The Flayed Ox by Rembrandt van Rijn
It’s not about the ox.
How can it be? Rembrandt spent his entire career as a painter creating portraits, self-portraits, and scenes of human interaction. Rembrandt’s paintings are admired all over the world for their subtle and profound depiction of the inner psychology of the people he portrays.
So in a lifetime of paintings that all have something to say about what it means to be human, Rembrandt happens upon this grisly scene one day and says to himself, “What a charming subject…I think I’ll paint it!” Is that what we’re to believe?
Believe what you will; I’m pretty sure it’s not about the ox.
So then what can this slaughtered animal possibly tell us about what it means to be human? It’s just a big, stinking slab of meat, after all.
One possibility is that Rembrandt wanted us to see our own fate in this dead carcass that once was a living, thriving being. Other Dutch artists of the period painted still life and floral paintings that hinted about the transience of human life. If Rembrandt replaced the mannered table settings and floral bouquets of these vanitas paintings with a more arresting metaphor, wouldn’t that be a stroke of creative genius?
But I think this is only part of the story, based on two specific features. The first is the way Rembrandt has so vividly – even lovingly – dwelt upon the detail of the violence that has been perpetrated here.
This is no mere stack of steaks in the butcher shop, abstracted from the animal so we can safely repress any unpleasant thoughts of the act of slaughter. Rembrandt purposely captures the maximum evidence of the carnage. It’s not enough that the magnificent beast has been killed. We’re confronted with the outrageous fact that it has also been beheaded – its hooves hacked off – the skin ripped from its flesh – and the body split asunder to expose the gory organs and muscles and bones to further assault.
The second feature that points to a deeper meaning is something I think you may have sensed by now – a sense that we’ve somehow seen this before. The impression, I think, arises from the dead animal’s posture.
With the ox’ head and tail removed, it’s not so implausible to confuse which end is up. The animal’s hind legs may appeal to our subconscious as a pair of human arms... the stomach may suggest a human torso, complete with its navel... and resting between the "arms" is a lump of fat that is incidentally the spot that shines most brightly, and may insinuate a head hanging lifelessly between its shoulders.
You see, it’s not about the ox.
It does, after all, tell us about what it means to be human: about the true price of our sin, and about what it means to be redeemed by an act of sacrificial suffering so dreadful that it rends our hearts to contemplate it. I don’t need to recite the awful detail of the crucifixion. The painting, seen properly, expresses the horror more powerfully in metaphor than the academic account ever could.
But there is even more here than just death and decay and horrible suffering.
This ox, after all, was not slaughtered to satisfy the butcher’s cruelty. It was sacrificed for our benefit; so that human beings might live. Of course, the parallel with Christ’s redemptive sacrifice is obvious.
Unlike the ox, though, Jesus offered himself as the sacrifice, solely for the opportunity to bring us all with him to that unique place where the tree of death (the cross) bears the fruit of eternal life.
How can it be? Rembrandt spent his entire career as a painter creating portraits, self-portraits, and scenes of human interaction. Rembrandt’s paintings are admired all over the world for their subtle and profound depiction of the inner psychology of the people he portrays.
So in a lifetime of paintings that all have something to say about what it means to be human, Rembrandt happens upon this grisly scene one day and says to himself, “What a charming subject…I think I’ll paint it!” Is that what we’re to believe?
Believe what you will; I’m pretty sure it’s not about the ox.
So then what can this slaughtered animal possibly tell us about what it means to be human? It’s just a big, stinking slab of meat, after all.
One possibility is that Rembrandt wanted us to see our own fate in this dead carcass that once was a living, thriving being. Other Dutch artists of the period painted still life and floral paintings that hinted about the transience of human life. If Rembrandt replaced the mannered table settings and floral bouquets of these vanitas paintings with a more arresting metaphor, wouldn’t that be a stroke of creative genius?
But I think this is only part of the story, based on two specific features. The first is the way Rembrandt has so vividly – even lovingly – dwelt upon the detail of the violence that has been perpetrated here.
This is no mere stack of steaks in the butcher shop, abstracted from the animal so we can safely repress any unpleasant thoughts of the act of slaughter. Rembrandt purposely captures the maximum evidence of the carnage. It’s not enough that the magnificent beast has been killed. We’re confronted with the outrageous fact that it has also been beheaded – its hooves hacked off – the skin ripped from its flesh – and the body split asunder to expose the gory organs and muscles and bones to further assault.
The second feature that points to a deeper meaning is something I think you may have sensed by now – a sense that we’ve somehow seen this before. The impression, I think, arises from the dead animal’s posture.
With the ox’ head and tail removed, it’s not so implausible to confuse which end is up. The animal’s hind legs may appeal to our subconscious as a pair of human arms... the stomach may suggest a human torso, complete with its navel... and resting between the "arms" is a lump of fat that is incidentally the spot that shines most brightly, and may insinuate a head hanging lifelessly between its shoulders.
You see, it’s not about the ox.
It does, after all, tell us about what it means to be human: about the true price of our sin, and about what it means to be redeemed by an act of sacrificial suffering so dreadful that it rends our hearts to contemplate it. I don’t need to recite the awful detail of the crucifixion. The painting, seen properly, expresses the horror more powerfully in metaphor than the academic account ever could.
But there is even more here than just death and decay and horrible suffering.
This ox, after all, was not slaughtered to satisfy the butcher’s cruelty. It was sacrificed for our benefit; so that human beings might live. Of course, the parallel with Christ’s redemptive sacrifice is obvious.
Unlike the ox, though, Jesus offered himself as the sacrifice, solely for the opportunity to bring us all with him to that unique place where the tree of death (the cross) bears the fruit of eternal life.
If this is meaningful to you, feel free to keep the artcoin, or place it in another cache to share it with someone else. Whether it's meaningful to you or not, I'd really like to hear from you about your reaction. If you get a chance, send me a note
Want to know more about how God speaks to us through visual art?
Check out Art to Heart: Encounters with God in the world's great art