Tod und Leben
Gustav Klimt’s ‘Death and Life’ (1908-15)
In Contrast
There are Temu ads on gustav-klimt.com.
Should you wish to purchase the domain KLIMT.com this is bundled into a retail offer with two wearable keychains that can be used for contactless payments by a retailer/artist credited as “LAKS”. Lady Gaga recently said “art and capitalism can be friends, it just depends how it happens” before filming a short promotional film for the Louvre tied into the world of Joker, and her album Harlequin. MGM’s motto remains “Ars Gratia Artis” (art for art’s sake). In thinking of art poetically, the soul and the money sit in similar tension to the idea of gentle Klimt and his cats, adoringly painting in a robe and father-of-14-womaniser Klimt, painting expensive portraits for the Viennese Jewish nobility of the Belle Epoque. In thinking practically, the Kiss’s first sale brought Klimt 20x the annual salary of a teacher and in June 2024 another Klimt sold for a record-breaking £85.3 million.
Contrast is the spectrum of difference. Opposition in personality, variety in the day-to-day makes life interesting. How a painter uses contrast makes art exciting. Klimt is contradictory in life and this painting is full of visual and thematic contrast.
In 1907 before painting ‘Death and Life’, he was commissioned to decorate the Great Hall of the University of Vienna, but his subversive takes on medicine, jurisprudence and philosophy were determined too obscene for academic wall decor. These paintings were still appreciated: the panel ‘Philosophy’ won gold at the Paris World Exhibition. In the sole surviving photo of the would-be ceiling panel ‘Medicine’ signature nudes float in the smoke of life, with skulls, suggesting an ambiguity to the life state through proximity to death. Medicine carries connotations of mortality, Klimt’s thoughts while painting ‘Medicine’ were probably similar as with ‘Death and Life’. When the University attempted to remove the paintings insisting they were state property, Klimt hunted down staff with a shotgun to recover his work.
‘Death and Life’ won prizes at exhibitions including at 1911’s International Art Expo Rome, for the prior version with gilded background. People like buying shiny things, and gilding was becoming a signature Klimt move. Despite this Klimt painted over the background in macabre greens and blacks, while the painting was still in frame. He makes major changes to Death: adds a club, more cheekiness, complexity, less holiness with no halo, more holiness in crosses, a dark void-like background in blacks and greens.
Stuff Everyone Cares About and Has Seen Before
Klimt takes themes so universal as to be banal: love, death, life. Rainer Maria Rilke’s famous ‘Letters to a Young Poet’ advises the titular young poet to avoid ‘ordinary’ themes because “it takes a great, fully ripened power to create something individual where good, even glorious traditions exist in abundance”.
Familiar themes work sometimes like variable elimination. Painting about mortality is like submitting a painting instead of submitting an autographed urinal to an art exhibition. It’s like painting a still life instead of an abstract ‘contents of my airport security tray Summer 2009’. Instead of investigating why Klimt painted about Death and Life, the focus is on why this way.
Klimt also uses ancient symbols that transcend language, like circles, skulls, and flowers. Circles and flowers are some of the first things children draw. Things so familiar feel fresh because of the style choices made: where the circles are, how the skull violates expectation, the colors, the lines.
Order
Death leads in title and visual appearance (if trained to read left to right, Life would appear to the left). This break from convention abstracts the concept of mortality from self to humanity: thinking individually, you live before you die, but death and life is orderless and incessant for humanity, happening cyclically.
Color
Death’s three key hues are blue, purple, and green. Life’s are a lot warmer: coral, mustard, yellows, peaches, pinks, colder greens, red, brighter blues than in Death’s robes. Sombre against celebratory. Life contrasts against the background much more strongly than Death.
Death’s purple-ish robe is royal. There is unresolved movement between sad and vibrant in Death’s color palette with muted blues against green, vibrant purple-blue. It’s like the clothes are supposed to be sad, but are not quite as sombre as they should be.
Covering and Ornament
The crosses on Death’s robe mark Christianity and morality, evoking gravestones and reminders of death. Crosses can also be seen to mark respect for Death, despite its negative associations of sorrow, grief, ending; because it is unlikely crosses are associated with taboo or evil. The specific co-sign of crosses defangs the Death skeleton without sacrificing complexity and gravity.
Death’s robe has on it whole circles, circles bisected in two, a circle bisected horizontally with the lower half then bisected vertically. Life’s robes have circles with no linear divisions; there are some circles that have a curve kind of like that in the Pepsi logo. Death’s crosses contrast with the circles on Death’s robe, angular opposite curve. Death robe feels narrower than a wiggle skirt: the compression suggesting ‘stuck’ which implies inevitable
The crosses on Death’s robe mark Christianity and morality, evoking gravestones and reminders of death. Crosses can also be seen to mark respect for Death, despite its negative associations of sorrow, grief, ending; because it is unlikely crosses are associated with taboo or evil. The specific co-sign of crosses defangs the Death skeleton without sacrificing complexity and gravity.
Death’s robe has on it whole circles, circles bisected in two, a circle bisected horizontally with the lower half then bisected vertically. Life’s robes have circles with no linear divisions; there are some circles that have a curve kind of like that in the Pepsi logo. Death’s crosses contrast with the circles on Death’s robe, angular opposite curve. Death robe feels narrower than a wiggle skirt: the compression suggesting ‘stuck’ which implies inevitable
Life is wearing shapeless covers of patterned and ornamented fabric – no less, but differently embellished than Death’s robes. Life’s symbols are of nature (flowers) drawn simply, childlike alongside triangles. Triangles suggesting perfection and power (Holy Trinity, parent state, Mind Body Spirit, Past Present Future). The mathematical symbol for change is also a triangle, life is constant change.
Death’s expression contradicts expectation: the 1908 version shows Death’s side profile with head bowed but this changed to quizzical, humorous, playful, sinister by 1915. The head tilt and grin are almost playful like I’m about to hear a joke, which is surprising.
In ‘Life’ there are closed eyes, the tallest character wears an almost sybarite smirk, two figures have their head bowed like they’re wrapped up in each other. Life’s character set is not really looking at anything, self-absorbed, not looking at Death. Life is engaging with Life, which is the point of Life.
Position, Staging and Weight
Klimt’s Memento Mori juxtaposes skeletal Death against a mass of nine human figures of all ages: one blissful, one smugly joyous, one with mouth half open, one half-visible with eyes closed, two heads bowed, one baby and one elderly woman, one blind figure with eyes wide open.
Life’s side of the painting has a sense of pantomime. This ‘artifice’ might come from the poses being unnatural, the expressions exaggerated and the combination of people unlikely. It is also kind of ‘unreal’ how life must be lived without thinking about death so much as to be paralysed by fear, but aware of mortality enough to maximise for contentment. Klimt posed Death somewhat realistically. In contrast, Life’s character set is physically placed in ways we would never see people. Death carries connotations of honesty, because bone is natural, when clothes are stripped there is a body, when the body is stripped there is skeleton: the ultimate equaliser.
Death takes up about half the visual weight of the ‘Life’ form. The distance between Death and Life’s figures is about the size of Death. Death’s form is cleaner: the curves are longer, it is obvious what the figure is, Death is contained inside the canvas space. Life’s forms contrast with wavier edges, a huddled mass of many people of unknown origin and terminus, existing in a meadow ending ‘off screen’. Life is much messier, with implied motion because of the waviness of everyone’s robes, and through causing eyes to dance around the section as we scan the faces. The background is curved and graded lighter behind Life, appearing as though Life emerges from a tunnel of (dim, so, faraway) Light. Death isn’t in a ‘resting’ position but the figure looks still, expectant.
Visual asymmetry and the awkward distance between the two sets of figures suggest imbalance and disconnect. Life is not a choice but the living have agency in terminating it. Death is a destination that cannot be left, but can be entered by choice. Life is the absence of Death. Death is Life absenting.
While the subject matter and Klimt’s painting style are obvious cues we should ‘look deeper’, in looking deeper, there is a sense of things not being as they are (or, should). In personifying abstract concepts Klimt has made us empathise, leading us to see Death as ‘a being like us’: finite. The curiously blissful expressions in ‘Life’ initially suggest serenity, fulfillment, togetherness but to smile so sweetly next to Death feels foolish. Death’s head tilted creates curiosity, coupled with the skeletal grin this doesn’t produce a menacing skeleton. A grin with so many teeth suggest flight attendant instead of belly laughter, it’s not quite honest. To ‘show your teeth’ is to communicate you can defend yourself – can Life? In querying this expression (and we naturally are drawn to faces), the association is initially with humor and we forget that we see a grinning skull only once Death has visited.
The grin and teeth make the skull as a symbol essential to dialogues of mortality, honesty and surprise in this painting. The skeleton, being covered by clothes like a body, is less ‘raw’ – more anatomically accurate Grim Reaper.
Death is armed with a club, the only entity in possession of an object other than clothing. This also makes Death the only figure with obvious intent, suggesting agency and power. The weapon suggests inevitability, Death’s entitlement. A club specifically might say bluntness, directness, surprise: the moment of Death always unforeseen.
Looking again: an armed, powerful, relentless Death dressed in more masculine colors opposing static, unaware, helpless Life in colors ‘hyper–natural’, feminine and warm. Life’s figures feel more fragile now, ephemeral, perhaps posed unnaturally precisely because the pose will never hold.
Klimt’s revisions are the most compelling technical aspect of the painting: they feel correct. The later background competes less with the figures, and it also feels a lot less holy. It feels much more brutalist, reminding me of the Chromatica Ball stage where Lady Gaga uses minimal setting to allow a ‘real hard look’ at the performance. The newer background does not impede eye movement between both sides of the painting as much, forcing a hard look at the relationship between Death and Life. It also reminds me of the black curtains at the backs of stages.
In between versions Klimt raises Death’s head, expands the visual weight of Life, makes Death more fluid with curving robes, and arms Death. At risk of sounding overly simplistic, these are all cues to pay deeper attention: to see more sides of the same thing so you feel more fully about it. These moves also empower and endear Death; the previous version’s bowed head version is too formal, too spectre-like to feel personified.
Death appears alone, Life in ensemble. Death is a door to homogeneity: When you are dead, you are dead like any other dead person. When you are alive, no two lives are the same. Not like the opening of Anna Karenina: “All happy families are alike, each unhappy family is unhappy in it’s own way”, where Tolstoy homogenises happiness.
Elsewhere, referring to the group therapy setting, Princess Babygirl writes in ‘Millenial Maxxing’ that “All the people who hurt us are complicated in the same way, sacrificing in both directions as the lamb and the butcher”. It looks like hurting (as an action, not a reaction) is made up of the same-ish landscape. To live unhappy long term can make you feel ‘dead inside’. Happy families can be understood as those with contentment, the source of which is acceptance. Personally, nine Lana del Rey albums and several years spent on tumblr make the sameness of sadness feel like a welcome sentiment.
Playing with these quotes alongside the painting is interesting, because Klimt renders Living as terribly complex, full of purpose yet pointless, and death a leveller. Homologation is the relationship between two opposing entities – let’s examine these homologies:
• Life : Death
• Alive: Dead
• Content : Discontent [Happy : Unhappy]
• Heterogenous : Homogenous
Klimt’s ‘Life’ characters are not painted so bright as to shout from the canvas, they swell from a tunnel of light, they are many, they are different in age, gender, body, position, expression – they are alive, some of them are smiling, none look particularly sorrowful. But Death is not particularly sorrowful, not really menacing. This creates ambiguity in seating Death at both the tables of Content and Discontent, because the feeling that doesn’t neatly fit there is acceptance – that’s what the painting says as a whole, even as the sides Life and Death speak for themselves. Death appears to fade, but not quite, but is not a spectre of doom. This visual effect feels like an acceptance of the human condition.
Words are the wrong medium for trying to explain what this painting says. They can just guide you to the kinds of stuff you might want to think about.
Death’s expression contradicts expectation: the 1908 version shows Death’s side profile with head bowed but this changed to quizzical, humorous, playful, sinister by 1915. The head tilt and grin are almost playful like I’m about to hear a joke, which is surprising.
In ‘Life’ there are closed eyes, the tallest character wears an almost sybarite smirk, two figures have their head bowed like they’re wrapped up in each other. Life’s character set is not really looking at anything, self-absorbed, not looking at Death. Life is engaging with Life, which is the point of Life.
Position, Staging and Weight
Klimt’s Memento Mori juxtaposes skeletal Death against a mass of nine human figures of all ages: one blissful, one smugly joyous, one with mouth half open, one half-visible with eyes closed, two heads bowed, one baby and one elderly woman, one blind figure with eyes wide open.
Life’s side of the painting has a sense of pantomime. This ‘artifice’ might come from the poses being unnatural, the expressions exaggerated and the combination of people unlikely. It is also kind of ‘unreal’ how life must be lived without thinking about death so much as to be paralysed by fear, but aware of mortality enough to maximise for contentment. Klimt posed Death somewhat realistically. In contrast, Life’s character set is physically placed in ways we would never see people. Death carries connotations of honesty, because bone is natural, when clothes are stripped there is a body, when the body is stripped there is skeleton: the ultimate equaliser.
Death takes up about half the visual weight of the ‘Life’ form. The distance between Death and Life’s figures is about the size of Death. Death’s form is cleaner: the curves are longer, it is obvious what the figure is, Death is contained inside the canvas space. Life’s forms contrast with wavier edges, a huddled mass of many people of unknown origin and terminus, existing in a meadow ending ‘off screen’. Life is much messier, with implied motion because of the waviness of everyone’s robes, and through causing eyes to dance around the section as we scan the faces. The background is curved and graded lighter behind Life, appearing as though Life emerges from a tunnel of (dim, so, faraway) Light. Death isn’t in a ‘resting’ position but the figure looks still, expectant.
Visual asymmetry and the awkward distance between the two sets of figures suggest imbalance and disconnect. Life is not a choice but the living have agency in terminating it. Death is a destination that cannot be left, but can be entered by choice. Life is the absence of Death. Death is Life absenting.
Swatched main colors, boxes highlight space taken up by each side
Second Look
While the subject matter and Klimt’s painting style are obvious cues we should ‘look deeper’, in looking deeper, there is a sense of things not being as they are (or, should). In personifying abstract concepts Klimt has made us empathise, leading us to see Death as ‘a being like us’: finite. The curiously blissful expressions in ‘Life’ initially suggest serenity, fulfillment, togetherness but to smile so sweetly next to Death feels foolish. Death’s head tilted creates curiosity, coupled with the skeletal grin this doesn’t produce a menacing skeleton. A grin with so many teeth suggest flight attendant instead of belly laughter, it’s not quite honest. To ‘show your teeth’ is to communicate you can defend yourself – can Life? In querying this expression (and we naturally are drawn to faces), the association is initially with humor and we forget that we see a grinning skull only once Death has visited.
The grin and teeth make the skull as a symbol essential to dialogues of mortality, honesty and surprise in this painting. The skeleton, being covered by clothes like a body, is less ‘raw’ – more anatomically accurate Grim Reaper.
Death is armed with a club, the only entity in possession of an object other than clothing. This also makes Death the only figure with obvious intent, suggesting agency and power. The weapon suggests inevitability, Death’s entitlement. A club specifically might say bluntness, directness, surprise: the moment of Death always unforeseen.
Looking again: an armed, powerful, relentless Death dressed in more masculine colors opposing static, unaware, helpless Life in colors ‘hyper–natural’, feminine and warm. Life’s figures feel more fragile now, ephemeral, perhaps posed unnaturally precisely because the pose will never hold.
Between Versions
Klimt’s revisions are the most compelling technical aspect of the painting: they feel correct. The later background competes less with the figures, and it also feels a lot less holy. It feels much more brutalist, reminding me of the Chromatica Ball stage where Lady Gaga uses minimal setting to allow a ‘real hard look’ at the performance. The newer background does not impede eye movement between both sides of the painting as much, forcing a hard look at the relationship between Death and Life. It also reminds me of the black curtains at the backs of stages.
In between versions Klimt raises Death’s head, expands the visual weight of Life, makes Death more fluid with curving robes, and arms Death. At risk of sounding overly simplistic, these are all cues to pay deeper attention: to see more sides of the same thing so you feel more fully about it. These moves also empower and endear Death; the previous version’s bowed head version is too formal, too spectre-like to feel personified.
I’m not like other girls, I’m sad
Death appears alone, Life in ensemble. Death is a door to homogeneity: When you are dead, you are dead like any other dead person. When you are alive, no two lives are the same. Not like the opening of Anna Karenina: “All happy families are alike, each unhappy family is unhappy in it’s own way”, where Tolstoy homogenises happiness.
Elsewhere, referring to the group therapy setting, Princess Babygirl writes in ‘Millenial Maxxing’ that “All the people who hurt us are complicated in the same way, sacrificing in both directions as the lamb and the butcher”. It looks like hurting (as an action, not a reaction) is made up of the same-ish landscape. To live unhappy long term can make you feel ‘dead inside’. Happy families can be understood as those with contentment, the source of which is acceptance. Personally, nine Lana del Rey albums and several years spent on tumblr make the sameness of sadness feel like a welcome sentiment.
Playing with these quotes alongside the painting is interesting, because Klimt renders Living as terribly complex, full of purpose yet pointless, and death a leveller. Homologation is the relationship between two opposing entities – let’s examine these homologies:
• Life : Death
• Alive: Dead
• Content : Discontent [Happy : Unhappy]
• Heterogenous : Homogenous
Klimt’s ‘Life’ characters are not painted so bright as to shout from the canvas, they swell from a tunnel of light, they are many, they are different in age, gender, body, position, expression – they are alive, some of them are smiling, none look particularly sorrowful. But Death is not particularly sorrowful, not really menacing. This creates ambiguity in seating Death at both the tables of Content and Discontent, because the feeling that doesn’t neatly fit there is acceptance – that’s what the painting says as a whole, even as the sides Life and Death speak for themselves. Death appears to fade, but not quite, but is not a spectre of doom. This visual effect feels like an acceptance of the human condition.
Words are the wrong medium for trying to explain what this painting says. They can just guide you to the kinds of stuff you might want to think about.