Talk:The Calling of St Matthew (Caravaggio)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

Michelangelo's Adam?

Helen Langdon suggects that the guesture of Christ pointing at Matthew echoes the arm and hand of Adam as he erches out to God in the Sistine Chapel - which would make sense, as Caravaggio would have had access to the Sistine Cchapel and as Christ was called 'the new Adam'.

[edit] some edits

I made some some edits to what is really a very good article. This is what I changed, and why:

• d'Arpino: I don't think it's fair to dismiss him as an artist - he was a very important figure inRome at the time, and has a valid place in art history. Unfortunately for him, he was at the end of a school (Mannerism), and represented the past instead of the future.
• Caravaggio's problems with the commission: The Martyrdom wasn't changed for Del Monte, Caravaggio changed it himself, apparently unable to get a composition he liked. At least that's what I get from Helen Langdon and others. But please change it back if you have other information.
• imminant languour: I edited this out - I have no idea what it means - 'immimant' means 'about to happen,' 'languour' means something like drowsiness. You're welcome to change it back if you don't like my replacement.

PiCo 03:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice edits, PiCo! However, a minor correction: the phrase was not imminent languour (imminent indeed meaning "about to happen"), but immanent languor, where immanent means "indwelling" or "inherent". I like your "unearthly light" better. -- JimR 04:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

1) I did not dismiss d'Arpino as an artist, but his contribution in this chapel is much less memorable. I'm ok with taking this out. Neither point is memorable. 2)I am not sure how I came up with "immanent langour"; I don't buy the Sistine paraphrase as readily as others. Perhaps its my reaction to the 1911 Brittanica entries which seem to suggest that all artists are not mature untill they imbibe Michelangelo and Raphael. I think the pose of Jesus is different than that of the foppish Levi and pals, who have angular poses. There is a lazy power intrinsic to Jesus response; it is not a muscular gravity, but drooping vacuum. Unearthly to me sounds too ghoulish. Carravaggisti

So your phrase 'immanent languour of the immortal faith' was referring to Jesus - his 'lazy power' as described by the pointing arm - rather than to the light? Ok, but I still don't like the phrase 'immanent languour', simply because I don't think people will understand what's meant (I didn't anyway). How about saying 'the lazy power of the immortal Faith embodied in the imperious guesture of Jesus' or some such? PiCo 09:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Matthew?

In the spirit of the Where's Wally? books...

It seems one scholar has put forward the theory that Matthew is not the bearded man with the pointing finger, but the boy at the head of the table with his head down, and that Caravaggio is showing Matthew just before he becomes aware of the calling. I don't actually agree, if only because such a youthful Matthew is so unlikely. But have a look at the fingers in that part of the painting: Matthew-with-the-beard is pointing, but is it at himself? If you look closely, it is possible that he's pointing at someone further down the table. At the end of the table there's the boy in the fancy doublet, apparently with both hands on the table, busy counting coins. But in fact only one of the hands is his; look at the two sleeves, and it's clear that the other belongs to the supposed Matthew. (This boy's eral other ahnd is tucked under his armpit - you can just see his knuckles). That leaves the last figure, standing and bending over the table between the boy and 'Matthew'. He's grasping his spectacles, peering down at the coins. He's also older than the others, and the only one not dressed in a fancy doublet. He looks to me like a stereotypical Jew (Matthew was a tax-collector, Levi the Jew), surrounded by flashy hangers-on, but personally mean and stingy, the supervisor of this group. 'Matthew', on the other hand, fits in with the flashy doublet set. He seems to me to be pointing at this standing figure, who I think may actually be Matthew. So far as I know this theory hasn't been advanced by anyone so far :).

Here's a site to see: [1]

PiCo 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I do not know who is Matthew. In retrospect, while the hand of Jesus resembles that of Adam in Michelangelo's fresco; it may have been only an inadvertant copy or minor posing. It would have made more sense if he copied the hand of God. Caravaggisti 05/06