Speedily Dispatched DAVID JOSELIT ON IMAGES AND SOVEREIGNTY Bee hen meee Seep | e Peet re cleus hans carcned ute airoreal DPI the Glercace Pemscn the ra pita Ros, Misia aad Slam, are core Boe Pp alcatel, met therm cl ph eet he derepecl It fs evident that the power of images nas The sams modem period bracketed by the execution of Man omaradicrory rons wccerants. And canits Phaser Teva Berets poiIZING “Manet and the pilian” at the Museum of eeecaren a exhibition that united all five represen. he Bdoward Manet of the notorious demic a tt cere cae ae arch chal ing of si A mand regime Max pis not.” What wus accidental was thar dur had se of the exhibition, Saddam Hussein, the Euro target of the particular regime change only Id refers, was himself executed under Nap circumstances, Euro differences between these two political cont ximilian and Saddam, are enormous— agre shared commitment to the promulgation Max ” (whether secular or capitalist) values— was Elderfield implies is nonetheless pro- adv itilluminates the relationship between strat gnty—or, more accurately, its moment pain and the spectacular image of a leader. artis execution entered visual culture ex post prot emperor was killed, alongside two of his of t m June 19, 1867, but news of his death did fro Napoleon ffl until July 1, and the firse sure jewspaper reports and illustrations were pub- ing | later. But the execution of Saddam was of T jenced as a visual event, both through con: documentation intended to authenticate mal (and influentially), role authorized cell phone videos that captured ful treatment he received from guards in ‘moments of his life and the sordid surround- [unceremonious haste of his execution. As is this cell phone footage was disseminated the Internet, causing outrage at Saddam's or ony in Arab narions but also in the West nlof these pictures succeeded in creating “martyrdom around a sovereign who was fonably heinous in his abuse of power, and therto lost the support of almost everyone ident that the power of images has shifted in in petiod as bracketed by these two executions,of vas ly), red nd- ted m’s est ing vas ind lin ns, with how (and with what speed) images circulate as with what they represent, If my supposition is truc then it presents a challenge of sorts to art history and criticism—namely, th challenge of tracking and interpret ing the momentum of images instead of simply reading their face value Accounts of the execution af Maximilian, a Hapsburg noble who had been installed ax emperor by a European coalition led by France only to be abruptly abandoned by Napoleon Ill a few years er, reached Europe slowly, sporadically, and in contradictory form, with various sources unable to agree on even basic facts, such as the time of day Maximilian was shor. Asa staunch republican, Manet was attentive to these reports of Napoleon IIl’s failed adventure in Mexico, and Elderfield carefully demon: strates that, in working on his three major history paintings (there is also an oil sketch and a print), the artist sifted through available textual accounts, and probably studied some widely circulated photographs of the firing squad and of the emperor's bullet-nddled frock coat and waistcoat. Manet self-consciously con- structed the image of a historical occurrence by adher ing to some details while ignoring others, In the spirit of T. J. Clark, we might identify this very work of construction, in which visual discontinuities may for- s blurring or merging of social mally embody modern roles such as class (or sov: cignty), as the source of a paint- It is evident that the ing’s modernity. The strange modern period as brack discontinuous arrangement of the executions, in which figures and of Saddam, ar seem ro be collaged rather than with how images cir distributed in plausible space may thus be a residue of Manet’s very modern effort uunts. And indeed, to blend contradictory media ac there are abundant visual traces in the first and last of vives only in fragmentary the paintings (the second form) of an irrational pictorial organization that seems, in Manet’s latest and most resolved version (completed in 1869), to place the executed in an entirely different space fi beyond they ar the ing an similar more |three major history ch and a print), the ants, and ated photographs ’s bullet-nddled x] occurrence by adher hers. In the spinit ify this very work of merging of social th W and th net's very modern effort _ space from their executioners, as thoug] 1 accounts. And indeed, beyond the explosive discharge of musk wh ces inthe first and last of they are nonetheless impossibly close. If ives only in fragmentary are themselves the result, as Elderfield organization that seems, ing and editing, their circulation wa i olved version (completed similar set of procedures undertaken by a considerat ed in an entirely different more powerful set of editors; government ceSpeedily Dispatched N IMAGES ANE. 1a epee ewe STE REEESERELEEL. 22The Maximilian paintings could not be shown in Fr embarrassing to the government, and in fact did not point where sovereignty must constantly maintain an unruly network of insages where polit J Saddam's execution i can erupt without warning. As the ih yee during Manet’s lifetim rentially as Abu Ghraib a be appreciared, according to Flderfield, until Salon d’Automne exhibition, where two of ti J. Clark is a member) ¢ paintings (the first and last) were exhibited argue in their 2C Capital th ther. Because images were still understood as and Spectacle in a Naw A eis itself material objects with limited capacities for circula- an arena of terror and con < cell phone foot fh tion, they could be subject to equal but opposite age of Saddam’ execution was destined for juse this peranons of editing (Manet d censorship (the ernment). In the Second Empire it was still possibli believe thar a political sovereign could control images. Now the balance of power has shifted, to theMaximilian and Saddam do provide a p, example. It seems that the spectacle of auth sovereignty, which must always transcend the b body of she who occupies that sovereign poston I Kantorowicz’s famous analysis of the king's tw Re jes still pertains), may be assaulted or ilicnined by, calling attention to this body as a biological ent So Harailatemead that such. bumibation s, exceed the person to assail sovereignty tsclt ‘ Simply put, I think the images of M { of Maximilia Se i dec Fesponse fo an efte un ermine sovereignty by demonstrating its mortalir Iris certainly true that the sympathy Saddam ; was entirely on account of his “dignity” Br ihe (x taunts, and that, conversely, th : i; peo’ eS e we Be cdo hs dignity. The effort backfired ee. eae, addam + tand BRiesion ee does in Mane ee je Execution. The strangcs ea ae eames Maximilian’s asian ie ea at free, our of the line « Imight thee 'y “isitation instead of a v ing Manna ge in his paintin coupe ea face. While this ima the leader's indif considered heroic, it does suggest lize Wheheenign Beas directed tow d to Napoleon's ill saw Maximilian as a gullible dupe intentioned maces ved ambition or as a w artist’s representation of Ips less important than Indeed, Eldereld atthe very end Wes cco this painting, almost Very end of his discussion of execution in ict” indicates that the Maximilian h, Was grotesque! mi eee y mismanaged dead. So the NC ackward bur obvious! deliver th -O steps over Maximi earns ms fee. coup de graces ali ees’ bady t sho ing him in the " 4 he bungles a close-up 2 close-uf ab lineg. Thie nor anty failssee ed the person roassai-sovereigricy rCvcll Eee ie tmages of Maximilian saddam’s execurions AFOse as 4 F undermine sovereignty by ere mortal: Iris certainly true that the sympathy Sad Jam attract was entirely an account of his “dignity” in the fac taunts, and that, conversely, the jerky handhe phone footage, by representing, a claustrophobic ay unseemly killing, was meant to undo this sover: dignity. The effort backfired because Saddam may tained his calm, justas Maximilian does in Manc (and definitive) version of the Execstion The strang aspect of this painung, for me is thar Maximilian’s ; head seems almost to float free, out of the line ot 1 as though he is a holy visitation instead of 4 sur I might hazard that Manet was, in his painting, ing Maximilian to save face. While this image emperor cannot be considered heroic, 1t docs » the leader's indifference to the violence directed t him: Whether Manet saw Maximilian as a gullible to Napoleon's ill-conceived ambition or as a w intentioned martyr is perhaps less important cha artist’s representation of sovereignty’s two bodies Indeed, Elderfield at the very end of his discussion of this painting, almost as a postscript, indicates th.’ execution in actuality was grotesquely mismanaged “Maximilian has fallen backward but obviously \s dead. So the NCO steps over Maximilian’s body « deliver the coup de griice; only, he bungles a close-up shot, hitting him in the right lung. This not only f2\'s to kill him but also aggravates the problem becav the flames of the musket ignite Maximilian’s vest 2 someone has to throw water on them to extingu» them. He is now writhing on the ground, pulling at b> vest, and all is in confusion.” Maximilian’s deach wa» hideous and undignified, but Manet’s history panos constructed a space apart for him—an image o! the Sovereign independent of his savaged body. () esponse (0 an efforr DAVID JOSELIT TEACHES MODERN ART AT YALE UNIVERSITY IN NEW HAVEN, HIS BOOK FEEDBACK: TELEVSiON AGAINST DEMOCRACY 16 FORTHCOMING IN APRN. Prosi saiy pares,