2002, made the film "The Beauty of Disaster" (cycle " Palette ", France), dedicated to the painting of Gericault.

In the book “ History of the World in 10½ chapters ” by Julian Barnes, chapter 5 is devoted to the painting of Gericault.

• Kozhina E. Romantic battle: essays on French romantic painting of the 1820s. - L .: Art , 1969. - 272 p. - (A series of albums "The artist's work on the painting").
• Turchin V. Theodor Gericault: Monograph. - M .: Fine Arts , 1982. - 208 p. - 35,000 copies.

• "Raft" Medusa "" in the database of the Louvre (fr.)
• Ilya Doronchenkov. "The raft of the" Medusa "of Theodore Gericault (neopr.) . YouTube Arzamas. Date of appeal October 31, 2017.