Artemisia Gentileschi, Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting (La Pittura), c. 1638–39, oil on canvas, 98.6 x 75.2 cm (Royal Collection Trust, London)
La Pittura, known in English as Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting, intriguingly presents the features of the artist herself, Artemisia Gentileschi, on a figure styled as an allegorical figure representing the abstract idea of painting. In other words, Artemisia Gentileschi portrayed herself as Painting itself. It was an unprecedented representation and a triumphant exploitation of cultural gender assumptions in 17th-century Europe crafted to appeal to knowledgeable art viewers.
Artemisia appears to have produced the La Pittura during her brief time in England from 1638–39. [1] She arrived as an established well-known artist who had made her name in Florence, Naples, and Venice following her youth in Rome that ended in a scandalous rape trial and a hastily arranged marriage at its conclusion. Family connections facilitated her introduction to English royal patronage. Artemisia’s brothers, Francesco and Giulio, had worked for King Charles I of England buying paintings in Venice. Her father, who had been painting ceiling decorations commissioned by Queen Henrietta Maria for the Queen’s House in Greenwich, suggested Artemisia come to London to assist him in his advanced age. [2]
Being a woman artist
Cultural beliefs about gender—especially the idea that art making was a masculine profession—created challenging conditions for women artists in early modern Europe. Women were barred from apprenticeships and other standard training. When her painter father Orazio Gentileschi needed to supplement her education, he employed Agostino Tassi to teach her perspective. His position as tutor placed him in the household where he raped the teenaged Artemisia.
Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith Beheading Holofernes, c. 1620, oil on canvas, 146.5 x 108 cm (Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence)
Following a trial that made her experience public knowledge, Artemisia developed a career specializing in female heroines, often actively dealing with male violence. It has been tempting for many to read personal feelings into Artemisia’s paintings, but the paintings were commissioned by patrons, typically men. [3] In a world in which a woman artist was unusual, a female subject highlighted the artist’s status as a woman and enhanced the patron’s collection. La Pittura falls into the specialization of female subjects and self-portraits Artemisia established early in her career.
Artist painting (detail), Artemisia Gentileschi, Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting (La Pittura), c. 1638–39, oil on canvas, 98.6 x 75.2 cm (Royal Collection Trust, London)
La Pittura
La Pittura wraps the iconographic attributes of the allegory of Painting around a naturalistic figure individualized with particular features. A woman deep in concentration, carrying a palette, lifts a brush in her right hand towards a canvas beyond the edge of the painting. The unabashed heft of her body and pushed up sleeves demonstrates her ability to handle the physical demands of painting. The background’s plain mottled brown leaves all attention on the figure, brightly lit from the left where, presumably, the artist’s canvas stands just out of sight. The figure’s parted lips and disheveled hair attests to the labor of art making in contrast to the impractical voluminous silk sleeves and lace-trimmed chemise she wears. A gold chain around the figure’s neck hangs askew, allowing the mask pendant to clearly face the viewer.
Necklace (detail), Artemisia Gentileschi, Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting (La Pittura), c. 1638–39, oil on canvas, 98.6 x 75.2 cm (Royal Collection Trust, London)
Frontispiece (detail), 1644 edition of Cesare Ripa, Iconologia, of, Uytbeeldingen des verstands…, published by Dirck Pietersz Pers in Amsterdam (Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles)
The necklace together with the additional attributes of painting palette, multicolored shot silk, and disheveled hair establish the figure as the Allegory of Painting as it was understood in early modern Europe. In 1593 Cesare Ripa published the first edition of the Iconologia, a book describing the iconography for a variety of allegorical figures. Artemisia’s figure of Painting matches his description fairly closely: “A woman, beautiful, with full black hair, dishevelled, and twisted in various ways, with arched eyebrows that show imaginative thought, the mouth covered with a cloth tied behind her ears, with a chain of gold at her throat from which hangs a mask, and has written in front ‘imitation.’ She holds in her hand a brush, and in the other the palette, with cloves of evancesently coloured drapery.” [4] One key difference: Artemisia’s figure has no gag around her mouth; she can speak.
Self-portrait and/or allegory?
The tension between the naturalism of the figure and her allegorical attributes has led to debates in the past as to whether the painting should be viewed as a self-portrait or a depiction of an allegory. Following Mary Garrard’s interpretation from the late 20th century, current scholarship sees the painting as an example of Artemisia’s clever use of her own image in artistic self-promotion. [5] Artemisia, like other early modern artists, often gifted self-portraits to collectors and court patrons. Thus familiar with her likeness, patrons could enjoy Artemisia’s cunning blending of an image of the artist herself with the impersonal allegorical figure of Painting. [6]
Titian, Self-portrait, c. 1550–55, oil on canvas, 100.1 x 77 cm (National Museums of Berlin, Gemäldegalerie)
Early modern self-portraits made by men artists typically do not show them in the act of painting even though they had become famous for their artistic skills. The artworks eschew manual labor in favor of portraying intellectual contemplation. The celebrated Venetian artist Titian depicted himself not only without easel or brush, but wearing gloves as his figure meditatively gazes into the distance. Women artists, burdened with proving their artistic skills to a skeptical patriarchal society, often depicted themselves in the act of making. Sofonisba Anguissola’s Łańcut Castle Self-Portrait and Judith Leyster’s elegantly dressed Self-Portrait in front of easels are but two examples. However, by portraying themselves painting, the women artists risked tarnishing their intellectual reputations with the depiction of performing what was considered to be manual labor (painting).
Sofonisba Anguissola, Self-Portrait, 1556, oil on canvas, 66 x 57 cm (Łańcut Castle, Poland); Judith Leyster, Self-Portrait, c. 1633, oil on canvas, 74.6 x 65.1 cm (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.)
Artemisia’s image brilliantly sidesteps any tawdry associations with manual labor—though the figure holding palette and brush is actively painting—precisely because the figure is not only a self-portrait, but is also an allegory. Because the allegory of Painting was iconographically rendered as female in European art, the figure could only be inhabited by the self-portrait of a woman artist. Artemisia could both paint and transcend the act of manually wielding a brush by embodying the idea of the art of Painting itself. Lest the uninformed viewer perceive only the allegory of Painting, Artemisia underscored her authorship of the painting by signing it under the paint palette “A.G.F.,” an abbreviation for the Latin “Artemisia Gentileschi Fecit,” translated “Artemisia Gentileschi made this.”
“La Pittura” entered early modern European visual culture as a sophisticated image appealing to an audience that enjoyed visual play, especially with genres. The painting is not purely a portrait as its primary goal is not representing a specific person’s likeness, but knowing that the painting invokes the likeness of the painter is critical to understanding the artwork. [7] Viewers enjoyed the elision between the artist and the subject. [8] By identifying the opportunity to blend Painting and self-portrait only available to a woman artist, Artemisia deftly exploited the gender constraints and visual culture habits of her day.
