Two Pietàs

William-Adolphe Bouguereau & Lisa Streich

This ar­ti­cle first ap­peared as Chris Swith­in­bank, ‘Two Pietàs: William-Adolphe Bouguereau & Lisa Stre­ich,’ CeReNeM Jour­nal, Issue 4 (March 2014), 120-135.

1. Mater Do­lorosa — Joy­ous Mother?

In William-Adolphe Bouguereau’s Pietà of 1876, the Vir­gin Mary’s eyes brim with tears, ringed with the shad­ows of mourn­ing, while Christ’s limp body droops in her arms, mir­ror­ing the swoon of Michelan­gelo’s San Pietro Pietà. At her feet lies a blood­ied crown of thorns, stain­ing a white sheet, and a throng of sor­row­ing an­gels sur­rounds her. Painted in the year fol­low­ing the pre­ma­ture death of Bouguereau’s son Georges, the can­vas’s de­pic­tion of the in­di­vid­u­alised grief of mother and at­ten­dant an­gels have been seen as an ex­pres­sion of his “pri­vate feel­ings of loss and an­guish” (Wiss­man, 1996, p. 74) and as “a trib­ute to pas­sion­ate parental love over­whelmed by de­spair” (Christie’s, 2010).

Ever since the early el­e­va­tion of Mary from her rather scant pres­ence in the canon­i­cal Gospels to the key po­si­tion she now holds in Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy, she has been a mul­ti­fac­eted fig­ure, but her moth­er­hood to Christ, and by ex­ten­sion to all Chris­tians, is prob­a­bly her most per­sis­tent as­pect in wor­ship and art (Warner, 2000, p. 286). As early as the fourth cen­tury, Ephrem of Syria imag­ined a lul­laby from the Vir­gin to her child, hav­ing her sing “with my nurs­ery rhymes will I soothe thee” (Palmer, 1953, p.19), and less than a cen­tury later, when the coun­cil of Eph­esus met and de­clared the doc­trine of Christ’s di­vin­ity and hu­man­ity, they pro­claimed the title of Theotokos for the Vir­gin Mary, the “one who bore god” (For­tounatto and Cun­ning­ham, 2008, p. 143). The strong at­trac­tion of the faith­ful to being moth­ered led Anselm of Can­ter­bury in the eleventh cen­tury, and Bernard of Clair­vaux in the twelfth, to trans­fer this at­tribute to God and Christ re­spec­tively (Warner, 2000, pp. 196–7).

Bouguereau’s por­tray­als of the Vir­gin over­lap sig­nif­i­cantly with his de­pic­tions of more generic mother fig­ures, so a read­ing of his Pietà as ex­pres­sive of his per­sonal, parental grief with the Vir­gin as al­le­gory for a uni­ver­sal mourn­ing par­ent is plau­si­ble. Ear­lier paint­ings such as L’amour frater­nel (1851) and the Sainte Famille (1863) ap­pear to be of the same sub­ject: the Vir­gin, clad at least par­tially in her tra­di­tional blue, car­ing for Jesus and John the Bap­tist as in­fants. As her plump charges ex­change kisses sym­bolic of fra­ter­nal love, she is de­mure and turns her ten­der gaze to­wards them. In the later paint­ing, Mary is por­trayed with spin­dles of wool, al­le­gory for her role as mother, hav­ing spun the body of Christ (Mencej, 2011, p. 67). How­ever, the sim­i­lar­ity with the moth­ers of Bouguereau’s genre paint­ings of the same pe­riod is strik­ing: his 1859 por­trayal of La Charité adopts many of the same sym­bol­isms; the peas­ant mother in Berceuse (1875) is also shown with wool spin­dles; while the mother of Le baiser (1863) sits in the same pas­toral set­ting that is imag­ined to be the home of a mod­est, peas­ant Vir­gin in Bouguereau re­li­gious paint­ings.

In her wide-rang­ing analy­sis of Mar­i­ol­ogy, Ma­rina Warner ar­gues that gen­eral con­cep­tions of the Vir­gin have, some­what unimag­i­na­tively, al­ways been “as­sumed from pre­vail­ing so­cial con­di­tions” (Warner, 2000, p. 288) and in­deed that it is the ‘very cult of the Vir­gin’s “fem­i­nin­ity” ex­pressed by her sweet­ness, sub­mis­sive­ness, and pas­siv­ity that per­mits her to sur­vive, a god­dess in a pa­tri­ar­chal so­ci­ety’ (ibid., p. 191). Fem­i­nist the­olo­gian Rose­mary Rad­ford Ruether also notes the con­tin­ued ex­is­tence of a “Mary of the peo­ple”, a kind of “earth mother” (1975, p. 50) dif­fer­ent from the Mary of the­olo­gians and church­men, and it is this Mary that seems to si­mul­ta­ne­ously res­onate with and form pop­ulist vi­sions of moth­er­hood. In his ear­lier can­vases, Bouguereau aligns his Vir­gins with these ideals of moth­er­hood, but there is a clear shift dis­cernible from 1875 on­wards. In La Vierge, L’En­fant Jésus et Saint Jean-Bap­tiste (1875), the gen­tle­ness of the chil­dren is a di­rect recre­ation of the broth­erly em­brace of the Sainte Famille of twelve years ear­lier, but the scene trans­poses the holy trio to a far more for­mal set­ting, with a pen­sive Mary seated on a mar­ble throne and ringed by a solid gold halo. This be­came Bouguereau’s stan­dard com­po­si­tion for paint­ings of the Vir­gin, in­clud­ing the som­bre Vièrge et En­fant of 1888, in which the Christ Child’s in­tense gaze pen­e­trates the viewer al­most fiercely, and, a decade later still, in La Vièrge au Lys (1899). How­ever, his Pietà stands out as the most dra­matic of all these Vir­gins.

Bouguereau’s Vierge Consolatrice (1875)

In La Vierge Con­so­la­trice (in­scribed at the foot of the can­vas with “Mater Af­flic­to­rum”), painted a year be­fore the Pietà, a stern Vir­gin Mary raises her hands and eyes to heaven as mourn­ing mother lays her­self across the Vir­gin’s lap and prays for in­ter­ces­sion. The Vir­gin’s black robes form an inky void at the cen­tre of the can­vas, and where both ear­lier and later Marys are in­fused with light, here — as in the Pietà — clouds seem to have gath­ered. Sym­pa­thy be­tween griev­ing moth­ers links these two paint­ings. Im­plicit in the mother’s prayer for in­ter­ces­sion is an un­der­stand­ing of shared ex­pe­ri­ence: that de­spite the gulf in ho­li­ness, Vir­gin and mother are uni­fied in grief.

An as­sump­tion about the Vir­gin Mary’s grief is, how­ever, com­plex. De­spite scant scrip­tural ev­i­dence that she was pre­sent at all (Warner, 2000, pp. 344–5), Chris­t­ian tra­di­tion does most often pre­sent Mary as a griev­ing mother at the time of the cru­ci­fix­ion, as ev­i­denced in just one ex­am­ple by the en­dur­ing pop­u­lar­ity of set­tings of the Sta­bat Mater. How­ever, when one con­sid­ers the creeds of the res­ur­rec­tion of the body, and of life ever­last­ing, there is a cer­tain para­dox in mourn­ing, above all mourn­ing the death of Christ — in­deed re­joic­ing might be the more apt re­ac­tion. Warner writes, “with her gift of knowl­edge and her per­fect sym­pa­thy with Christ, Mary could not have grieved, as she knew he would rise from the dead” (ibid., p. 218).

Far from being a nec­es­sar­ily prob­lem­atic para­dox, this di­ver­gence of imag­ined re­ac­tions in fact lends the image of the Mater Do­lorosa its con­so­la­tory power. The Vir­gin ex­hibits all the traits of the griev­ing mother, or is at­trib­uted a uni­ver­sal parental grief — in Bouguereau’s Pietà, she wears a cloak of black and her eyes are wet with tears — em­pha­siz­ing her close­ness to moth­ers every­where and her moth­erly com­pas­sion for Christ and mankind, but she is also as­sured in the knowl­edge of Christ’s res­ur­rec­tion. She is si­mul­ta­ne­ously stead­fast and sor­row­ing. This sleight of hand is a re­as­sur­ance and a com­fort to the griev­ing par­ent. In her ex­hi­bi­tion of fa­mil­iar grief, the Vir­gin is placed close to them, and then with her leap to em­brace the joy­ous res­ur­rec­tion, she is able to pull a par­ent’s grief to­wards con­tem­pla­tion of the life ever­last­ing that is guar­an­teed by Christ’s do­min­ion.

Detail of Michelangelo’s Pietà, San Pietro, Rome (1499)

In this sense, a paint­ing such as Bouguereau’s Pietà can be read as func­tion­ing like an Or­tho­dox Chris­t­ian icon. The icon is seen as per­mit­ting com­mu­nion with pro­found truths con­cern­ing scrip­ture and in fact Bouguereau’s Vir­gins of this pe­riod show some strik­ing re­sem­blances with Or­tho­dox iconog­ra­phy, not least in their solid gold, cir­cu­lar haloes (For­tounatto and Cun­ning­ham, 2008, p. 136). Though the sim­i­lar­ity of the Pietà’s Christ with that of Michelan­gelo is likely de­lib­er­ate (Wiss­man, 1996, p. 74), the Vir­gin is no­tably dif­fer­ent from Michelan­gelo’s girl­ish fig­ure. Rather than the gen­tle, in­clined face of the Michelan­gelo, Bouguereau’s Mary faces firmly out­wards, her dark eyes gaz­ing out past the viewer. For­tounatto and Cun­ning­ham note that “the fig­ures de­picted in icons al­ways face the be­holder, mak­ing spir­i­tual com­mu­nion pos­si­ble” (2008, p. 137) and that in de­pic­tions of Mary with the Christ Child, “never do they ex­change in­ti­mate re­gards that would ex­clude the be­holder” (ibid., p. 145). While the Pietà is the only can­vas that aligns fully with this tenet (though La Mère Pa­trie of 1883 shows an­other sym­bolic mother with a sim­i­larly pen­e­trat­ing gaze), the se­ries of Vir­gins from 1875 on­wards dis­play nods to­wards Or­tho­dox iconog­ra­phy. Art his­to­rian Ger­ald Ack­er­man notes that both the Pietà and La Vierge Con­so­la­trice mix “Byzan­tine and re­nais­sance tra­di­tions as if to in­sist upon the ven­er­a­ble age of Chris­tian­ity” (1984, p. 248).

Detail of mosaic, Hagia Sofia, Istanbul (11th Century)

It may seem a stretch to bring a nine­teenth-cen­tury French aca­d­e­mic painter into a re­la­tion­ship with an­cient iconog­ra­phy from a church and the­ol­ogy dis­tant from his own, but de­spite the di­ver­gence in prac­tice, the Catholic Church’s own stance, de­fined by a meet­ing of the Coun­cil of Trent in 1563, that

Im­ages of Christ, and of the Vir­gin Mother of God, and of the other Saints, are to be had and re­tained par­tic­u­larly in tem­ples, and that due ho­n­our and ven­er­a­tion are to be given to them; not that any di­vin­ity, or virtue is be­lieved to be in them; … but be­cause the ho­n­our which is shown them is re­ferred to the pro­to­types which those im­ages rep­re­sent … (Wa­ter­worth, 1848, pp. 234–5)

is in fact not so far from that of the Or­tho­dox Church as ex­pressed in John Dam­a­scene’s eighth-cen­tury re­sponse to icon­o­clast an­tag­o­nists, which states that the ven­er­a­tion of im­ages “is not ven­er­a­tion of­fered to mat­ter, but to those who are por­trayed through mat­ter in the im­ages. Any ho­n­our given to an image is trans­ferred to its pro­to­type” (1980, p. 89).

It is pos­si­ble then to read Bouguereau’s Pietà as func­tion­ing as an icon, pro­vid­ing so­lace not only to the painter him­self faced with the death of his own son, but also to a mod­ern viewer seek­ing to re­flect on the dual sor­row and joy in­her­ent in the Easter rit­u­als. Though it has been seen as “less suc­cess­ful be­cause of the ex­ag­ger­ated grief of the Madonna” (Ack­er­man, 1984, p. 248), and po­ten­tial ac­cu­sa­tions of mawk­ish­ness are not helped by the fact that two re­cent own­ers in­clude Mel Gib­son and Sylvester Stal­lone (Vogel, 2010), it is clear that the rel­a­tively un­usual pre­sen­ta­tion of the Vir­gin in par­tic­u­lar pro­vides a fruit­ful de­par­ture point for con­tem­pla­tion of her role as the mother of Christ.

2. The Body of the Cru­ci­fied

On the eve of Easter Sun­day 2012, Lisa Stre­ich’s Pietà, for cello, mo­tors, and elec­tron­ics, was given its première in a con­cert clos­ing the ‘Cur­sus 1’ pro­gramme at IRCAM in Paris. A prod­uct of the in­ten­sive seven-month com­puter music course, Pietà is mostly quiet, com­bin­ing held har­mon­ics and thin rhyth­mic scrapes and taps, with oc­ca­sional sharp, trilling in­ter­jec­tions to build a still and med­i­ta­tive at­mos­phere, the lim­ited range of ma­te­ri­als plac­ing the lis­tener into a nar­row and fo­cused band of ex­pe­ri­ence. New Yorker critic Alex Ross de­scribed it as “cre­at­ing a mood of prayer­ful in­ten­sity” (2012).

While Bouguereau had a print of Michelan­gelo’s San Pietro Pietà pinned up in his stu­dio (Christie’s, 2010), Stre­ich had the mod­ern equiv­a­lent while writ­ing her Pietà: Bouguereau’s Pietà formed the back­ground of her stu­dio iMac dur­ing much of her time at IRCAM. Writ­ing about her work, she states that it turns “around that mo­ment of think­ing when the thought about life’s earnest­ness col­lides with the joy of every­day ex­is­tence” (n.d.), which can be read as mir­ror­ing the uni­fi­ca­tion of sor­row and joy that is pre­sent in the trope of the Mater Do­lorosa.

Over the course of 2011–13, Stre­ich wrote a se­ries of re­li­giously in­spired works: Grata, for cello soloist and en­sem­ble, which sets the text of the Glo­ria silently (2011); the Pietà for cello, mo­tors, and elec­tron­ics, writ­ten at IRCAM (2012); a sec­ond Pietà, this time for en­sem­ble (2012); and Asche, a duo for clar­inet and cello (2013). The first Pietà’s qui­etude can be read as “prayer­ful” or med­i­ta­tive, which — tied to the title of the work — gives us some trac­tion with the idea of a piece ad­dress­ing the iconog­ra­phy of the Pietà or at least a vague mys­ti­cal con­no­ta­tion; but more than these, it is the per­former’s in­stru­ment which plays the most sig­nif­i­cant role in com­mu­ni­cat­ing the image of the Pietà — and the fact that this in­stru­ment is the cello, which plays such vital roles in both Grata and Asche is not to be over­looked.

In the first part of 2011, with the as­sis­tance of a friend in Cologne, Stre­ich adapted a cello to be used in a per­for­mance of a piece en­ti­tled Joie. Cut­ting holes in the body of the cello and plac­ing mi­cro­phones in­side the in­stru­ment and mo­tors onto its sur­face, they cre­ated a me­chan­i­cal in­stru­ment, a ma­chine whose music was rhyth­mic and which turned the cello in­side-out, pro­ject­ing the sounds of the in­stru­ment’s in­sides out­wards to the lis­tener (Stre­ich, n.d.). In Joie — bar­ring the title, which given the se­ries of works that fol­lows it, might be read as ref­er­enc­ing some kind of spir­i­tual joy — the in­stru­ment is yet to take on any clear sym­bol­ism, its mo­tors mov­ing across its sur­face in a seem­ingly ab­stract game of geom­e­try. How­ever in Pietà, where the in­stru­ment is com­bined with a cel­list and a far more ex­plicit title, this in­stru­ment takes on a new qual­ity: that of the human body, most specif­i­cally the cru­ci­fied body of Christ — the mo­tions of the mo­tors are “the turn­ing of the screws into the flesh” (Stre­ich, n.d.) — and the hands of the per­former who em­braces this in­stru­ment be­come the hands of Mary cradling his corpse.

De­spite the be­lief in a life ever­last­ing im­per­vi­ous to the dis­so­lu­tion of the flesh (com­pare, for ex­am­ple, John 5:24), the body is in fact cru­cial in Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy. Warner writes, “Chris­t­ian her­itage … ac­cords the body a very high place in the de­f­i­n­i­tion of human per­son­al­ity”, and notes that Thomas Aquinas “demon­strated that the soul’s per­son­al­ity is ex­pressed by and through the body” (2000, p. 97). “The order of di­vine cre­ation in fact de­pends on bod­ies … It is in­so­far as it is brought back to its body that the mind ac­quires im­mor­tal­ity, the res­ur­rec­tion of bod­ies being the con­di­tion of the sur­vival of the mind” (Deleuze, 2004, p. 332). The at­tach­ment to the body that Chris­t­ian es­cha­tol­ogy fos­ters re­in­forces the power of Christ’s sac­ri­fice and in­deed of the sac­ri­fices of the nu­mer­ous mar­tyrs of the Catholic Church. The cru­ci­fixes hang­ing in churches around the world re­mind the faith­ful that Christ’s suf­fer­ing was borne also so as to safe­guard their own pre­cious cor­po­real form, and not only their meta­phys­i­cal state.

Ad­dress­ing the dis­course that sur­rounds the pub­lic ex­e­cu­tion, of which the cru­ci­fix­ion of Christ is of course an ex­am­ple, Michel Fou­cault ar­gues that “it is to be un­der­stood not only as a ju­di­cial, but also as a po­lit­i­cal rit­ual. It be­longs, even in minor cases, to the cer­e­monies by which power is man­i­fested” (1977/1995, p. 47). In­deed it is the pub­lic ex­hi­bi­tion of the crim­i­nal and their tor­tured, mu­ti­lated and even­tu­ally life­less body that demon­strates not only power over the crim­i­nal, but im­plic­itly power over the spec­ta­tor were they ever to be seen to have trans­gressed them­selves. How­ever, the spec­ta­tor, by being given the power to cre­ate the spec­ta­cle of con­dem­na­tion, also pos­sesses the power to re­verse per­ceived guilt — if not nec­es­sar­ily to com­mute sen­tences — and to turn the con­demned into a hero or mar­tyr (cf. ibid., pp. 57–65). Such is the case with Christ, whose ex­posed body, blood­ied on the Cross, was in­tended to as­sert the power of the Roman law, but in­stead was taken up as a sym­bol of his do­min­ion, an act of rev­o­lu­tion­ary de­fi­ance re­it­er­ated down the cen­turies in the mu­ti­la­tion of mar­tyrs from the sev­ered breasts of Saint Agatha to the ar­row-pierced body of Saint Se­bas­t­ian.

The dis­cus­sion of Bouguereau’s Pietà above fo­cused on the as­pects of the Vir­gin that are leg­i­ble in the paint­ing: she is pro­tec­tive, hug­ging her son’s pale corpse close, and so it is the Vir­gin, more than the body of Christ that reaches out to the viewer. How­ever, in Stre­ich’s Pietà it is — at least ini­tially — the cru­ci­fied body of Christ, rep­re­sented by the mu­ti­lated body of the cello, that is placed in the fore­ground. When the tor­tured body is pre­sented pub­licly, the spec­ta­tor of course sym­pa­thizes by map­ping the traces of tor­ture onto their own bod­ies, and with the ges­ture they pass through a space of uni­ver­sal­ized bod­ies — the idea of the body that al­lows them to see in bod­ies of oth­ers, al­le­gories of their own bod­ies. This ide­al­iza­tion is also in play, if less dra­mat­i­cally, in ap­proach­ing the so­cial­ized con­cep­tions of what an in­stru­ment is. The cello in Stre­ich’s Pietà is still a cello. De­spite its ap­par­ent mu­ti­la­tion through in­ci­sion, ad­di­tion and sub­trac­tion, it re­mains the body of a cello, and the viewer is able to sense the ten­sion in­tro­duced by the metaphor­i­cal tor­ture that the in­stru­ment body has un­der­gone.

Writ­ing of his own cello work, Pres­sion, Hel­mut Lachen­mann un­der­scored that the “beau­ti­ful” sound of the in­stru­ment as fetishized by a bour­geois so­ci­ety is the prod­uct of a re­pres­sion of ef­fort and re­sis­tance as cat­e­gories of sound pro­duc­tion (1996, p. 381). He sees the array of play­ing tech­niques em­ployed in that work as ways of fore­ground­ing in­stead the per­former’s ef­fort, by in­tro­duc­ing sounds where the sound­ing re­sult is min­i­mal in re­la­tion to the ef­fort — a re­ver­sal of the tra­di­tional ideal of a warm, rich tone pro­duced ef­fort­lessly. This re­ver­sal is there­fore a re­dis­tri­b­u­tion of the power bal­ance in play in the spec­ta­cle of per­for­mance, lib­er­at­ing the work of the per­former from the bour­geois de­sire to re­press its im­por­tance. How­ever, Lachen­mann’s in­stru­ment re­mains un­al­tered: while the player’s ac­tions ac­tu­al­ize pre­vi­ously un­ex­plored po­ten­tial­i­ties, the space de­lim­ited by the tra­di­tional body of the cello can be said to have con­tained these po­ten­tial­i­ties since its in­cep­tion. Stre­ich’s vi­o­lent in­ter­ven­tion in this space on the other hand pre­serves these po­ten­tial­i­ties to a great ex­tent, but also opens a new se­ries of po­ten­tial­i­ties tied to the ac­tion of mo­tors and am­pli­fi­ca­tion.

In his work on the paint­ing of Fran­cis Bacon, Deleuze posits an un­der­stand­ing of the cre­ative process in which a for­mal vi­o­lence he terms the ‘cat­a­stro­phe’ en­gen­ders the open­ing of new po­ten­tial­i­ties “like the emer­gence of an­other world”, cit­ing Bacon him­self who de­scribes how this “un­locks areas of sen­sa­tion” (2005, pp. 71–2). Deleuze stresses that while cat­a­stro­phe sug­gests un­bri­dled vi­o­lence and up­heaval, “the vi­o­lent meth­ods must not be given free reign, and the nec­es­sary cat­a­stro­phe must not sub­merge the whole,” be­cause it “is a pos­si­bil­ity of fact — it is not the fact it­self” (ibid., p. 77). Given this, we might un­der­stand the re­con­fig­u­ra­tion of the po­ten­tial­i­ties in Stre­ich’s cello in pre­cisely these terms: the sym­bolic tor­ture (cat­a­stro­phe) that is ap­plied to the in­stru­ment body gen­er­ates a field of pos­si­bil­i­ties whose ten­sion de­rives both from their cat­a­strophic re­la­tion­ship with the in­stru­ment’s orig­i­nal po­ten­tial­i­ties, and from the fact that this cat­a­stro­phe in­volves the pub­lic ex­hi­bi­tion of a bod­ily vi­o­lence. Given the sub­ject mat­ter at hand, it is im­por­tant to note that Deleuze’s pro­posal of the cat­a­stro­phe as a cre­ative force forms an el­e­gant par­al­lel with the crit­i­cal cat­a­stro­phe of Chris­tian­ity. Christ is said to have died for the sins of mankind (1 Cor 15:3), so just as the Deleuz­ian cat­a­stro­phe is the site of cre­ation, the mes­siah’s cru­ci­fix­ion is the site of sal­va­tion, mark­ing again “the emer­gence of an­other world”.

Much of this re­flec­tion has been a fairly vi­sual as­sess­ment of the in­stru­ment as a car­rier of sym­bolic con­tent and it is in­ter­est­ing to turn to what hap­pens in Stre­ich’s Pietà with the pos­si­bil­i­ties of “fact” es­tab­lished in the in­stru­ment. In the dis­cus­sion above of Bouguereau’s Pietà, we touched upon the strange en­tan­gle­ment of sor­row and joy pre­sent in the Pietà trope, and it is this en­tan­gle­ment in par­tic­u­lar that seems to pro­vide an in­sight into how some kind of rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the Pietà in a mu­si­cal work is able to take shape. The en­tan­gle­ment of mourn­ing and re­joic­ing in Mary at the cru­ci­fix­ion is di­rectly tied to is­sues of mat­ter and meta­physics — the mourn­ing is for the tor­tured flesh; the re­joic­ing is for the lib­er­ated spirit — and it is this sep­a­ra­tion of worlds we find mir­rored in the func­tion­ing of Stre­ich’s Pietà. As we have seen, the mod­i­fied cello can be read as a site of vi­o­lence, as the body of Christ, but this is above all leg­i­ble in the vi­sual and the pos­si­ble rather than in the sound­ing re­sult it­self. Just like the cat­a­stro­phe in Bacon’s can­vases, the cat­a­stro­phe is gen­er­a­tive but not of a rep­re­sen­ta­tion of a cat­a­stro­phe, it in­stead gen­er­ates a new plane of pos­si­bil­i­ties. Here we can re­turn to per­cep­tion of the sonic ex­pres­sion in this work as “prayer­ful” or med­i­ta­tive.

Pietà is, for the most part, per­vaded by a sense of calm. The ges­tures of both the cel­list and the mo­tors on the in­stru­ment body are mea­sured and de­lib­er­ate, tak­ing time be­tween events and rarely rush­ing. Rep­e­ti­tion and it­er­a­tion play a large part in main­tain­ing this calm. In­deed rep­e­ti­tion and small, local vari­a­tion of this type can be seen as a per­for­mance of re­flec­tion or med­i­ta­tion — the slight change of an ob­ject in its re­state­ment de­not­ing small shifts in per­spec­tive as con­tem­pla­tion pro­gresses. This calm se­ries of it­er­a­tions is most ob­vi­ous in the held notes of the cello (whether high as in bb. 8, 21, 24–6 and 32, or lower as in bb. 11, 15, 17 and 24–5, as well as else­where). The hold­ing of these and the re­oc­cur­rence of spe­cific pitches, per­mit a move­ment to­wards a closer con­tem­pla­tion, trans­form­ing them from flat sur­faces into de­tailed topogra­phies. This per­vad­ing calm is in­ter­rupted, fairly abruptly, in the mid­dle of the work by sharply ac­cented, dis­torted ges­tures that seem to rend holes in the fine fab­ric of the piece (bb. 33–70), but even these sonic erup­tions are made to be­come ob­jects of con­tem­pla­tion in their rep­e­ti­tion, and this con­tem­pla­tion leads us back to the qui­etude of the work’s open­ing.

Musical score excerpt

bb.7–22 (cello part) from Lisa Stre­ich’s Pietà.

The work’s calm is also pre­sent in the mostly per­cus­sive ma­te­r­ial per­formed on the body of the cello by the four mo­tors. Where in Pietà’s an­tecedent, Joie, the me­chan­i­cal na­ture of the mo­tors was ex­ploited to build to­wards a ma­chine-like vigour and vol­ume, here it is re­strained. There is a cer­tain neat­ness to their mark­ings on the in­stru­ment body. Al­though these are “the turn­ing of the screws into the flesh”, the vi­o­lence that that image sug­gests, and that as we have seen is in some senses re­al­ized in the in­ser­tion of the motor as a for­eign ob­ject into the body of the cello, is not trans­lated into an acoustic phe­nom­e­non. Rather, the re­sul­tant sounds of the vi­o­la­tion of the cello’s body are in fact in di­rect op­po­si­tion to that vi­o­lence in the same way that the joy in­her­ent in Mary’s cer­tainty of Christ’s bod­ily res­ur­rec­tion is in op­po­si­tion to her sor­row at his bod­ily death.

By way of con­clu­sion, let us tie to­gether how the en­tan­gle­ments that the Pietà trope brings with it when used as a ref­er­ent could be un­der­stood as func­tion­ing in this spe­cific Pietà. It seems fruit­ful to posit that this en­tan­gle­ment of sor­row and joy is man­i­fested in Stre­ich’s Pietà by di­vid­ing the work’s mul­ti­di­men­sional space into sec­tors dif­fer­ently aligned with these at­ti­tudes. One sec­tor, en­fold­ing re­la­tion­ships be­tween the vi­sual, the phys­i­cal, and so­cial­ized con­cep­tions of these, dis­plays as­pects of vi­o­lence and sor­row in its treat­ment of the body of the cello and in the Pietà trope is most closely aligned with the body of Christ in its pub­lic ex­hi­bi­tion of these vi­o­lences. An­other sec­tor, formed mostly by the per­formed ges­ture and au­di­tory phe­nom­ena, dis­plays an abid­ing and a calm ac­cep­tance of the sal­va­tion pre­cip­i­tated in the cru­ci­fix­ion and this is aligned with Mary, whose role is not sim­ply that of the weep­ing Mater Do­lorosa, but as the in­di­vid­ual whose priv­i­leged role as Theotokos per­mits her, and per­haps her alone, to ac­cess a cer­tainty of and as­sur­ance in the res­ur­rec­tion and there­fore the joy­ous as­pect of the Pietà. These sec­tors are in­sep­a­ra­ble and in fact their com­plex of re­la­tion­ships con­tin­u­ously re­de­fines the whole when sub­jected to con­tem­pla­tion, which is per­haps why it re­mains a rich vein for ex­plo­ration.

Bib­li­og­ra­phy

  • Ack­er­man, G. (1984) ‘Re­view: William Bouguereau, Paris’. The Burling­ton Mag­a­zine. 126 (973), pp. 247–49.
  • Christie’s (2010) ‘Sale 2322, Lot 120: William Adolphe Bouguereau (La Rochelle 1825-1905), Pietà’. [On­line] Avail­able at: http://​www.​christies.​com/​lotfinder/​paintings/​william-​adolphe-​bouguereau-​pieta-​5324539-​details.​aspx[Ac­cessed 21 Au­gust 2013].
  • Deleuze, G. (2004) The Logic of Sense. Trans­lated by M. Lester and C. Sti­vale. Lon­don: Con­tin­uum.
  • Deleuze, G. (2005) Fran­cis Bacon: The Logic of Sen­sa­tion. Trans­lated by D.W. Smith. Lon­don: Con­tin­uum.
  • For­tounatto, M. and Cun­ning­ham, M.B. (2008) ‘The­ol­ogy of the icon’. In: Cun­ning­ham, M.B. and Theokritoff, E. (eds.) The Cam­bridge Com­pan­ion to Or­tho­dox Chris­t­ian The­ol­ogy. Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, pp. 136–49.
  • Fou­cault, M. (1977/1995) Dis­ci­pline & Pun­ish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans­lated by A. Sheri­dan. New York: Vin­tage.
  • John of Dam­as­cus (1980) On the di­vine im­ages : three apolo­gies against those who at­tack the holy im­ages. Trans­lated by D. An­der­son. Crest­wood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Sem­i­nary Press.
  • Lachen­mann, H. (1996) Musik als ex­is­ten­tielle Er­fahrung. Wies­baden: Bre­itkopf & Härtel.
  • Mencej, M. (2011) ‘Con­nect­ing Threads’. Folk­lore. 48, pp. 55–84. [On­line] Avail­able at: http://​www.​folklore.​ee/​folklore/ [Ac­cessed 23 Au­gust 2013].
  • Palmer, P.F.J. (1953) Mary in the Doc­u­ments of the Church. Lon­don: Burns & Oates.
  • Ross, A. (2012) ‘Parisian Foot­notes’ The Rest is Noise. [On­line] 25 April 2012. Avail­able at: http://​www.​the​rest​isno​ise.​com/​2012/​04/​paris-​footnotes.​html [Ac­cessed 13 June 2013].
  • Ruether, R.R. (1975) New Woman, New Earth: Sex­ist Ide­olo­gies and Human Lib­er­a­tion. New York: Seabury Press.
  • Stre­ich, L. (n.d.) Lisa Stre­ich. [On­line] Avail­able at: http://​lisastreich.​se/ [Ac­cessed 13 June 2013].
  • Stre­ich, L. (2012) Pietà, for cello, mo­tors and elec­tron­ics. Self-pub­lished.
  • Stre­ich, L. (2012) Grata, for cello and en­sem­ble. Self-pub­lished.
  • Vogel, C. (2010) ‘Lehman Plans Auc­tion of Its Mod­ern Art­works’. The New York Times. 4 June, p. C24.
  • Warner, M. (2000) Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and Cult of the Vir­gin Mary. Reprinted, first pub­lished 1976. Lon­don: Vin­tage.
  • Wa­ter­worth, J. (trans.) (1848), The Canons and De­crees of the Sa­cred and Oe­c­u­meni­cal Coun­cil of Trent. Lon­don: Dol­man.
  • Wiss­man, F.E. (1996) Bouguereau. San Fran­cisco: Pome­gran­ate Art­books.

Art­works Men­tioned (Chrono­log­i­cal)

  • Michelan­gelo (1498–99) Pietà, mar­ble.
  • Bouguereau, W.-A. (1851) L’amour frater­nel, oil on can­vas.
  • Bouguereau, W.-A. (1859) La Charité, oil on can­vas.
  • Bouguereau, W.-A. (1863) Sainte Famille, oil on can­vas.
  • Bouguereau, W.-A. (1863) Le baiser, oil on can­vas.
  • Bouguereau, W.-A. (1875) Berceuse, oil on can­vas.
  • Bouguereau, W.-A. (1875) La Vierge, L’En­fant Jésus et Saint Jean-Bap­tiste, oil on can­vas.
  • Bouguereau, W.-A. (1875) La Vierge Con­so­la­trice, oil on can­vas.
  • Bouguereau, W.-A. (1876) Pietà, oil on can­vas.
  • Bouguereau, W.-A. (1888) Vièrge et En­fant, oil on can­vas.
  • Bouguereau, W.-A. (1899) Vièrge au Lys, oil on can­vas.