Episode 2171 | Beauty in the Grotesque: Understanding Goya’s Darkest Painting

>> Three, two, one. >> Stand in summary. >> Hi, y'all. Welcome to another episode of the Exploring Art Podcast. The FIU Student Podcast for the creative and the curious. I'm your host of the podcast, Aaron. I'm very pleased to have Abby Gail and Jouzer with me to talk about this episode. Welcome to the Exploring Art Podcast. So today we're going to be discussing about, so today we're going to be discussing one of Francisco Goya's most infamous pieces of art, Saturn, either being his son. >> So the painting Saturn devouring his son was created by Francisco Goya in his later years of life. But what's more important is when he made this. Well, of course, this was during his later years of life where he was dealing with a lot of mental illness and isolation. >> Yeah, and that's something very interesting to take note on. The fact that he was nearly death, which kind of makes sense at his age. He was in his 70s. He died at 83, so it's definitely towards the end of his time. But this painting is part of a series called The Black Paintings, which he started while he, you know, he started experiencing that loss of hearing, which kind of withdrew him from society and it isolated him, which definitely probably influenced that darker tone that you see in his work later in life. His Black Paintings were also painted directly onto the wall of his estate. So it wasn't even meant to be really seen by the public as much as it was a product of his mental state and insanity while he was there, especially considering all these paintings were filled with themes and things that are very good-task or often deemed taboo by a public. So then do you guys think that makes the art more personal? Like it directly reflects his own thoughts and fears instead of just telling the story or the myth? >> To be honest, I think so because the art that he was creating during this time period, especially Saturn eating his son was very, quite literally, very emotional, quite raw, very kind of disturbing. So I feel like when you make something like that, it's not really to impress anyone. It's just to express something. You're not trying to have the random Joe walk into the museum to impress him, be like, "Oh, look, it is very talented artist trying this beautiful thing." It's more of a, wow, this guy is really thinking about something, he's going through something, he's trying to speak without speaking. So this painting is based on the myth of Saturn or more particularly in the Greek version, "Cronos eating his kids." The story in particular says he was afraid that one of his children over there lived due to a prophecy and given by Aranos right before his defeat by Cronos and his siblings. So he ate his kids and particularly took them from what I've heard right after their birth. However, his wife, in rebellion, especially because she was seeing all her kids get eaten, helped allow for Zeus to escape by food and Cronos. Later on, the hope of Cronos' wife, Efreta's siblings from Cronos' stomach, which started the whole revolution, fulfilling the prophecy and creating the new Age of Gods. But the way that Goya kind of depicts the myth of Cronos eating his son is definitely way more intense than the story you just told. Goya depicts something very symbolic and very graphic, very violent, especially when you think of it kind of compared to one of these modern day books that we have of that kind of time period of Cronos. You know, when you think of Percy Jackson, which is a good example in this case, the interpretations are completely off when it comes to comparing Percy Jackson to Goya's version of the story. And in this image that he kind of created, it feels like Saturn isn't even a god here. It's so grotesque and so vicious, you can see kind of how he might not be god, he might not have like any sense of moral, any kind of sense of moral guidance. And he's more like a monster just acting out of fear for loss of his power. So then do you think he was just illustrating a myth or was he trying to say something deeper about how we as humans behave? I think it's something a lot deeper and feels like about fear and what people are capable of when they're feeling this fear and trying to hold onto power. For me, particularly, it reminds me of Cuba or particularly the the Gospel of the family regime, the castles and particularly the devil took a lot of actions and particularly atrocious violations of humanity while he was still alive. Particularly he would take political opponents and he would eliminate them in mysterious accidents that can't be proven or not. Even though it's kind of an open secret between the Cuban public that these are not accidents, but they were intentional. And actos de la Pludio or acts of reputation where they organize crowds and mobs to verbally and physically abuse and harass opponents deemed counter-revolutionary or not communist. It really is a show of fear and it's really evidence of said fear to take those drastic acts specifically to stay in power and to show that you're a control. I think it really shows that they're not and this is how afraid they are that they're willing to do such atrocities. So Cronus' myth of eating his kids I think is a perfect reflection of human nature and what they're willing to do is stay in power. For sure. So then you would say this is more about what's your call? You would say this painting is more about his personal struggles or about what was happening in Spain at the time. So be completely fair, considering that during Goya's time when he was living in Spain, there was a lot of violence, there was a lot of chaos, a lot of revolts. It adds to that aspect of his personal struggles, but he was also very much depicting the Napoleonic wars that were going on in his own country. This connects Goya directly depicting Francis Saturn and the Spanish people as Saturn's son, which as we know from the myth, France in this case Saturn was so afraid to lose power that they're devouring their own people, not exactly the French people, but their companions, their neighbors that live just right below them, the Spanish. What do you think, Abby? I think that, yeah, especially considering how we've seen throughout history, you've seen leaders act down in fear. Well, of course I mentioned the Cuban regime earlier. You can also look at Venezuela. Maybe not quite at the same level and same Cuba has, because of so many Cubans having been able to escape the Iceland, but especially with other regimes, like the Communist regime and the USSR and the Nazis, we all see the exact same pattern of behavior where they eliminate their opponents or at least they try their best to maintain power. So there'd be through bloody or maybe through blackmail. It all is really a pattern of behavior and destruction. So in a way, this painting is kind of like a warning of human nature and what we do when face the rock in a hard place. This painting really challenges the idea, like the idea that we as a society develop like of beauty. Because when you first look at it, it's not something most people will call beautiful. We all agree with that statement or not. Me personally, yes, 100%. Normally we think of beauty in our as something, pleasing to see something that brings you joy, brings you happiness, something that, you know, I might have you thinking like, wow, I wish I was there. I wish, you know, I could wake up and have this view outside of my bedroom window. But, you know, you turn around and you look at what Goya created. It's very chaotic. disturbing it's very you know it's not something you would call beautiful just out of the blue you know. That was right in a very traditional sense this is something that's very horrific very ugly very grotesque but at the same time in a very not traditional sense it's powerful it grabs your attention it hooks on to its staring interior soul it's not beautiful in a traditional sense but in the mirror maybe the spiritual in how engaging it is how it's staring interior soul it's beautiful and that power it will make it gain this beauty that many may not consider traditionally. Yeah and that's a good point because it's very interesting how even though it's so disturbing it's so grotesque you know you show it's an eight-year-old and they'll probably have nightmares for a couple weeks. Some people might you know feel like throwing up seeing that depiction of someone getting torn limb from limb and being and being eaten by someone but people still go to museums just to see it in person which kind of shows how even though it's so disturbing it's still beautiful in a sense. Yeah so then do you do you guys think something could still be considered beautiful even if it's disturbing or I'm comfortable to look at? I think yes you know especially with this painting like we said before it leaves an impact it's something that you look and you don't forget it you know you see it out of the corner of your eye and you glance back at it because it's so kind of out of the ordinary for what some people might consider beautiful that it's something that definitely leaves a very deep impression on you. And especially with modern art the beauty is considered through expression rather than appearance. Let's take for example two years ago with a few modern art pieces particularly the banana taped on a wall which sold for 6.2 million years ago two dollars a couple of years ago back from 2019 and Marcelo Duncamps' "Fontaine" which is a gold toilet with a tag on it. It really shows how I mean it then people love that toilet while others absolutely hated it. It's really a reflection of how beauty is very subjective and even more how expressions and what's meaning behind it can be found more beautiful than the item but so. So in a way a painting can be considered beautiful not by by not by its look but by its meaning and sense. 100% that that's very true. When you start thinking about kind of the time period that this was made you know it's a kind of Renaissance time period and if you really look at the older Renaissance paintings it's kind of quite the opposite of what go your main. So I feel like this kind of connects back to that idea you know the toilet and the banana and oh um the toilet is kind of considered like the concrete landmark separating modern art going forward. So at the same time these series of black paintings kind of act as that mark as well because it wasn't just go you at the time. You know I know there's some other artists that during this time period were also creating these kind of grotesque paintings which you know it focused more on that emotion that they were feeling at the time because you know the political climate or the war whatever was going on in their personal life from isolation illness you know family struggles whatever it may be but it kind of marked a shift in that focus more towards emotion and expression than a pleasing beautiful image that like I said before some people might want to wake up and look outside and that's what they see. It's almost as if Goi is trying to say that it doesn't have to be perfect to be meaningful. Now for sure I was a great analysis on that so then do you guys think of the definition like the finite definition of beauty and how we see it has changed over time from like back in the Renaissance to all of that do you think it's changed? Oh most definitely um to be fair modern audiences definitely seem to be more open to different forms of being you know expression through art even if they're uncomfortable you know like we said before we have the toilet some people hated it some people loved it same thing with the banana some people hated it some people loved it you know it it definitely shows how much we've changed together uh and throughout the whole world as a society that we're no longer making art for beauty but also for a deeper emotion and as time continues more people in society they're becoming more able to kind of appreciate and understand that emotion that people are going through. Hmm you really reflects how art is a lot of things not not only physical beauty and I really think this affects the modern definition kind of quoting about your son it's not as much as the physical beauty as much as the meaning behind it. Yeah for sure I also wanted to talk about um specifically like how the painting was was created basically like how it was made you know like in the way it looks visually what do you guys think or notice about this style? Well definitely to begin with it's a very dark painting almost depressive you could say. The painting is almost solid black except the you know the two main characters depicted the background is very dark kind of bringing that focus on Saturn himself and what he's doing with his son the way that he's holding him in his hand. Yeah and it's like the breath folk they look very rough not smooth not detailed not it's not meant to be detailed it seems very chaotic very it's meant to be very unsettling how it was painted more intense and less in control. Yeah and I definitely think that adds to the emotion because that chaotic way of painting makes it more expressive it it helps the audience kind of begin to understand what was going through his mind what he was living through even hundreds of years after the painting was made that way of you know those rough kind of careless brush strokes completely changes the feeling that that painting is. It's very reminiscent of the impressionist area that comes later on a bit after joy and especially considering he used a technique developed a little earlier called jurasco it where it's meant to be very dramatic shading very dramatic and how and how this subject that self is painted to really emphasize the drama that's occurring in the painting. And they get pretty visible with Saturn devouring his son. So even like how they're holding the brush not even just the image itself like even how they think as mean as really as really much for how deep it gets with that. We had just to wrap up we've looked at go his personal life and influence on like how influence his paintings how the myth adds meaning how the technique affects the painting and how it challenges traditional ways that we see beauty what did what could you all like what was the biggest thing you could take away and just think about from time to time for me. For me definitely with all those examples that Abigail gave about you know the more recent political climate with Cuba and as well what happened with the USSR and all of that it my biggest takeaway is definitely how how fearful some people can be to lose the power that they have or to lose the power that they're growing into and how that fear can lead them to such extreme actions where like in Cuba you know they're taking out whoever might offend the revolution you know and they're essentially lying to their people as well because you know for example like Abigail said with Fadal and Cuba they were you know accidents mysterious accidents and it was kind of obvious that you know they weren't accidents considering that whenever someone would speak up about being against the revolution, they, you know, magically something happened. - They did it here. - Yeah. - All right. - It also makes me think, you know, that art doesn't really have to be pretty, but it's more about the power behind it, how powerful it is, what it makes others feel and understand. My personal takeaway is how it changes how beauty is interpreted in itself, and how it's more based on it meaning and motion, and how it affects you and your soul and your mind, and whether it calculates your mind, especially because this is very considered traditionally a very ugly, a very disgusting grotesque painting. - This is sure for sure. So yeah, that's basically our appreciation offer joining me, you know, I'll be going to jowze a good discussion, good talks, and that concludes the exploring art podcast. Y'all should subscribe to iTunes, Spotify, SoundCloud, or wherever you get your podcast at. Thank you so much for listening, and please join us soon. Remember to stay curious. We got that 20 more minutes.