Ares
Joachim Anthonisz. Wtewael, Mars and Venus Surprised by Vulcan, 1604-1608, The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, oil on copper.
Ryan Seek: Comparative Analysis
In Joachim Wtewael’s oil on copper painting Mars and Venus Surprised by Vulcan, the Greek god of war Ares is depicted to be caught in the act of an affair with Aphrodite, the wife of the forge god Hephaestus. Wtewael’s choice of oil on copper lends to a vibrant and dramatic finish that allows the rich colors of the oil painting to shine, highlighting the dramatic poses and reactions of the gods depicted. These aspects further serve to emphasize how Wtewael paints his own interpretation of the infamous affair between Ares and Aphrodite, in which he depicts the gods shaming and laughing at the adulterous couple as Hephaestus reigns victorious. Wtewael’s interpretation of the myth in turn strengthens the dramatic intensity of his painting.
In the Odyssey, the Bard Demodicus sings of the amusing love affair between Ares and Aphrodite, much to the dismay of Hephaestus (La Fond 12:36-12:46). It was said that while Hephaestus would leave his abode to work at his forge, Ares began to seduce Aphrodite with gifts and affection. Eventually the Sun Helius catches on to the affair, and informs Hephaestus of it. Already in a loveless marriage, Hephaestus plots a scheme to enact revenge upon the two lovers. One day Hephaestus fakes traveling to the citadel of Lemmos, and plants an invisible bronze net in the bed of Ares. Ares falls for the bait, and beckons for his lover Aphrodite to join him in his bed. However, to their shock the two lovers find themselves ensnared in Hephaestus’ trap, and Ares fears he will not be able to escape. Scornful Hephaestus calls upon the mighty gods of Olympus, and it was said that they laughed at the sight of it (either at Hephaestus being cuckolded and demanding compensation from Ares or the couple themselves). The gods then make fun of the mighty Ares for being outwitted and caught by the crippled and cunning Hephaestus (Morford et al. 128-130).
The laughter of the Olympian gods is perhaps the most debated detail of the mythic affair between Ares and Aphrodite. The point of contention being exactly who the gods were laughing at. Were they laughing at Hephaestus for being a cuckold, or were they laughing at the adulterous Ares and Aphrodite for being caught in the act of lovemaking? Alexander Millington in his Ph.D thesis on Ares draws upon two interesting interpretations of the laughter of the gods, one from M.J Alden and another from C.G Brown. According to Alden the laughter of the gods is directed at Hephaestus’ demand for financial recompense from Ares, and is meant to juxtapose the hero Odysseus who will not allow his beloved wife Penelope to marry another (Millington 92). Such an interpretation contextualizes the mythic narrative as more of a comedic story, in which a dishonored Hephaestus desperately tries to get revenge on the two adulterers, only to be laughed at and settle for financial recompense. Brown on the other hand asserts that the mockery of the gods is directed at Ares and Aphrodite as a divine punishment to shame the two gods for committing an act of adultery (Millington 92). This interpretation contextualizes the myth as more of a dramatic allegory, a warning directed at those who would think to cheat on their spouses. What interests me is the
Wtewael opts for an interpretation of the myth similar to Brown, where he deliberately depicts the pantheon of the gods laughing at a shocked and distressed Ares and Aphrodite. The extravagant poses of the gods in tandem with the jewel-like colors of the oil on copper finish further serve to embolden the dramatic intensity of Wtewal’s painting (“Mars and Venus Surprised by Vulcan”). Wtewael chooses not to depict the mythic scene as a comedic moment of spite for a cuckolded Hephaestus, but rather as a low point and moment of mockery for the two lovers. By interpreting the myth of Ares and Aphrodite’s love affair as a moment of raw shame, (seen through the nude and vulnerable figures of the two ridiculed lovers), Wtewael is able to capture the aesthetic essence of an early 1600’s Baroque painting. Jewel-like colors, dramatic poses, and a dark sky to contrast the vibrant colors of the oil on copper create an intensely Baroque scene worthy of Ares’ scandalous affair with his amorous lover Aphrodite. Thus Wtewael uses his interpretation of the myth of Ares and Aphrodite caught in the act by Hephaestus to paint a scene of extravagantly-dramatic intensity, cementing his legacy in the collection of early 17th century Baroque art.
Marco Marcelli: Personal Perspective
Depicted in vibrant oil colors is the scandal between Ares and Aphrodite, an affair with the wife of Hephaestus, the Greek god of the forge. Painted by Joachim Wtewael, Mars and Venus Surprised by Vulcan strikes me with feelings of shame and foolishness. Additionally, some details allude to Greek attitudes socially. Moving forward, this will analyze the painting from a personal perspective, reacting to the piece itself. I will speak about the portrayal of Ares, Aphrodite, Hephaestus, and the Greek gods.
Gazing at the scene shown can evoke some feeling of shame or embarrassment. The frame shows the narrative, the gods above, Ares and Aphrodite in bed, and Hephaestus working in the forge behind the curtain. The curtain is vibrant in color, the linens on the bed bright blue and red. These are attractive to the eye, drawing all attention to the affair. This could've been a secretive piece in someone's collection, possibly bought as erotic art (Lowenthal 20-24). I understand this seeing the position of the sexual encounter, Aphrodite turned in just a way that exposes her to the viewer. She is looking away but doesn't share the same expression as Ares. In contrast, Ares is covering his face in horror, shocked at the trick played on him. Altogether, this makes the viewer either feel a sense of shame or embarrassment. You are looking at a scene of infidelity exposed to everyone, devaluing the morality of the gods themselves. What's interesting is the lack of iconography signifying which character is Hephaestus. At first glance, it seems to be the man standing in the window made by the curtain, busy at work forging. This could show an interpretation that Hephaestus was not a diligent spouse, too consumed in his work to even be aware of Aphrodite and Ares nearby. However, Hephaestus is the man wearing the colorful hat standing on the discarded armor. Forged to disguise him, he appears from the armor as part of the trick to expose the lovers. One crucial detail that changes our perception is that both men are wearing the same hat. This might be Hephaestus existing in two separate spaces in the same image. These paintings are often driven by narrative, so it wouldn't be absurd for the same character to appear more than once.
Understanding that Greek mythology can often mirror the social world leads me to personal speculation about the piece. We see stories of the deity filled underworld with complete authority over the human realm, yet are often distracted and involved with trivialities and civil disputes (La Fond 8:20 - 11:40). With this story and painting, we see a marital affair between gods, using human elements to evoke feelings in the viewers. It makes a mockery of infidelity, with the small winged cherubs and gods snickering at the scene. Hephaestus had called down the gods to assist him with the shame he was facing, only to be laughed at instead (Morford et al. 128-130). This can be a stand-in for how Greek gods reinforced social norms. Women were portrayed as mischievous and dangerous, not being able to restrain themselves from sexual pleasures. This often came at the detriment of their households or personal lives (P. Walcot 39). We see the goddess of sexuality and beauty leisurely be exposed for her infidelity, while Ares' expression makes it appear the affair was not in his nature.
In conclusion, the myth of Ares and Aphrodite's affair evokes feelings of shame of possible arousal in the viewer. The scene of Hephaestus tricking the lovers is met with laughter from the gods. The vibrant colors and adornments on the bed direct the viewer to an Aphrodite deliberately exposed in the frame by Wtewael. These could fill the viewer with shame, gazing at a scandalous and personal moment not meant for them to see, or to possibly eroticize the disposition and situation Aphrodite and Ares are caught in. Furthermore, it reinforces Greek social norms that could be interpreted differently. The gods are tied up in trivial civil affairs, more concerned with their sexual activity than the state of the human world. The affair compromises the moral standards of the gods or could be seen as a cautionary tale against infidelity. However, what does seem clear in my interpretation is the social attitude towards women. Aphrodite is the goddess of sexuality and beauty, she is acting completely within her nature in this image. Ares is not, as he is not perceived to be as sexual. It seems like her inability to restrain herself is a part of her, an assumption made about women from the perspective of Greek men.
Preet Atwal: History & Legacy
In 1608, Dutch painter Joachim Wtewael depicted one of the most famed tales in all of Greek mythology: Mars and Venus surprised by Vulcan. Painted on a small copper plate, the work displays a nude Mars and Venus, caught in an erotic act of adultery by Venus’ husband, Vulcan, and by various gods and figures featured in greek mythological narrative. The work was done during the Dutch Golden Age in a style that falls in line with that of mannerism. Done during the beginning of this golden era, the piece was one of the last of its kind and symbolized the immense embodiment of the characters themselves and the people who viewed it as well.
Joachim Wtewael is noted as one of the most iconic Dutch painters within the last couple of centuries. Born in 1566 in Utecht, the Netherlands as the son of a glass painter, he began studying oil painting, which would become his main medium at the age of 15. Throughout his early career as an artist, Wtewael studied in the likes of France and Italy. It was in Italy when he began to work under the bishop of Saint-Malo. After an excursion consisting of four years working under religious authority between France and Italy, Wtewael established an artist’s guild in Utrecht, which was quite the revolutionary move considering the city was absent of one up until then. Like many other artists at the time, Wtewael took a liking to politics and served on the city council of Utrecht on and off from 1610 to 1636 (J.Paul Getty Museum). It was during this time that the Dutch painter became one of the most compelling European artists of the century. He typically painted in a ‘mannerist’ style, which was in fact fading out among painters during his era. The style emerged during the later years of the Renaissance, commonly referred to as the “High Renaissance”(Motta). Which explains why Wtewael chose to paint in this style a majority of his time due to his years of study in Italy. This artistic approach is said to have “acted as a bridge between the idealized style of Renaissance art and the dramatic theatrically of Baroque art.” (Motta) It has many interpretations in regard to its style. However, a common theme in all mannerist paintings is the theme of exaggeration. And Wtewael’s work is not excluded from this. Exaggeration was usually shown through various figures in paintings. Wtewael exudes this clear manneristic approach in how Vulcan is depicted as a short, stubby man in the nude in contrast to Ares who is also in the nude but is depicted as quite the opposite from Vulcan. While exaggerated, Wtewael is not far off with his depiction as “Hephestus is a figure of amusement” (Morford, 128). Which may explain the almost humorous nudity of the exposed Vulcan. Many of his works depicted mythological and biblical lores in a manneristic avenue and were painted on not only canvases but rather other materials such as copper or glass.
Known to be painted in 1608, the painting was done during what is known as the Dutch Golden Age. This was a period in time during the 17th century that provided for economic, political, and cultural enlightenment after the Netherlands was freed from the hands of Catholic rule by the Spanish. An expansion in trade provided for the leveling up of not only the middle class but also the merchant classes which opened the gateway for Dutch art proliferation (Ganbold,2021). While this was an extremely important time for Dutch artists to start a new age of enlightenment for the medium, Wtewael decided to stick to the old ways of mannerism in his Mars and Venus surprised by Vulcan. At this time Dutch artists were not painting like Wtewael at all, many of their paintings involved various landscapes and depicted Dutch cultural lifestyle in different manners due to the cultural boom the country was facing. Wtewael rejected this and rather succumbed to an older style like mannerism which typically depicted epics in the biblical and mythological genre, reminiscent of the Baroque painting style. The painting being made during this major cultural shift carries a huge legacy due to the fact that it represented a style that was the last of its time before a new, more fresh art style took control of the art community.
This painting showcases the myth of how the lover's Venus: goddess of love, and Mars: god of war, were surprised by Venus’ husband at the time: Vulcan. Upon hearing word of the long-standing affair by god Apollo, Vulcan craft a transparent net that was to be cast over the couple in the midst of their affair. This scene is depicted by Wtewael with a cunning Vulcan standing upon Mars’ armor, perhaps to show dominance over the one thing Mars is feared for: his armor, being a direct symbol for his love of war, and bloodshed. Various gods hover over the astonished couple such as Apollo, Cupid, and Zeus. During the period in which this painting was made, it was thought to lean more towards the erotic genre. With certain physical attributes of Venus and Mars, who were both thought to be ridiculously attractive, being shown, this work would actually be classified as pornographic material. As done with similar works at the time, the early holders of this painting were inclined to be of a high-class standing and most likely concluded to cover this artwork with a curtain or hide it in a drawer (J.Paul Getty Museum). The only time that a painting such as this was to be shown was typically for sexual, self-pleasurable purposes.
The narrative that is crafted by Joachim Wtewael’s painting is something that is of utmost importance, however, if you dig deeper you will find that the historical relevance is just as important when interpreting such a complex piece of work as Mars and Venus surprised by Vulcan. Wtewael does the extraordinary job of probing emerging and non-emerging art styles at the time to create a piece that explores one of the most iconic myths in a melodramatic setting. While the work may have served purposes that the artist may or may have not been interested in, it goes down as a piece that is stuck in time and with it holds an abundant amount of information about not only the mythical story presented but also the story of the artist himself: Joachim Wtewael.
Works Cited
Ganbold, Nicole. “Dutch Golden Age Explained.” DailyArt Magazine, 23 Nov. 2021, https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/dutch-golden-age-explained/.
La Fond, Marie. “Destination Olympus: Introduction to the Olympian Gods.” Greek and Roman Myth. University of Washington, Jan. 2022,
canvas.uw.edu/courses/1514816/pages/lesson-2-video-lectures?module_item_id=14661
Accessed 13 Feb. 2022.
La Fond, Marie. “I’ll See You in Hell: The Underworld and the Afterlife.” Greek and Roman Myth. University of Washington, Jan. 2022, https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/1514816/pages/lesson-6-video-lectures?module_item_id=14661602. Accessed 13 Feb. 2022.
Lowenthal, Anne W. “MARS AND VENUS SURPRISED BY VULCAN.” Getty.edu, GETTY MUSEUM STUDIES ON ART, https://www.getty.edu/publications/resources/virtuallibrary/0892363045.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2022
“Mars and Venus Surprised by Vulcan.” The J. Paul Getty Museum, www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/715/joachim-anthonisz-wtewael-mars-and-venus-surprised-by-vulcan-dutch-1604-1608/. Accessed 13 Feb. 2022.
Millington, Alexander T. War and Warrior: Functions of Ares in Literature and Cult. University College London, 2013, pp. 92,
discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1427880/1/Alexander_Thomas_Millington_Ares_-_Full_PhD_Thesis_(corrected).pdf. Accessed 13 Feb. 2022.
Morford, Mark, et al. Classical Mythology. 11th ed., Oxford UP, 2019, pp. 128-130.
Motta, Cristina. “Mannerism: What Is Mannerism?” USEUM,https://useum.org/Mannerism/What-is-Mannerism.
Walcot, P. “Greek Attitudes towards Women: The Mythological Evidence.” Greece & Rome, vol. 31, no. 1, [Classical Association, Cambridge University Press], 1984, pp. 37–47, http://www.jstor.org/stable/642368.