Introduction:

This is an oil painting called The Third of May 1808 in Madrid by Francisco Goya, which was itself
painted in 1814.
To provide some historical context for this painting, we must first look into 1807, by which
Napoleon of France had declared himself as Emperor of the French Republic in 1804 following the
French Revolution. At the time, the Spanish King, at the time was Charles IV (the fourth), who was
generally seen to be incapable. Knowing this, Napoleon was able to trick Charles the fourth into a
fraudulent alliance, where they were to combine forces to invade Portugal and share the profits, but
instead, he used the alliance to transport 23,000 of his own troops into Spain who were oblivious
and he could then invade them with little resistance, making Napoleon’s brother the new king of
Spain in 1808.
Linking this to the image, the second and third of May in 1808 were incredibly violent, and this
painting is a tribute to the efforts of the Spanish freedom fighters in Madrid, who are all captured
and executed by the French.
So, what was the purpose of the artist in this powerful depiction?
Goya, the artist, was in a conflicting position when creating this work, as he was outspoken in his
support for the ideals of French Revolution against the monarchy and even stated that he wished
that Spain would undergo similar changes.
However, on viewing his own countrymen dying for a noble cause, his views changed dramatically,
and he requested to create this painting with the following message, to show ‘the most notable and
heroic actions of our glorious insurrection against the Tyrant of Europe’, clearly creating this painting
as a striking criticism of the ‘Tyrant’ French and a commemoration of the freedom fighters, and
possibly, in my opinion, to make a larger statement about war.
So before I go into my own interpretations, why do I consider this art?
For me personally, this background clearly cements this piece as a work of Art, as I define Art
through the Emotionalist Theory, a concept, which focuses on the fact that art is a vehicle for the
communication of emotions and ideas and has meaning far beyond just its subject matter or its
aesthetic qualities. I believe art to be any work that was intended to be a form of creative
expression, and for Goya, this was his way of condemning the atrocities of war. This work of art, as
we will later explore, spawned a completely new genre, evolved culture and remodelled long-held
societal beliefs, and perspectives about war.
My Interpretation
There were several unique features that could be found, each with their own significance.
To start, we see a row of faceless French soldiers, pointing guns at the citizens in perfect form,
seemingly emotionless, and many citizens are already dead. My interpretation of this section of the
art matches with what many believe to be his intended purpose, as the bland colours and organised,
logical execution to me, were representative of the absence of any of humanity in such situations,
especially from the aggressor.
My attention, however, was quickly drawn to the man in the white shirt, which was likely intended
by Goya as he makes this colour so vibrant. He seems to be the next to be executed, and his
portrayal is incredibly significant to the impact of the art. He is posed in a way that mimics Christ on
the cross, and his face is clearly visible as one in great despair, and in my opinion, possibly even
disappointment. In my opinion, this characterises him as truly human which greatly contrasts with
the faceless, mechanical murderers at the other end of the painting.
The religious imagery is one way that this painting was so impactful, as it was culturally relevant,
with almost all of Spain at the time devoted to Christianity, he contrasts religion with war. Despite
being the hero in this picture, he will die in what is portrayed as a miserable execution ground
without making any change to the world, as the brutality of war will continue.
We can here see an incredibly important aspect of Art, for many of the angry Spanish they saw a
painting as patriotic, condemning one side and praising the other, but this also appeals to humanity
as a whole, who may view this as a striking statement criticizing war as a whole, showing its
detriments to both parties, and labelling it sinful.
Why did I choose this painting?
The reason why I chose this painting for the subject of TOK was because I feel one of the most
important aspects of Art as an Area of Knowledge is its ability to evoke different emotions in people,
as stated in the emotionalist theory of art, and how it can shape cultures and create long-lasting
legacies. This painting represents all of these ideas, as it was a stark deviation from the other
paintings of the time, which showed war as honourable, and refrained from any gory, distressing
details. This painting was a revolutionary display of an anti-war sentiment, which was the start of
many other similar war paintings, most notably it is explicitly referenced as an influence on the
Guernica by Pablo Picasso and is an example of how art evolves culture.
This had such a great impact on me as I generally, throughout life, do not think of art to be of a high
priority, and instead think of it often in aesthetic terms. Here, I often find myself instinctively valuing
art by the aesthetic fineness theory, especially in everyday life. However, my inherent perspective on
Art changed completely when going to museums and art galleries, where the pieces of art which
stood out to me beyond just being appealing to the eye were those which pictured the true nature
of and another perspective on war, not propaganda but reality. Hence, this painting being one that
provided the platform and the inspiration for all of these paintings that impacted me makes it
especially important.
What aspects of knowledge does this appeal to?
Finally, to link this more clearly to the subject of TOK, I felt that beyond Art, this painting represents
a work that branches among many aspects of knowledge. It can be used a source, or evidence for
History regarding the nature of the Spanish takeover and the public sentiment, while also being
intrinsically linked to ethics, as the painting poses an important question about the values of
humanity – not only Napoleon’s betrayal in that historical context, but also the emotionless killing,
the restriction of freedom and the despair imposed on the victims, and we can even view this
painting to look at views on religion at the time.
“Art, freedom and creativity will change society faster than politics” – Victor Pinchuk – This quote,
for me, showed just how impactful Art can be, and just how impactful this was in inspiring society to
change their views on war.