I find this painting extremely powerful. Its composition, its colour palette and its subject matter all come together to make this one of the saddest paintings I’ve seen. But this painting is different from any other paintings we’ve seen on this channel so far.
Usually when I find an interesting painting and do research on its background and context, I find it even more appealing; I feel like I discovered a whole new perspective on this work of art and it makes me enjoy it even more. When I did research on this painting, that didn’t happen. It was painted by Polish artist Jan Matejko who became known for painting historical scenes.
For example, The Sermon of Piotr Skarga won the 1865 Paris Salon’s gold medal. Two years later, he won another gold medal at the Paris World Exhibition with his painting Rejtan, or the Fall of Poland. Stanczyk, which is what this painting is called, was made early in Matejko’s career.
He was only 24 when he painted it. Stanczyk is the name of the subject; a famous court jester who became known by performing during the Polish Renaissance under King Sigismund I the Old. He wasn’t only an entertainer, as you might expect from a jester, but he was also extremely smart and would, through his performances, do social commentary.
He’s considered now more like a cultural icon in polish culture and appears in books, plays and, of course, paintings. Matejko represented him in different scenes such as The Hanging of the Sigismund bell, The Prussian Homage and Gamrat and Stanczyk. Matejko’s most notorious scenes are usually extremely busy with many figures and a lot of action, but Stanczyk is very different in that regard.
Instead of being the depiction of a public event, it’s much more intimate; we’re alone with the famous jester. He’s completely lost in thought, his posture shows despair and the fact that he’s alone and turning his back to the party speaks of his melancholy. Alright, so here’s the historical context: First, the painting’s full title isn’t Stanczyk, but Stańczyk during a ball at the court of Queen Bona in the face of the loss of Smolensk.
Stanczyk is worried for the future of Poland. They were at war with modern day Russia and they had lost the city of Smolensk in 1514. This is probably what the letter is announcing.
What might be worrying Stanczyk even more, is the royal family’s carelessness as to what’s happening to their empire. The representation of a dwarf carrying a lute would be, in Matejko’s time, a symbol of decadency. Out of the window, we can see the Wawel Cathedral where kings are coronated and, next to it, a comet, which was actually sighted in 1514, symbolizing the downfall of the empire.
There are some historical incongruities in this depiction. The title leads us to believe that Queen Bona was actually the Queen of Poland during the fall of Smolensk in 1514, but she only became queen in 1518. The year 1533 is also written on the letter, which is not concordant with the fall of Smolensk.
But knowing all this historical context and the story behind this painting doesn’t, to my great surprise, add to my appreciation of it. It’s the first time this happens. To be honest, I’d probably find this painting more powerful if the cause of the jester’s sadness was unknown.
Well, let’s take a closer look at the painting to see what gives it power. Let us first look at its composition. First, there are two backgrounds on each side of the scene.
One is showing the outdoor scenery, placing the whole event at night, while the other shows a party and its many guests. In the room, there’s a table with a letter on it and, next to it, Stanczyk. He is, of course, the subject of the artwork and he’s placed right in the centre of it.
Our eyes are naturally driven towards him because of the strong contrast between him and the dark wall, which is in itself, framing him. The colours are extremely dark. There’s a bit blue and green around the window area, but darkness really dominates the painting.
Of course, there’s also the red of the party and the red in Stanczyk’s costume which, in a way, implies that the two should both be united, not separated. And I feel like that’s exactly why this painting is so sad. It’s this separation between the subject and the party.
It’s the depiction of a jester who, instead of being at the ongoing party, is sad and lonely. He’s not only refusing to attend it, he’s turning his back to it, secluded in darkness. There’s a disconnection between the party and Stanczyk, who, out of all the people in the kingdom, should be the one attending it; after all, it’s his job.
This adds another layer of sadness to this scene. This man, whose vocation is to entertain people, make them laugh, make them happy. .
. can’t even cheer himself up. This tragedy has an official name: The Sad Clown Paradox.
For example, a study on this phenomenon was published in 1981 and was titled “Pretend the World Is Funny and Forever: A Psychological Analysis of Comedians, Clowns, and Actors”. This paradox has often been used to trigger an emotional response in an audience. How sad is it to see someone working super hard to make people laugh, yet can’t make themselves laugh.
This kind of self-sacrifice has been depicted in Edward Hopper’s Soir Bleu, Bruce Davidson's The Dwarf and, more recently, Todd Phillip’s Joker. Stanczyk is, perhaps, one of the earliest depictions of the sad clown paradox. What makes it even sadder is that Stanczik is modelled after Matejko himself.
This could be, in a way, a very desolate self-portrait. Now I’d like to know what you think. Did learning about the historical context behind this painting make you appreciate it more?
Do you believe it’s important for us to understand the causes of Stanczyk’s torment. What’s more important to you: The story the painting is telling or the emotions it’s making you feel? And as always, we encourage you to subscribe if you enjoyed the video and we’d like to thank Isaac and every other patron for supporting us.
If you want to join them in their support, check us out at patreon. com/thecanvas.
