Jacques-Louis David and The French Revolution: An Artist's Convictions Gone Too Far?

Thinking about Jacques-Louis David's artwork, specifically over the course of the French Revolution, kept putting the phrase "conviction" into my mind. By conviction, I mean the strongly held beliefs and opinions of a person - or artist. 

Although perhaps an unusual way to approach an artist, "conviction" feels like a natural and important way of assessing the prevalent ideas I perceive in David's artwork, given its (literally) revolutionary context. I am yet to meet an artist so personally and thoroughly committed to the ideology expressed in their work, and hope this will provide some insight to just how devoted he was to republican and revolutionary ideas both in art and life. 

Firstly, I will give a brief bit of context into the French Revolution. Secondly, I will look at two of David's most famous paintings from the Revolution. 

The French Revolution (1789-1799): A Whistle-Stop Tour

The Revolution is considered to have begun on the 14th July 1789 (Bastille Day), and spanned approximately 10 years. David's own period of preeminence in the revolution was linked to Maximilien Robespierre and ended in 1794. Robespierre, amongst other key political figures like Georges Danton, sought to entirely abolish the French monarchy and establish the Republic of France, which was achieved in 1793. 

The wheels for this had been set in motion in 1789 with the Meeting of the Estates-General at Versailles, intended to draw extra revenue to fix France's economic crisis. The Third Estate (peasant class) had been denied proper voting representation, and in an attempt to stifle them the King quite literally shut them out of the meeting room. This led to the famous Tennis Court Oath, whereby the Third Estate (and some defectors from other estates) relocated to a Tennis Court, the only other room big enough to house them. Here they swore that they would not part until a new national constitution had been drawn. 

This, alongside events like the fall of the Bastille, helped foster the National Guard, The National Assembly and eventually the National Convention. Gradually, the monarchy's powers were impinged until it was abolished, and the King and Queen were beheaded.  Robespierre and Danton were key figures throughout this time: both drove the legislature which increased the convention's powers, and became leader of the Committee for Public Safety, and President of the National Convention respectively.

Both fell short in 1794, however, when Robespierre's obsessive quest for ideological purity (complete and utter allegiance to a French republic of "virtue") led to "The Great Terror". The Great Terror saw the execution of thousands of people; politicians, generals and any other person seen as an enemy to the revolution. The Committee of Public Safety's powers grew to remove fair trial, and bypass standard legal conduct. Eventually, Robespierre ended up beheading the majority of his previous political allies (like Danton), until he himself was beheaded. 

David was closely aligned with Robespierre until Robespierre's death, was a fierce republican, and even briefly sat as President of the National Convention. But more on this later. 

The Tennis Court Oath (Le Serment du Jeu de paume) - Uncompleted Painting - 1790-1794 

The Tennis Court Oath, Jacques-Louis David, 1790-1794

The painting of The Tennis Court Oath was David's first major work of the French Revolution. The painting was never finished for a multitude of reasons: A) the painting was initially funded by the Jacobin Club on a subscription basis. When this failed to raise enough money, the National Assembly took over the costs which eventually ran out because: B) By 1793, many of the subjects portrayed in the painting were now declared enemies of the revolution. Finally, C) In 1793, David himself was overly concerned with his duties as a deputy in the assembly, rather than the painting.

In normal cases, we may view the state commission of the work to be a significant aspect of why, and, more importantly, how it was painted. Certainly, many features of the work could be interpreted as simply expressing the state's intention: to create powerful, iconic imagery of the founding of the revolution. First and foremost, the painting does a good job of that. David employs many artistic devices to create a sense of camaraderie, notably through his use of halves. The empty upper half works in opposition to emphasise the fullness of the bottom half, exaggerating the scale of the event. David’s use of symbolism is also powerful; it is considered that the blowing curtain in the top right is to portray the revolution quite literally as a "breath of fresh air". Finally, the image culminates in the central man's (Bailly, new Mayor of Paris) extended arm. This comprises the main focal point of the painting and draws the mass of people, their own arms imploring to him, into a central aspect.

However, it is difficult to view the work merely as propaganda. There is something else to it: David's own "convictions" are present in it. It is a vessel that expresses many of the artist's own ideals. This is shown, most masterfully, in how David places the work in the reference framework of his previous art and motifs . Previous art which, in true David-style, celebrates his most ideal, perfect and virtuous republic - Ancient Rome. 

This comparison David draws in the Tennis Court Oath to Ancient Rome is clear in The Oath of the Horatii, 1784. We see a number of techniques employed in this painting that are later echoed in The Tennis Court Oath to portray the same ends; virtue, action and order. 

The Oath of the Horatii, Jacques-Louis David, 1784

The painting portrays the three Horatii brothers, who are preparing to fight the Curatii brothers over a dispute between their warring cities of Rome and Alba Longa. David affirms their heroism and sacrifice through artistic devices and motifs (which we will see again). The brothers assume the dominant thirds of the painting: their father is directly in the middle and the brothers, whilst in the left third, are strongly positioned in the foreground. Their hands unite upwards, exaggerated by the contrast of their hands against the black background, to create a strong focal point. It is clear that David employs this technique to elevate the status, heroism and unity of the brothers - as we will see again in The Tennis Court Oath. David uses pairs in opposition in this painting, too. The women, whilst not an empty ceiling space, might as well be. They are consigned to the shadows, pressed against the wall, placed into the background and, in their passivity, only serve to further draw out the virtue of the brothers.

Through the comparisons to Ancient Rome David establishes in his strict visual language, we see not only the celebration of a new republic and the ritual assignation of it to history, but David's convictions, "revolutionary vigour" and, significantly, personality. It is particularly important to establish David's love of Rome and artistic intention in the context of his personality. Crucially, he would have prospered better, and received stronger patronage under the monarchy. David's strongly held beliefs in the success in Ancient Rome, and love for its republic fuelled his support for the revolution against his natural interests. Thus, the painting provides an aspect into his strong psyche and deep-set political convictions. It transcends your average piece of propaganda. 

The Death of Marat - La Mort de Marat - Jacques Louis David - 1793

The Death of Marat, Jacques-Louis David, 1793

Often considered David's masterpiece, The Death of Marat is perhaps the most iconic artwork of the French Revolution and the most distinguished portrayal of a revolutionary martyr. Marat was an early and powerful republican voice in the revolution, and his death powerfully highlighted the factionalism developing within the National Assembly and Convention. David was closely aligned with Marat, so it was natural he would present him as a martyr for the Republic. 

(As a side note, interestingly, this was not David's first portrait of a revolutionary martyr. The first was of a man named Lepeletier, killed by a royalist supporter after he voted for the King's execution. It's widely considered that his daughter destroyed the painting after her father's death, for shame of his role in the revolution.)

It would be difficult to find someone painting a martyr with more devotion to their subject. David's love and support for Marat is clear through the artful employment of his established motifs, amongst other devices. Moreover, references are clearly made to the most famous martyr of all - Jesus. 

David cuts the painting again into two strict halves. The emptiness and the darkness of the top half gives contrast to the bright white hues, and precise form of Marat in the bottom half. Particularly, this contrast emphasises the soft, glowing light over Marat's face, arms and shoulders. A strong parallel is thus created with much religious art - of which soft light, often with no natural origin point to create the impression of divinity, is a recurring motif. We can see other parallels to religious art in Caravaggio's 1603 The Entombment of Christ, considered an inspiration for The Death of Marat. 

The Entombment of Christ, Caravaggio, 1603

In terms of composition, Christ and Marat lay similarly across the bottom third of the painting, arms hanging limply down. This positioning is also identifiable in Michelangelo’s Pieta - and is designed to illustrate torment, and anguish without being overly graphic. To an extent, David subverts the norm of the Italian, bloodless Christ demonstrated by Caravaggio. Perhaps it was important that the brutality of Marat's death was obvious. Caravaggio has also used a dark background, and, despite the inclusion of other subjects, has dressed them in dark clothes and angled them towards Christ. This appears to be to the same ends as David - to draw out the pale, anguished figures resting in the bottom third. 

Notably, one way David departs from religious convention is to use the note Marat is scrawling on in the painting as a message. Firstly, it labels his assassin (Charlotte Corday). Secondly, it states "Given that I am unhappy, I have a right to your help". This was the message Charlotte Corday had used to gain access to Marat's house. Rather than present Marat as a martyr outright, it seems David can't resist accusing and pinpointing his own traitors to the revolution - clearly decrying the Girondist faction Corday herself supported. 

I think the love expressed to Marat in this work is particularly poignant when we realise precisely how fleeting a moment in the revolution the painting depicts. The ideology and sentiment expressed in the work was soon to go very swiftly, and drastically out of fashion. In a way, Marat is lucky to have died when he did: many of those aligned with him (Camille Desmoulins, for instance) would go to their deaths in disgrace and deemed enemies of the revolution. We can assume he would have too. This in itself demonstrates just how immersed David was in the revolution, and how closely he toed the line. To hold strong political allegiances, as David did to Marat, was to be in a highly volatile position. David is lucky that he wasn't deemed a traitor, and survived the revolution with a head. 

Final Note

It really is lucky that David didn't die in the Revolution. He was almost put on trial alongside Robespierre, and narrowly escaped the guillotine due to a fortunate bout of stomach pain. It is also alleged that when Robespierre announced he would rather drink hemlock than go to the guillotine, David was the first to announce he would drink it with him. Of course he didn't, and, after waiting in hiding for a few years for Napoleon to emerge, David went on to live to the ripe old age of 77. 

Arguably, it isn't very revolutionary to live to 77. However, I hope that the subject matter, materiality and techniques of David's artwork, matched thoroughly in real life with enough revolutionary zeal and (that all important word) conviction to draw him startlingly near to the guillotine, highlights that David really was ride or die. Maybe if it weren't for that stomach ache, his convictions would have been construed, as the post title suggests, as having  “gone too far". Maybe he would have gone to an early grave, and wouldn't be as memorable as he is now. 

P.S

Sorry for another long one. I can't write short things. 

Mia x