What artist’s story isn’t unique? David M. Stone suggests that Caravaggio has a “story” with a certain mystery. Blood plays a major role in the story. Stone is too focused on the blood. I think he overanalyses the subject and exhausts it, but he also leaves out vital information about Caravaggio. Stone’s theories are not convincing because they don’t provide a thorough analysis of Caravaggio’s mind.
Stone’s later suggestion that Caravaggio used blood as metaphor is more effective. Stone then suggests that Caravaggio was using blood metaphorically in his work. Stone’s message would be better communicated if it was more straightforward, without any metaphors.
Stone should have included the experiences Caravaggio had in the past or present to support his claim. Stone’s article is lacking in context, and it would have been interesting to learn more about Caravaggio. Caravaggio’s never signing his paintings is a fact. The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, however, is a fascinating example. The reader is left with many questions. One of the most obvious ones being – Why? Stone avoided the question of Caravaggio’s real reasoning. I think he could have delved into Caravaggio’s mind to find out more about his reasoning. Stone should have some sort conclusion about Stone’s use of the Stone. It provides historic context. The evidence he offers is useful for understanding how the blood was used in that time.
Stone’s way of presenting his argument relies heavily on how information is ordered and delivered. It’s not terrible but it could be better because I think some of the information is not arranged correctly in a way that makes sense. His clarity could be improved by arranging his examples and evidence in a logical order. Stone’s view is sometimes unclear too, because he presents a number of possible interpretations of what the blood means but does not make a direct claim. Stone’s view is left unclear as he mentions several possibilities. Stone may have been better off citing other art historians whose work has also focused on Caravaggio.
Stone would have been able to hold my interest for longer if he had provided less specific information about blood and more about the psychology behind it. What Stone thinks Caravaggio thought would be very interesting. There are many concepts alluded in “Signature Killer Caravaggio And The Poetics Of Blood”, but this article would be more effective if it made one strong claim rather than multiple vague concepts.
