In popular culture via the notorious but seminal work
The Da Vinci Code it has become more widely known that art (paintings and sculpture) traditionally contains/ed messages that were only revealed to those who were looking beyond the superficial. Traditionally these messages were to impart deeper meanings or for religious allegory. The symbolic messages could be contained in the hand gestures of the depicted protagonist/s (for instance a finger pointing towards a heart implies death). The symbolic maybe also in the colours used in the background or on clothes (for instance someone wearing blue would indicate purity or chasteness). There may also be artefacts or animals contained within artworks, sometimes held, sometimes pointed at or more frequently set aside in the background (or in the case of sculpture at the feet), these signs would indicate an emotional state or more quotidianly a profession or social status. There are in fact a huge number of possible clues, symbols or signs within artworks, and this is not just the case of Western art.
In identifying the ‘hidden’ messages in this supposedly simple work by Antonio Donghi, I have taken on the views as expressed by Henri Lefebvre in most notably his 1971 work
Le manifeste différentialiste. Using Lefebvre’s Marxist analysis we see that the picture is purely political, however, I would contend that it is also possible to see the picture in a variety of other ways, whether structured by politics, religion or other dogma, or by the viewer’s own personal experience.
Within this work we see 2 clear protagonists. On immediate inspection, what we are seeing is the sublime and the ridiculous, the businessman and the clown, the fool and the wise. Take another look, the men’s faces are very similar, are we seeing then the two shades of a single person/personality. Look again, one is taller than the other, are they then not the same person but brothers? And so does the picture tell us that people raised (nurtured) in the same way can yet take widely transverse directions (revealing nature).
A further look and we see that the background is contained of 2 surfaces and colours, the clothes are also of 2 colours (or 2 negated colours in one figure). So we are seeing a clear intention by the artist to give us a binary or two-sided view, everything points us to a duality.
How then do we interpret Lefebvre’s reductive insinuation that this artwork is merely compromised of isms or ideologies and groups? Is the white of the Pierrot costume merely an indicator of a Conservative? Has he chosen White to indicate the political conservatism of ‘White Russians’ is the red clothing Poujadist because he sees Poujadism as somehow aligned to agrarian Socialism or is the Poujadist indicator pointing to the heart, thus saying we are all Poujadists in our hearts. This would be unlikely. Lefebvre I would contend is missing the human element and the artistic in his analysis.
It is possible to depict and discuss the political in art, without seeing the art as merely political. But Lefebvre has seen the ground as the domain of art, so at least we see that underpinning the whole enterprise is art, whilst above and behind it is depicted the curtain or the Fourth Estate – the publicist and disseminator. So we have 2 progenitors of the art experience, one producing, one disseminating, where then is the viewer? To stand before the work and be part of the conversation, it would seem necessary to annunciate ‘Je suis ici’ or more prophetically ‘Je suis le public’. This takes away the duality that the artist has gone to pains to promote, for we are now three. The duality of impoverished political theory is that of Conservatism vs. Communism. This basic view is not propagated here, for we see the shades of different (French) political opinion expressed, so where is the duality in Lefebvre.
Taking another view, the traditional duality of most life (life forms), is male/female (Adam and Eve, passim). Lefebvre here, as does the artist, speaks nothing on the subject. But denial of the feminine speaks louder. Donghi may be saying man has 2 parts, but he specifically is not saying that part of man is woman, or that woman is part of a fixed duality with man. Man is therefore alone in Donghi and Lefebvre’s view.
But let us look further at Donghi’s oeuvre, we find he paints women frequently. He paints them as women, in different roles, without recourse to mere titillation, we can see therefore that this work is not part of a fixed mindset. Looking also at his works we can see that the Pierrot is a frequent or constant figure in his imaginary landscape. Lefebvre however in using this work shows his grasp of the matter, he can identify aspects of all parts of the painting, but yet cannot see a role or sign for women. We can say therefore that he is not really looking. What Lefebvre misses by seemingly not looking is that the painting is relatively simple. It depicts two men, one a Pierrot the other a circus master (or ringleader
cf. Morrissey), who though they look much alike are in different costumes, one is dressed in a traditional male attire of constrictive formal wear, the other is dressed to represent the joy and freedom of life, dressed as someone who recognises and embraces the absurd. What Lefebvre has missed is the absurd.
