Caravaggio’s Self-Portrait As Both David And Goliath
1) The painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio lived from 1571 to 1610.
2) He did at least 7 major paintings involving beheadings:
“Judith Beheading Holofernes” – c. 1598
“David and Goliath” – c. 1599
“David with the Head of Goliath” – 1607
“Salome with the Head of John the Baptist” (London) – 1607
“Beheading of Saint John the Baptist”‘ – 1608
“Salome with the Head of John the Baptist” (Madrid) – 1609
“David with the Head of Goliath” -1610
All the above 7 paintings can be seen here:
Chronology of works by Caravaggio on Wikipedia
3) On 29 May 1606, Caravaggio killed a young man named Ranuccio Tomassoni in a brawl.
4) Caravaggio often used himself as a model for his painted portraits of famous mythological, allegorical, and religious figures.
5) In the last year of his life, Caravaggio painted himself as David . . . and Goliath.
Here are some of Caravaggio’s self-portraits in his paintings:
As a “Boy Peeling A Fruit”:
(Click on the images if you wish to view them individually or larger.)
As a “Young Sick Bacchus” (a youthful god of wine):
As “Bacchus”:
As a “Boy Bitten By A Lizard”:
As a “Boy With A Basket Of Fruit”:
As a “Fortune Teller” ‘s mark:
As the mark about to be conned in “The Cardsharps”:
As “Medusa”:
As “John The Baptist”:
As “John The Baptist”:
As “John The Baptist”:
As “John The Baptist”:
As “John The Baptist”:
As a “Lute Player”:
As one of four very similar looking young musicians in “Musicians”:
As a pleased cupid in “Amor Victorious”:
As an angel to “St Francis in Ecstasy”:
As a young man with his back to the painter, in the center of the painting, as Christ calls the tax collector Matthew to be his disciple in “The Calling of St. Matthew”. While Christ is calling Matthew, Caravaggio is not looking at Christ or the action. Rather, Caravaggio is looking out at the light off to the right:
As Isaac about to be sacrificed by his father in “Sacrifice of Isaac”:
As “Narcissus“:
As a man in the back center doing nothing but watching during the “Martyrdom of St. Matthew”:
Detail:
As David leaning down to reveal Goliath’s severed head in “David and Goliath” (1599):
As David holding forward Goliath’s head in “David with the Head of Goliath” (1607):
And finally, in the last year of Caravaggio’s life. After living for three years with the knowledge he killed a man, Caravaggio makes a pivotal artistic change. In his two previous paintings of David and Goliath, Goliath is likely modeled after someone else (more so in 1599 than in the post-homicide 1607 version). In Caravaggio’s final depiction of David & Goliath in 1610, David lifts up the “monster” Goliath’s severed head – revealing the monster to clearly be himself.
Caravaggio paints himself as both David and Goliath. The source of the innocence, courage, and aspirations of youth reveals the head of his older, ”fallen” self.
It’s probably foolish to attempt to imply all that Caravaggio intended. The painting has often been believed to have been a valuable gift he crafted to help gain a pardon from the Church of Rome for his homicide, as payment or gratuity. Most art historians emphasize that in this final version, Caravaggio painted himself as Goliath. Fewer may highlight that he also painted himself as David.
I believe Caravaggio was attempting to visually communicate that we all have the potential to be a defining source of good or evil. We each can be both without exclusively being either.
To use a late 20th Century metaphor, Caravaggio tapped into the universal theme re-visited in the Star Wars saga – when Luke Skywalker on the planet Dagobah enters down into the cave of the knowledge of good and evil, beheads Darth Vader, unmasks Darth Vader, and discovers the face behind the mask is his own.
Caravaggio’s painting can be interpreted as much as a self-aware admission of guilt as it can be interpreted as an attempt toward absolution. It should probably be considered as both.
The starting point, the basis, and the canvas from which Caravaggio paints is black. From darkness, human actions and colors are revealed. Rarely do we see Caravaggio paint someone in the light of day. He is more focused on what happens in the night or in the covers of darkness.
What does this have to do with sexuality and love in the arts?
It would be easy to look at the above paintings and to hypothesize that Caravaggio was likely either effeminate or homosexual, and many art historians have done that. But that is not the point I wish to emphasize.
The therapeutic point I wish to emphasize is that in working out our pasts, our “guilts,” and our perceptions of self, it may be more honest and helpful to see ourselves as both David and Goliath to varying degrees, intermittently or simultaneously. And that admission may help us understand ourselves and others’ perceptions of us better. It may be better to not only paint ourselves exclusively as hero or villain, sinner or martyr; but rather as both.
- – - -
Most Recent Artworks - All the Artists’ Artworks Index - my43things

























Totally amazing painter and painting. And all of these were painted almost five hundred years ago.. painting is timeless art.
OneMoreOption
3:00 AM CST
…Been meaning to make a comment or two on Caravaggio, but never was a big fan. Too many “art scholars” in the distant past have overrated him as the chief progenitor of “chiaroscuro’, which he was not. He was among many, both before and after him. He was much more the “Tenebrist”, an old term for extreme contrasts.
…And herein lies what I know intrigues us both : his psychological makeup. I’ve read some sources who claim he was likely “bipolar” and simply out of control, in both his life and his art. (Gee, a “bipolar” Italian, now that’s something new !! But I do love them, one and all !)
I’m inclined to raise my tent in the “bipolar” camp.
Whether he was “gay” or not (though it certainly would appear he was probably “effeminate”), I believe this speculation is moot. Not because he was overdramatic (which he was) or histrionic (which he was); but because, and more to the point, I believe his “personality profile” would be rendered as “narcissistic” by today’s standards.
And probably a sociopath. Who else did he kill or maim to get “his point” across ?
Unlike Rembrandt, the undisputed master of chiaroscuro, who painted his self-portraits to such depths and versatility, with humility and unmistakable deep self-reflection, Caravaggio loved to center the audience on himself, not the subject he was ostensibly painting. Rembrandts “self-portraits” are not “self-portraits”, but paintings of all humanity.
Review them and see if you don’t agree.
I’m not at all convinced Caravaggio was being self-reflective; many artists, including Michelangelo, who preceded him, painted themselves as “repenting’ martyrs for reasons which you’ve already stated, to appease Church dogma, not flatter it.
I’m just not in the same camp who believe we can draw deep artistic or philosophical gleanings from the likes of Caravaggio, his life or his art.
Take Artemisia Gentileschi, an Italian Rembrandt contemporary who often painted in the same “tenebrist” style as Caravaggio, but painted with such masterful precision as in many versions of “Judith Slaying Holofernes”, with much greater skill than Caravaggio ever painted in any of his oils. See her “Judith and the Maidservant”, awesome in detail and storyline. (I was privileged to see in one traveling Old master exhibition at my own home town, in the Huntsville Museum of Fine Arts, her recently discovered “Susanna and the Elders”; long misattributed until it was restored a few years back !). Now, she had a clear agenda with the “Judith” paintings, projecting her own tragic experiences, but the paintings are still about “Judith” and the legend, not herself.
One more item on the list : “Star Wars”.
Never a big “Star Wars” fan either ! Never indulged in all the sequels.
You’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought ole Darthy boy (at least in the original Star Wars) actually turned out to be Luke’s father; or, literally, half cyborg and what remained of Luke’s father, when Luke removed the mask. Joseph Campbell pointed this out in his ’89 8 Part interview w/Bill Moyers. Campbell praised Lucas; that George Lucas “did a marvelous thing at the end of Star Wars” when they were discussing contemporary myths in film : The character Luke confronting his father (although he did not know he was his father until he unmasked him; that in itself also has great symbolist meaning)…and finding only half a man, etcetera, etcetera. (Campbell refers to the half-man, or anyone who has not found their joy in life, their “bliss”, as living an inauthentic life, or “half-life”).
Finding a father half-man/half cyborg has even more chilling implications today, with A.I. just within our horizon. Just what is a “Man” or “Woman” supposed to be ? The “new myth” is what Campbell called for.
“You want to change the culture, change the myth.”
But for good, or ill ?
Campbell leaves that up to us; he never claimed to be a profit or “psychoanalyst”, as some of his students wanted to make him.
J.B.
9/10/09
- – - -
OneMoreOption: Thank you so very much for taking the time to write out so many interesting discernments and observations. It is a pleasure to consider your ideas.
Tenebrist – what a beautiful word, term.
Caravaggio – I don’t even know if he was effeminate, or simply understood the unspoken and prevalent homosexual desires that likely existed in Catholic priesthood circles. Did he simply paint what he knew the rich and powerful art-buying men wanted?
Responding to the sociopath comments: Fascinating. I think we all, on relatively lesser levels, should regularly measure the harm we might be doing in our desires to get our points across – our chasing at windmills.
A narcissist – Sure. Yes. I don’t know if I’ve met a more narcissistic painter. But I do not consider narcissism (or pride) to be inherently negative traits. Always a question of balances and degrees. His unmitigated pride and narcissism may have been both a source of his remarkable creativity, passion, and motivation – and a personality and liability.
You wrote brilliantly: “Caravaggio loved to center the audience on himself, not the subject he was ostensibly painting” more so than “Rembrandt, the undisputed master of chiaroscuro, who painted his self-portraits to such depths and versatility, with humility and unmistakable deep self-reflection.” Yes, that is a key distinction among “narcissists,” isn’t it? Yes, Rembrandt portrays himself at different times to varying degrees as askew, blurred, transparent, impressioned, asymmetrical, out of focus at times, out of shape, and old. He did not seek to make himself into a “man becoming a god” like Caravaggio seems more interested in doing.
“Man becoming a god” – it’s a theme at the root of many monotheistic religions – through belief and service to the dogma – you will become something immortal. I look at Caravaggio’s paintings and see a lifetime of listening to the teachings of Christian theology – Christian promises of a personal god who will always listen to you, always accompany you, reward you with infinite reaches in the “next life” – just don’t expect to hear his voice in this lifetime or to see the jewels in your crown until are allowed into heaven after your dead. Caravaggio saw through Christianity promises of “something for nothing,” and possibly thought: “That’s rubbish. If I want to be immortal, the most realistic path is by creating paintings starring me.”
I think Caravaggio was multi-faceted and not simply singularly psychotic. I believe he was both narcissistic and self-reflective. I think he cared about the stories in addition to caring about himself. But possibly like many narcissists, he has trouble telling a story without relating it and relaying it through himself.
Artemisia is amazing. For a few brief comments on her, from what little I know:
Artemesia movie review on Amazon
On Star Wars, I’d best defer that conversation to another time or until you’ve watched the whole series and considered its serious intents. I’m probably one of the few people who admits I cry on the rare occasions I reverently sit down to watch episodes 4 through 6.
Thank you again for your thoughtful and considerate commentary. It adds tremendous value to these topics. Take care.
OneMoreOption
5:50 AM
…Was that your review on “Artemisia”…just got a chance to read it…they didn’t credit you. It was very insightful.
I didn’t know you had already compared Caravaggio to her !
Spooky, ain’t it ??!!
Sir James
9/13/09
- – - -
OneMoreOption: Thank you. Yes, we have rare things in common.
OneMoreOption
3:30 PM
…yeah. But it’s still SPOOKY ain’t it? I’m thinking mathmatical odds…
J.B.
9/13/09
hey guys, this is absolutely great.
I am currently doing a personal study on Caravaggio for art, and he both intrigues and puzzles me.
I was wondering if anyone has any advice as to how obtain acurate information about the artist and his work. I have moved on to study his indivudial work, so far my favourite are ‘David and Goliath’(all three) and Amor Vinicit Omnia.
Any advice on which other paintings can be analysed at length.
Thanks =]
@ “Rose”
7:00PM CST
…I’m surprised you haven’t yet discovered John Spike’s catalogue raisonné (perhaps you have and not realized the significance of a “catalogue raisonné”).
Today’s artists’ raisonnés are (thankfully) more comprehensive and “accurate” in both accounting for the artists’ works and quite often dwell significantly on the historical background of each painting (provided the chronicler is convinced his sources are “accurate”}
In my trade I have found most of these scholars very cooperative and professional in sharing their opinions/facts with you, and nowadays (again, thankfully) these scholars are very sensitive in differentiating fact from fancy (mostly for insurance purposes and reputation).
They usually have all the inside dope on who would be the most objective/critical biographer of the artist in question.
If you’re subtle about it, and not too pushy, and demonstrate a modicum of experience or at least knowledge on a particular artist, big time auction houses like Sotheby’s or Christies will give the addresses, even sometimes a phone number of the scholar who’s completed or processing a raisonné.
Most important : make it personal. Get off the computer and do a little phone work. You may have to hustle a bit. Call one of these major houses and first ask for an “specialist in Italian Old Masters”…don’t let some amateur screen your call (auction houses employ such “assistants” for that very purpose; recent college grads still looking for the bathroom).
Tell the “Specialist” you are doing an in depth research on Caravaggio and you’d like to correspond with (John Spike, or his “catalogue assistant”, Michèle Kahn Spike).
This is called the “backdoor” route. It saves you a lot of time from getting lost in a deep forest of books spouting off pseudo- intellectual opinions about the artist that are, quite frankly, off center.
Or just plain wrong !
Trust me. This is a good start. Luck to you.
J.B.
9/12/09
Why did Caravaggio use him self as the subject of numbeous paintings, the young seemingly innocent boy for example.
@ Rose
4:10 AM CST
…Well, OneMoreOption and I both tagged it : Simple narcissism; that’s enough to preclude anyone from seeing the whole picture; pardon my metaphor.
But like OneMoreOption intimates (and I concur), one should not formulate firm conclusions about any Old Master’s psych. profile. It’s ultimately pretentious by default.
What’s even more important is that we avoid obsessing and over “analyzing” the art in front of us with what usually amounts to a lot of mumbo-jumbo auction house nonsense.
And “art scholars” from our recent past are also notorious from their use of that mumbo-jumbo I speak. And “art critics” are notoriously vain over their mumbo-jumbo.
Hopefully your taste will evolve; everyone’s does. I for one hope you have studied many other Old Masters before you reach any firm conclusions about Caravaggio; but I’m not trying to preach taste. Just don’t shut out the many hundreds over the centuries, including the 19th century, of course.
Luck and good research will be your armor.
J.B.
9/18/09
=]
Thanks . . . i got a loong way to go in discovering the world of art =p
Those are not all self-portraits. In the most part of his painting, he depicted some of his lovers.
Mario Minniti in “Boy With A Basket Of Fruit”, “Bacchus”, “Narcissus“ etc.
Cecco di Caravaggio in “Amor Victorious” or “John The Baptist.
Il Caravaggino in “David with the Head of Goliath” or “Martyrdom of St. Matthew”.
He portraited himself in “David with the Head of Goliath” (as Goliath). For more information you can take a look over here http://www.giovannidallorto.com/biografie/caravaggio/caravaggiopinup.html.
@ “emily”
1:55 AM EST
One could speculate that I at bare minimum have a modicum of experience in looking (and possibly seeing) the art in front of me. (I’ll be accenting the singular pronouns “I” and “me” a lot here as we, you and me, are indeed speaking on the subject of Caravaggio).
Of the 25 images posted here (in front of me), I see Caravaggio in every one of them. You (or I) could put a “maybe not” on one or two of them; I will not belabor that point.
Now you (maybe not I) would argue…”oh, but the subjects of most of the images were not ‘intended’ as ‘self-portraits’ “…Well, after picking apart each element in each image, and seeing that virtually every essential element of the supposed “subject” is ultimately drawn back to the artist himself, I might suspect that the term “intent” may not in fact weigh as heavily in favor of either Caravaggio’s modesty or humility.
Insistent drawing upon oneself, one’s personal image, on the pretext of introducing the viewer to another “subject” strain’s my credulity and adds up to simple narcissism in my book; not profound artistic revelation.
…And I’m quite certain you are most anxious to read My book, if & when I ever finish the pesky thing. Feel free to post here your eager anticipation of that event.
And who said “All is vanity” anyway. What does he know…?
J.B.
9/22/09
Pingback: THE TRUTH IN A FACE « STILL CHAOS
It’s impossible those are all self-portraits. May be half. The ages at which he painted those paintings do not grant the varying body types. Moreover, clearly Minitti is the pudgy model for many of the early ones.
Also,regarding whether he was homosexual or not, the term itself is much more narrowly defined today than it was then even in the post conciliar times. He was probably omnisexual and highly in tune with his personal gratification through any means available.
- -
Mark: You could be correct. Either interpretation leads to interesting thoughts. I saw these paintings up close and in person in the last few weeks. If Minniti is the model, his likeness appears in many of the paintings, including the David and Goliath painting. It is an interesting contextual narrative if Minniti, the subject of so many of his paintings, represents David and righteousness or comparative innocence, and Goliath represents Caravaggio. The head of Goliath looks very similar to Ottavio Leoni’s portrait of Caravaggio.
Thank you for your comment.