This is the story of a group of 147 men, abandoned on a makeshift raft after the ship ran aground
off the coast of Africa. There followed murder, class warfare, mutiny, starvation, unimaginable
depravity, and the ultimate taboo... cannibalism. This is the story about the painting of that raft,
which shook the world, and scandalised hi gh society. Not only for its anti-royalist statement, but also for
its choice of a black man as the hero, in an age of slavery. Only this is not a story - this is all true.
Théodore Géricault was the embodiment of a tortured genius.
A young, good-looking rebel with an adventurous personality, who endured a tormented love life,
and re-occurring bouts with depression and illness. His tragically short life, fit the
mold of Romantic artists, and his provocative paintings, profoundly influenced 19th century art.
In 1818, he was looking for a subject matter that would make his reputation. Something contemporary
that would bring a touch of reality to the stuffy genre of the "History painting".
"The Raft of the Medusa" was painted only two years after the French frigate, the Medusa,
and three other ships, sailed for the French colony Senegal in West Africa.
An inexperienced captain would run the Medusa aground. A shortage of lifeboats meant that only
the upper classes and senior officers would be allowed to board them. The lower classes and a
handful of crew left behind, had to build their own makeshift raft for 147 people.
Lifeboats briefly towed the raft until, in an act of cowardice and cruelty, the captain cut it loose,
to drift away on a bloody 13-day odyssey. On the very first night adrift, 20 men were murdered.
And by the fourth day, there were only 67 people left alive. They had resorted to murder and cannibalism
to survive. When the raft was found 13 days later, only 15 of the original 147 had survived.
1815 was a turbulent year for France. Following Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo,
the French monarchy was restored. The new King gave unqualified men jobs - as a political favour.
And the captain of the Medusa was one of them. He hadn't been to sea for over 20 years and would
become a symbol of government corruption. The social and political turbulence that
plagued French society was exposed, and France itself was now considered a political shipwreck.
Géricault's choice of subject matter would be deliberately provocative.
Géricault knew the subject would make or break him. He immersed himself in the project,
which he planned to exhibit at the Paris salon of 1819. He obsessively devoured
all the information he could find out about the disaster. His quest for authenticity led him to
the morgues and hospitals of Paris to observe dead bodies and putrefying flesh. He brought back
body parts to his studio to study and sketch. He took a severed head from the lunatic asylum
and kept it on the roof of his studio for two weeks, so that he could draw its features as it decomposed.
He questioned some of the survivors, who he also sketched. Alexandre Corréard, who was an engineer
on the ship, had co-written a book about his experience, and he would feature in the painting.
Henri Savigny was a doctor on board the ship, and co-author of the book.
He too would appear in the painting. It was their version of events which would inspire Géricault.
Another survivor, the ship's carpenter called Lavillette, built a scale model of the raft
to be reproduced on the finished canvas. Lavillette also featured in the finished painting.
Having made hundreds of preparatory studies, Géricault struggled to decide on which moment
would best capture the real drama of the event. Among the scenes he considered were: The moment
the lifeboats abandoned the raft. Mutiny against the officers from the second day on the raft.
The cannibalism that occurred after only a few days, or the finale: The actual rescue.
Géricault ultimately settled on the moment , when they saw the ship "Argus" on the horizon.
Which you can just about see in the distance. As in the painting, they made an attempt to signal help.
Over the years people have interpreted this as a sign of hope, but actually in real life the ship
didn't see them, and passed by. Géricault chose the most intense psychological point where every tiny
sliver of hope they may have possessed was snuffed out. This may have been a reflection of Géricault's
own situation. He had just been forced to break off an intense love affair with his married aunt.
Géricault spent a year researching and planning his painting. He took a studio in the suburbs
of Paris, big enough to house the massive canvas of about five meters by seven. (or twenty three feet
by sixteen). Being away from Paris meant he would have no distractions. He shaved his head,
cut himself off from society, set up a bed in the studio, and had meals brought to him. He worked
in silence, and visitors were not allowed. The immersion was complete, and the serious work began.
"History paintings" were regarded by the French Academy as the highest form of western painting.
Considered the equivalent of epic literature.
They usually portrayed historic and noble acts, with a clear hero. Géricault, would turn that idea on its head.
His painting would contain the gestures, and grand scale of traditional history painting,
however, it would present the common man struggling with contemporary disaster,
rather than historic heroes. This history was only two years old, which makes it social commentary.
But how do you even begin painting on such an epic scale? For a painting this size, you would normally
use a coloured ground or an under colour. You need a good mid-tone so that your dark and light tones
stand out. As you can see here, this is particularly important when planning large scale works.
instead, Géricault worked directly onto the white canvas.
He would use a drawing, and then grid it. He scaled up the outline onto the canvas. He would concentrate
on one square at a time. Until it was finished, like a fresco painter, then he'd move on to the next section.
As if he were putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle. Along with his numerous
oils and sketches, this meant his design choices were resolved before he even picked up a brush.
One of the first things that strikes you, is how close to the action we are.
The figures in the foreground are literally falling out of the canvas. The raft itself takes up
the entire lower half of the painting, and it seems as if we could simply step onto it and join them.
We are therefore included in the drama as a participant, rather than a detached observer.
The horizon is also high, making us feel as hemmed in by water as the men were.
It would be a very different painting with a low horizon.
in the painting we have the impression the raft is square, but in fact if we look at
Lavillette's original drawing of the raft, we can see Géricault chose to only depict one small section.
Here we can see a modern reconstruction of the raft with 147 people on it.
Tight cropping of the painting, pushes the action into our space and focuses the drama.
The rest of the raft is actually in the painting, but submerged. Overall the painting is very dark and
relies largely on the use of sombre brown, black, and grey pigments. The outer areas of the painting
are fairly uniform mid-tones, but if you squint your eyes, you can see that where the action is,
are the areas of contrast of light and dark. The Chiarascuro elements. Géricault has created a
sweeping thrust of light, running from the dead on the left, to the living at the apex.
Giving the picture drama and movement. The painting is constructed on two pyramid structures.
They emphasize not only classical composition but also the progression
from despair at the base to hope at the peak. Two pale figures anchor the painting's composition;
On the left an older man hangs onto the body of his dead son. Rigor mortis has set in and his
legs hang off the raft diagonally towards the corner. This is matched on the opposite side of
the painting by another pale corpse hanging off towards the lower right corner. In such a busy
chaotic scene, structural elements like these are necessary to pull the painting together.
Despite Géricault's obsession with accuracy, he decided to have the scene set in the middle of a storm.
In reality, it was a clear sunny day but Géricault wanted heightened drama.
He had traveled to the coast regularly, and took a raft out during storms to study the raging seas.
It is not just his depiction of the weather that is inaccurate. In reality the survivors
were emaciated when they were found, but Géricault presents them as muscular idealized heroes.
Again, this references the tradition of history paintings. He wanted to elevate reality,
not reproduce it. We can compare both the idealized figures and the composition
to Michelangelo's "Last judgment" which Géricault studied closely when he was in Rome.
I do think that Géricault set out to be provocative, but depicting some of the true horror would have
been a step too far. Instead he alludes to it. Remember that for viewers at the time
all of the grisly details were well known. Here we have the concealed bloody axe, which recalls
the night the soldiers decided - who would live and who would die - and slaughtered the weak.
Many viewers don't see that the torso on the left is missing its lower half and was cannibalised.
The old man's arm is bandaged, so maybe he fought to protect his dead son from also being eaten?
This image was no doubt inspired by a work by Henry Fuseli, based on a story about cannibalism,
from Dante's Inferno. The father is the only figure who looks towards us. He is wracked
with silent grief and hopelessness. Five of the 15 survivors died within days of rescue.
Behind him in the shadows, another tears his hair out in frustration and defeat.
There are six figures in the foreground, of which three are still alive. The dead are
painted in the greens that Géricault observed on the decaying body parts he brought to his studio.
It looks like a fourth man flopped face down on the timbers will soon join the dead.
That man in the foreground was modeled by Géricault's friend and fellow painter, Delacroix, who had
jaundice at the time. Delacroix's own painting would be inspired by The Raft of the Medusa.
If Géricault's elevation of the common man was groundbreaking, his choice of a black man as the
most heroic figure, would be revolutionary. Slavery would not be fully abolished in France for another
30 years AFTER the painting's debut, and yet here we have Jean Charles, the only black survivor,
at the very apex of the painting signaling, for help. All eyes are on him. He is both survivor and saviour.
The majority of the paintings and sculptures in Western art are devoid of black bodies, and
this is one of the first uses in art of a black figure to symbolize the hopes of all humanity.
Géricault's choice was a bold reflection of early abolitionist sentiment.
In 1819, establishing a black man as the most heroic figure in an epic painting,
was shocking. But Géricault was determined to embed the politics of abolitionists
within the painting. If we look carefully, we can see that Jean Charles holds on
to the hand of the man behind him. It is an intimate and beautiful gesture of solidarity.
Géricault intentionally sought to be both politically and artistically confrontational.
And critics responded to his aggressive approach in kind. Their reactions were either one of revulsion
or praise. Depending on their politics. One critic described it as "a pile of corpses".
Another as a "masterpiece" Géricault's great painting, the result of two years of work,
remained unsold - and failed to bring him the public success he craved. He produced hundreds of works
but died unhappy with his artistic achievements, and in poverty at the untimely age of 32.
After his death, the Louvre finally bought "The Raft of the Medusa",
and today it IS considered a masterpiece. In fact it is second only in popularity to the Mona Lisa.