Histories and Theories essay

Which of these portraits is the creative masterpiece? Velazquez’s commissioned reflection of wealth and status or Bacon’s introspective deconstruction?

Although both Diego Velazquez’s ‘Portrait of Innocent X’ 1650 (Figure 1), and Francis Bacon’s ‘Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X’ 1950 (Figure 2) are depictions of the same subject they demonstrate two decidedly different techniques of creativity. In this essay I will endeavour to compare the two separate avenues of creativity and artistry that have led these two important artists to communicate the same subject in such contrasting ways. This has left us with two portraits that could not be further apart in their technique or imagery.

The Pamphilis were historically one of the most powerful families in Europe, and Pope Innocent X was groomed to assume his role as the most important man in Christendom. Velázquez executed this influential portrait around 1650. By painting the Pope, Velázquez entered a prestigious lineage of papal painters, including two of the principal inspirations for this painting, those masters of the Italian Renaissance Raphael and Titian. The portrait of Pope Innocent X is a Baroque style painting and he is shown sitting down and angled to the left, wearing white and red robes. The robes the Pope is wearing are painted extremely accurately and realistically. The colours used by Velázquez to create the appearance of the folds in the materials as well as the quality of the materials used for the outfit, are vivid yet still realistic. Furthermore, the technical skill in being able to paint multiple layers of the colour red, as is the case with the robes, chair, carpet and curtains in this portrait (Spanish Arts, 2011).

Velazquez’s pope captivated Bacon, and was a subject he treated again and again. In an interview with David Sylvester, Bacon was asked why it was he had chosen the Pope as his subject matter, he replied “ Because I think it is one of the greatest portraits that has ever been made, and I became obsessed by it. I buy book after book with this illustration in it of Pope because it just haunts me, and it opens up all sorts of feelings and areas of … imagination…” (Sylvester, 1975, 24) But Bacon transformed Velazquez’s papal portrait into an unnerving portrayal of his own psychological charge and instead of the cardinal figure seen in the former, you are left with a Pope who’s authority has been stripped from him and the idea of hierarchical control has vanished.

In both paintings of the subject, the artists have sat ‘Innocent X' on a throne, however, the context and significance of this haughty article has changed entirely. The throne acts as an object of power and jurisdiction in Velazquez’s work, the Pope is sitting comfortably on his throne with an expression of great self confidence. He appears as a terrifying figure with the portrait creating a presence so fierce that the authority of the Papacy is distilled (Jones, 2003). Every aspect of his Pope assures us of his unquestionable authority as well as his elevated position. As Bacon himself explains, in Velázquez’s painting, the pope appears “as though raised onto a dais on which the grandeur of his image can be displayed to the world.” (Sylvester, 1975, 26) Velazquez’s portrait does not question the religious, political or psychic condition of the Pope, but instead, through the clear display of rule and sovereignty, it positively illustrates the status quo of human existence. This is what would have been expected from Velazquez, he was essentially the photographer of his day, meaning there would be no deviation from his realist approach. In contrast to this, the colours in Bacon’s Pope are remarkably stark and lack warmth. The traditional gilded and stately throne is transformed into a translucent yellow chair, which is cold, clinical and acts as a frame around him, “The figure… is hidden behind the thick folds of dark, transparent curtain: the top of the body is indistinct, persisting only as if it were a mark on a striped shroud” (Deleuze, 1981, 21). Bacon’s obsessive reworking of the papal theme suggests that it may have possessed further significance and perhaps psychological charge for the artist in relation to his sexuality. Bacon’s pope departs even further from its source, the scream was never in Velazquez’s Pope, the gaping scream was taken from the wounded nurse mown down by the soldiers’ gunfire in the Eisenstein’s film Battleship Potemkin (Phaidon, 2013) (Figure 3). When asked of the meaning of the mouth, Bacon stated “….I’ve always been very moved by the movements of the mouth and the shape of the mouth and teeth. People say that these have all sort of sexual implications. I like, you may say, the flitter and colours that comes from the mouth, and I’ve always hoped in a sense to be able to paint the mouth like Monet painted a sunset’ (Berger, 2001). The Popes garish shriek in Bacons work gives off an image that he is paralysed with pain and fear, and jolted with shocks from his golden throne, which has been transformed from a symbol of authority into an instrument of torture or a prison. The Popes body language has changed from authoritative and dominating to an alarming reflection of humanity, corruption and vulnerability.

Both of the artists Popes have been placed in the same composition, facing to the left, hands planted on the arms of the chair. However Velazquez’s Pope is much more at ease in his environment, the letter which he holds in his left hand, communicating that he is a man of secular, as well as spiritual, authority (Jones, 2003). Bacons pope, on the other hand is gripping the arms of the chair tightly, possibly for stability, as if clinging to the power that he is losing control of. The Broad strokes of paint which run vertically and then fan out are a huge contrast to the realist approach Velazquez attained and could be interpreted as desperate clawing. The downward brushstrokes suggest he may be descending quickly, perhaps into hell? The Pope in Bacons is also painted with an almost transparent quality, making him more of a ghostly than religious figure, maybe this is a reference to the idea of the church disintegrating of falling apart? Both blasphemous ideas which Velazquez would not have ever dared to imply.

In conclusion I think the question “Which of these portraits is the creative masterpiece?” Is a slightly prejudiced question. While comparing the two it becomes obvious that although the works are both of the same subject matter , they come from completely different places. Velazquez’s portrait of Innocent X was solely for his patron, whereas Bacons piece is entirely for himself, although a homage to Velazquez’s original portrait, it itself is not a portrait but instead an insight into Bacon’s psychological state and his obsession with sexuality and problems with his own anguished mind. Velazquez was commissioned this work for prosperity and propaganda, but Bacons has more of a surrealist stance on the papal portrait and stems completely from his own cognitive state. The two paintings are entirely exclusive from one another. Velazquez’s, a quest for perfection and Bacon’s, an introspective of his own mind.

Figure 1- Diego Velazquez, Portrait of Innocent X, 1650

Figure 2- Francis Bacon, Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X, 1950

Figure 3- Still image taken from Sergei Eisenstein film, Battleship Potemkin