Not on display
- Geoffrey Clarke 1924–2014
- Aquatint on paper
- Image: 410 × 295 mm
- Presented anonymously 1974
Geoffrey Clarke b.1924
P01011 Crucifixion 1954
Inscribed ‘2/25 1954’ b.l.; ‘C’ in the plate and ‘Clarke’ b.r.
Sugar aquatint, 16¿ x 11 ½ (40.4 x 29.2) on paper 23 x 18 3/16 (58.4 x 46.2).
Presented anonymously 1974.
For ‘Crucifixion’ the artist used an aquatint ground on a steel plate. PR324 is one of possibly three prints extant, the plate having been cut up and destroyed in error.
The artist wrote that this was ‘the nearest I ever came (since student days) to representational distortion of the human figure.’ While discussing symbolism in his thesis (loc. cit.) Clarke wrote: ‘The more vividly the symbol can be recognized, the more people can gain from seeing it, for example the Cross; but the more realistic the symbol, the more away from the truth and concerned with the physical it becomes, for example the Crucifix.’ He confirmed this stance in his letter (August 18): ‘The Cross is more important than the Crucifix. The Crucifix has never been important to me.’ This print, therefore, was probably his only depiction of the Crucifixion as such (besides its automatic inclusion in the Stations of the Cross sculptures), and the background to it was described in the same letter. ‘The inspiration and model was a black and white reproduction of Matthias Grünewald’s “Crucifixion” (Colmar) which Clarke used to pass daily on [his] way up to the Coventry stained glass studio at the Royal College of Art.’ He felt that if the Crucifixion was to be depicted ‘that was the way to do it.’ He continued: ‘The understandable distortion through actual suffering of the man on the cross is mild and this becomes twisted, distorted and exaggerated to get over the message, the impact, the non-representational;—the perfect machine-made cube is also mild and without emphasis, but take away the machines and make the cube and that cube takes on life—and its life is exaggerated by controlled distortion.’
Published in The Tate Gallery Report 1972–1974, London 1975.