Pallas Athena by Gustav Klimt (Interpretation and Analysis)
Pallas Athena Source: gustav-klimt.com |
Rather, Pallas Athena seeks to explore the symbolic significance of the goddess, who was a major figure in Greek/Roman mythology. According to legend, Athena sprung from the head of Zeus as a fully-grown woman, clothed in armor. As such she is primarily known as the goddess of wisdom and of war, two characteristics that could be understood as contradictory. It is also important to note that these were considered to be masculine attributes during the time of the ancient Greeks and during Klimt’s own lifetime.
This dichotomy within the character of Athena seems to have intrigued Klimt. Klimt was part of the symbolist movement. As the name suggests, the symbolists rejected naturalism and realism in paintings, instead choosing to explore the spiritual and philosophical world through the use of symbolic imagery. Their work aimed to access a higher truth, a level of spiritual and emotional reality that was neglected by the work of realist painters. Klimt often used mythological imagery to achieve this goal, recognizing it as a useful vehicle for creating meaning.
Here, Klimt presents Athena as a pillar of unflappable strength. Her chin is raised, and she gazes out at the viewer with pale eyes. Her expression is remote and unapproachable, She bears the traditional symbols of the goddess. An owl—a symbol of wisdom—perches behind her, and she is dressed in armor, a reference to the legend of her birth. The head of Medusa can be seen on her breastplate, another reference to classical mythology. Yet, there is also a new symbol in the painting. In her hand, Athena holds the tiny figure of a woman, perhaps a symbol of her divine supremacy or an allusion to her own gender, which is masked by her armor (at least, that's how contemporary viewers would have seen it). These symbols highlight the essential duality that Klimt seeks to explore. Athena is both masculine and feminine; Athena is a giver of law and agent of civilization, but also represents the destructive forces of war.
Yet, in the end, what Klimt is truly trying to do is reconcile these seemingly contradictory characteristics, wrapping them up in one, rather beautiful gilded painting.
Disclaimer: I’m not an art historian or an expert on this topic. The above is my opinion, based on my interpretation of my foreknowledge of art and history. If I’ve done any additional research, I’ll note it above.
Comments
Post a Comment