Horror Palace

“Into The Unknown” is by developing artist/illustrator NightFrost. Here the unknown produces a huge beast with fierce fangs and horns.  The blue tone gives the feeling of deep night while the highlight draws you into a stare down with the beast.  The blood dripping down from the beast’s mouth and fangs is almost gooey like it is beginning to coagulate.

See more art by Nightfrost: The Frozen Art World 

Facebook

(image used by permission of Artist)

There have been many versions of the “Massacre of the Innocents”, but none of them compare to the grotesque scene painted by Peter Paul Rubens. Nicholas Poussin, Giotto di Bondone, Guido Reni and even Peter Brueghel the Elder showed the world their interpretation of the nightmare, with each being a masterpiece on its own. But the version that materialized by the Flemish Baroque artist during 1611 – 1612 gained the most popularity. In 2002 it was sold to Canadian businessman Kenneth Thompson for $117 million (Canadian) and donated to the Art Gallery of Ontario.

The Premise of the Painting

The biblical story about King Herod sending out his soldiers on one fateful night to slaughter infant boys under the age of 2 has been heard by many. With the hope of murdering the potential King of the Jews, his soldiers marched into the streets of Bethlehem and without hesitation they massacred the innocent. Reading about the events isn’t a pleasant experience, but seeing such a graphical depiction of what it must have been like is even more unpleasant. All the above mentioned artists had their vision of the scenario and while all of them are horrific, Rubens took it a few steps further. Instead of just leaving a mark in the minds of those who believe in the biblical story, he managed to impact those who regard it as fictional.

Just before Rubens died he painted the massacre again. This was around 1636 and even though the paintings have many similarities they are very different. The first painting was very dramatic, whereas the second painting took on a more realistic form.

The First Painting (1611 – 1612)

One of the most accurate opinions recorded about the first painting is the link between the mothers, soldiers and children. Described as a “seething mass” due to the bodies that so graciously overlap, it is by far the best way to verbalize the visual experience. Those who have admired other works by Rubens will know that chaos was something that would typically reflect in his paintings. Combined with his dynamic style, the massacre literally flows in the street, much like the blood and bodies did.

The area that grabs the most attention is the woman in the middle. Dressed in a blood red garment, her one hand scratches at the face of a soldier while her other hand tries to hide her baby. The soldier being scratched doesn’t give her much attention as he tightens his grip on the garment of the baby she is trying to keep safe. At their feet lay the corpses of babies that couldn’t be saved. The different colors Rubens used for them might possibly speak to the amount of time the massacre has been going on. Some babies are still pink while others have turned a pale blue, a sign that they have been lying there for some time. Like a chain reaction the horror spreads from the middle to the rest of the painting.

The reason why the first painting is so dramatic has to do with the awkward body positions of the women and the manner in which the babies are killed. There is only one visible weapon and the soldier who yields it is trying to kill one of the mothers. The rest of the soldiers used their bare hands to crush the babies in the street while fighting off the angry mob. The body language of the soldiers is aggressive and overpowering, merciless and focused. Not a hint of remorse can be seen as they lift all limitations in reaching their target. In the background grieving parents and more chaos is visible.

Everything about the painting is drenched in desperation, pain and violence. Despite the beautiful detail and color, there is nothing beautiful about the subject matter. This was Rubens outcry against war, not an attempt to increase his standing as an artist. He was already living a wealthy life thanks to his reputation. This was in fact a nightmare that was meant to shock and unnerve.

The Second Painting

Many consider the second painting more graphic than the first one. Obvious differences can be seen in the blood that is flowing in the street, the weapons the soldiers are using and the intensified aggression. On the far left one can actually see how a soldier drives his sword into the chest of a baby. Below them a weeping mother lies on top of her child, who is presumably dead. The rest of the mothers are either grabbing the swords with their bare hands, hoping that their death can save their children, or trying to get back the babies that are already in the possession of the soldiers.

In the top right corner there are three angels looking down at the massacre taking place. Strangely enough, the angels look quite content. One can even say they are smiling. The reason for this is open for debate, but if Rubens attempt to curb the war he desperately wanted to end was effective then he wouldn’t have painted another version with more horrific characteristics. There were no angels in the first painting and in the second painting the holy symbols seemingly enjoy what they are seeing. Could this be a cynical view upon how religion failed to intervene with the situation? Did Rubens aim to mock those who believed God would save them?

The second painting has been hanging at the Alte Pinakothek in Munich since 1706.

Conclusion

To paint something like this requires a great level of empathy. But to paint it for a second time and to enhance everything that made it horrific took something deeper. In all its beauty and financial worth, “Massacre of the Innocents” by Peter Paul Rubens is daringly dark. Even modern horror films with the best special effects cannot reach the level of influence or pain that was created with mere paint and brushes. Paying attention to all the little details will ultimately result in a very morbid atmosphere where there is not even a glimmer of hope. The innocent who lay dead on the floor and those on their way to join them cannot be saved, nor can they be resurrected. The consequences of the massacre are permanent and the darkness from which it comes doesn’t belong to a demon we can’t see. This darkness comes from our fellow man and it is cloaked in dictatorship and religion.

It is evident that Italian painters such as Caravaggio had a great influence on Rubens while he was there between 1600 and 1608, which is visible through all the drama, color and dynamic interpretations. His rendition of the biblical tale is without a doubt the darkest and most horrific, cementing a position for Rubens on the list of great dark artists.