Spencer Yan

Modernism - Prompt #2

Goyas The Third of May 1808, though it captures a temporal and finite moment in history, is
constructed in a way that nevertheless appeals to a universal feeling of artistic sublime, thus allowing
countless viewers centuries after its origin to identify with the figures and situations being depicted,
despite the latters precise temporal location in history. Through the usage of certain juxtapositions and
geometric constructions, Goya is able to effectively render an otherwise irrelevant and singular point in
history into a powerful and meaningful image that is still relevant, and perhaps even echoed, in our own
times.
The immediate reaction one might have in response to 3 May is a feeling of abject bleakness and
perhaps even horror. The subject manner, even divorced from the historical context, is remarkably grim: a
group of (seemingly) unarmed men are being executed before a firing squad in the middle of the night,
depicted in graphic detail. The painting itself is cast in a muted, capricious mass of undulating darkness:
figures fade in and out of obfuscation, with some forms even outright disappearing into the shadows void
of distinction. The harsh contrasts of light and dark form a sort of chiaroscuro of despair, where the light
is artificial and singular, while the surrounding inky darkness is enveloping and ubiquitous, threatening at
any point in the picture to encroach upon the scene and snuff out the imposed light. The feeling of
claustrophobic distress is very prominent, as over half of the painting is cast in a murky nebula of black.
The only visible background in the picture, what we can only assume is a mountain, does not liberate the
scene, but rather confines it, traps it in a spatial cage. We dont need to know the historical or artistic
contexts of 3 May to know that something is grotesquely wrong. Clearly, this is a situation which we are
not supposed to see, something that happens in the middle of the night thats unspeakable in the daylight.
3 May appeals to us on a visceral level, and thus achieves a sort of immortality.
The subject matter of the painting only further emphasizes its bleakness, yet it is also in the
subject matter that we can find the very qualities of the painting that make it so universal and relevant
even to this day. In terms of lighting, the central focal source emanates from the man with arms
outstretched in an act of optical hagiography. Not only does all the light in the picture seem to emanate
from him, his dominance in the figure is emphasized by the strong angular conversions in his form: his
arms form an implied triangle which immediately draws our eyes, a figure which is repeated again in the
opened collar of his shirt, further emphasizing his thematic importance. The only other angular
convergence lies at the feet of the soldiers; the light of the lantern shoots out across the ground and forms
a literal (in terms of light) divide between the soldiers, who are enveloped in darkness, and the peasants,
who are suffused with light. In a sort of primal perception of light, we are automatically attracted to the
victimized peasants. The fact that the soldiers backs are turned to us, combined with their vertical
positions in an otherwise geometrically-unsound painting makes them unidentifiable to the viewer, and
thus unrelatable. They are also the most harshly-delineated figures in the painting - heavy, thick
brushstrokes separate them from their environment, in contrast to the peasants, who are painted tefaceh
of with looser brushstrokes and smoother blending. The combination of these forms allows us to
emphasize strongly with the peasants, invoking the power of visceral reactions to basic geometric forms
in order to garner our attention and admiration.
The social implications of the painting are numerous and many. Some see it as the victimization
of the common man during war; others, as a grim exaltation of the faith and fortitude of the same in times
of atrocity - a tribute to the nameless men and women who were willing to stand up for their beliefs in
the face of meaningless destruction. Even others see it as a brutal anti-war piece representing the
destruction and senseless atrocity of war itself, when the aggressors have become so deinviduated and
inhuman in their treatment of prisoners that their handling becomes cruel and unfeeling. The point is,
however, despite all these interpretations, the painting has succeeded in its goals: it has become timeless,
and it is the combination of these interpretations that allow the painting to continue to be relevant to this
day, centuries after its creation.