ABSTRACT

When we look at the relation between the Art of Painting and Forensic Science, basically there is one difference that, when the Forensic Science investigates a murder, generally it tends to think in terms of the murderer rather than the victim, however, when the art of painting thematizes a murder, it tends to think in terms of the victim. Even if the subject is the murderer, the art of painting tends to depict the murderer as “the victim.” For instance, Caravaggio was an artist who committed a murder. He painted “David with the Head of Goliath” to express his regret. The artist struggled with the cycle of interchanging images of the murderer and the victim. Self-portraits of Van Gogh with his severed ear and of Nan Goldin who was exposed to violence are striking examples of artists expressing themselves as the victim.

Gericault added secret and profound compassion to the beheaded convicts and Goya, through his paintings, claimed body parts that were shattered and abondoned. These are the examples that suggest us to look the convicts from a different standpoint.

As characteristic examples of forensic case we can see that David's “The Death of Marat” or Magritte's “The Threatened Assassin” are full of imaginative array of crime scene findings.

Rembrandt's “The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp” is a symbolic example showing the different perspectives of artists and doctors. Rembrandt did not depict the hand of Aris Kindt, but the hand in the anatomy book placed next to his foot. While the doctors are looking at the anatomy book, the artist directs the audience to the dead body and what is seen here is the Aris Kindt who became a victim.

While the “evidences/results” investigated by Forensic Science lead us to the “murderer/criminal”, images in art history lead us to “the victim.”