The Assumption of Mary Magdalene 1636

Curator: Here we have Jusepe de Ribera’s oil painting, “The Assumption of Mary Magdalene,” completed in 1636. Editor: It strikes me immediately as… turbulent. So many figures vying for space in the composition. It feels restless, almost frantic. Curator: Precisely! This dynamism aligns with the Baroque style, certainly. But I see something more: a figure elevated not through effortless grace, but against a groundswell. Look at the throng of cherubs practically hauling Mary Magdalene upward. What narratives are being overwritten by the dominant religious discourse? Where is Magdalene’s agency in this painted narrative? Editor: Interesting point. The artist’s handling of materials reinforces that sense of effort, doesn't it? Notice the heavy, impasto brushstrokes, especially in the cherubs' bodies and the drapery. The artist wasn’t trying to create an illusionistic surface; he emphasized the physicality of the paint itself. Is it also important to acknowledge who commissioned this artwork? Curator: Absolutely. Consider the socio-political power dynamics in play when a work like this, steeped in religious and possibly misogynistic interpretations, is commissioned and displayed. Who are its intended viewers, and what values is it meant to uphold, against what other identities and understandings of spirituality? The Magdalene here embodies a complex web of social and theological anxieties. Editor: Right. You see, I read the artist's technique as mirroring Magdalene’s ascension, a journey not of airy transcendence but of palpable struggle – rendered tangible through Ribera’s engagement with his craft. It isn’t just about *what* is depicted, but *how* it’s depicted; and what resources were available at his disposal. Curator: It seems a very physical take on divine ascension! Food for thought, indeed. Editor: Exactly. Thinking about process alongside historical interpretation just opens up so much depth, don't you agree?