Neoclassical vs. Romantic Images of Death: David’s Death of Manat and Delacroix’s Death of Sardanapalus, Essay Example

Death as an artistic subject matter clearly speaks to a universal theme, easily understood on the most basic existential levels. Yet the portrayal of death can, of course, radically vary. Painting may bring out different conceptions of death, much like any other form of art; in the case of David’s Death of Marat (1793) as compared to Delacroix’s Death of Sardanaplaus (1827) the viewer is presented of two aesthetic representations of death, which differ, primarily along the lines of the periods to which they belong, neoclassicism in regards to David, and romanticism in regards to Delacroix. These two artists give us what may be termed two different relationships to death, consummated in the type of death portrayed as well as the artistic style used to make the nothingness of death appear on a canvas. For David, style and subject matter come together to present an almost realistic portrayal of death, shown from a certain rationalist perspective consistent with neoclassical roots to Ancient Greece and philosophical discourse. For Delacroix, in contrast, his expression of death is one of an elemental chaos, a fury that is unleashed upon the canvas. In short, through the styles of neoclassicism and romanticism it could be suggested that the painters represent two views of death from the perspective of logos in the case of the former and mythos in the case of the latter.

Clearly, the aforementioned universality of the subject of death makes it a compelling theme for painting. Moreover, death represents something of an ultimate theme, insofar as it is deeply tied to questions of life itself. The use of the word here question is key, since obviously one insinuates there are different possible answers to this query: Delacroix and David provide precisely two diverging answers.

David’s portrayal of death is a championing of the neoclassical style, although one that is at the same time tied to a realism. This, however, is consistent since realism can be considered a rational approach to painting, eschewing grandiose strokes of imagination to attempt to touch the reality of a theme. Kleiner refer preciselys to this close binding of neoclassicism and realism in Death of Manat as follows: “Although the painting displays severe Neoclassical spareness, its convincing realism conveys pain and outrage.” (333) In other words, it could be interpreted that the realist style directly compliments its neoclassicist commitments in this painting by David: for neoclassicism itself in its so-called “sparseness” or, to use another term, austerity captures the anti-fantastic nature of realism. What arguably makes David’s choice of death as a subject matter so compelling within the context of his neoclassical realism is that what he wants to do is somehow demystify death. Death, as the subject of morbid fantasy and mythos, is here deconstructed by David: the Death of Manat, while a tragic event, is the death of the journalist Manat, “a martyred revolutionary” (333), who was assassinated because of his ties to the French Revolution. Here, David arguably does not want to focus on the death itself and the unknown that death brings, but rather on the rationalit of Marat’s death: he deid for a cause, in this case the secular principles of French Revolution, which can be viewed as an outgrowth of Enlightenment rationalism. David, in other words, is not focused on the mystery of death, but rather upon how death can be viewed rational, as something that is part of a greater humanist and rational project.

The style of the work itself reflects these philosophical considerations. Marat is depicted as struck down in the midst of the writing of a text, which symbolizes his rational thought. Death here is the interruption of a man of reason, and therefore David demystifies the irrational death by showing it in its realism: Marat’s posture is thoroughly realistic, and the background with its pitch-blackness reflects the pain David felt upon the death of a man who he knew personally. At once, however, by not aggrandizing death, David shows a commitment to a rationality: yes, Marat died, and as the linework of his body indicates, this was the death of a man just like any other. But this death was in the service of principles of reason and rationality: his thoughts and his ethical commitments are more important than his death. In this sense, it could be said that David attempts to subjugate death to the moral principles of a neoclassicism as well as a realism.

Despite also dealing with death as his subject matter, Delacroix’s piece can be considered a diametrical opposite of David’s, both in terms of how the subject is treated and the work itself. Delacroix’s treatment of death is immediate in the multiplicity of bodies that appears on the canvas: here death almost appears like an indiscriminate force, unleashed upon living bodies. Death takes on a mythical quality in this work, a mythical quality reflected in the theme of the painting itself: it portrays an ancient Assyrian tale of the king Sardanaplus, who has chosen to commit suicide because of a lost battle. But Sardanapalus does not only wish himself to be killed: he orders those close to him, most likely his concumbine and his possessions to also be annihilated. Here, Delacroix is not treating death as a rational decision, even though it is Sardanapalus who has decided to take his own life: rather, it is as though the Assyrian ruler was introducing forces of death and destruction into the world through an archaic and mythical ritual. Delacroix strips death of its logic and sense, viewing it instead as a mysterious and violent elemental force that simply tears through human bodies. As Cunningham and Reich note, “this painting makes no attempt to achieve historical accuracy but instead concentrates on exploiting the violence and cruelty of the story.” (445) One could go potentially further, and say that Delacroix wishes to convey the violence and cruelty of life itself when it encounters death: there are no neoclassicist or even realist principles which can summarize the irrational force of indiscriminate death.

Delacroix’s stylistic techniques reflect this same motif. The almost blurred quality of the line work reflects the chaos of the scene itself: the bodies appear to melt into each other and there is no possibility for any type of rational dissection of the scene. As Gunderson notes, “Delacroix’s lines are swift and energetic, and emotion leaps from the painting.” (35) The portrayal of figures conveys basic primeval emotions and traits such as fear and violence, as the irrationality of mythos triumphs over any hint of logos or rationality, almost expelling the latter from the scene. Against the sparseness of David, Delacroix’s work is composed of an almost explosion of colors, which are nonetheless dark and primordial. Delacroix unleashes the unconscious horror of death on this canvas.

Accordingly, there is an underlying inexplicable cruelty to life in Delacroix’s romanticism, which is absent to a painter such as David. For in The Death of Marat, although Marat dies, and David clearly is lamenting the loss of his friend, this death is a death for a purpose, for a moral high-ground. The unfinished text by David re-iterates this point, as though David were saying, despite Marat’s death, this is not the end and much work is to be done. This almost distanced approach to death is radically contrasted by a Delacroix, who brings the viewer into the immanence of death, not giving him or her any time to rationally reflect, but instead directly confront the tumult of primordial violence.

Hence, the thematic connection of death that links these two works is split in two by the disjunctive aesthetic portrayal of the same subject matter. These works are so opposed that it seems like there is no compromise made possible between them, except in the attention given to death as a thematic. And it is this same thematic which can nonetheless provide a rich diversity of interpretations, as evidenced by the difference between The Death of Marat and The Death of Sardanaplaus. From my own personal viewpoint, therefore, what makes these works so compelling is their treatment of the most fundamental subject matter possible – life and death – in opposing manners. Art should endeavor to communicate to all, and the selection of basic themes is a good way in which to follow this imperative. This, however, does not mean that the content of the communication itself must be the same, as Delacroix and David so admirably demonstrate.

Works Cited

Cunningham, Lawrence S. & Reich, John J. Culture and Values: A Survey of the

Humanities. Belmont, MA: Cengage, 2010.

Gunderson, Jessica. Romanticism. Mankato, MN: Creative Education, 2009.

Kleiner, Fred S. Gardner’s Art Throughout the Ages: A Concise Global History. 13^th edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2009.