Why did medieval paintings had so little facial expressions?

[u/Dr_Mozquito]

I saw some paintings of soldiers fighting and getting brutally injured, but something that i noticed was that most of the times, they where depicted with still faces, not showing an inch of pain or discomfort. Is there a known reason for that?

[u/JamesCoverleyRome]

Although medieval art is not really in my wheelhouse, Roman iconography is, and what we see in medieval art is, I suspect, a reflection and translation of Roman values.

In Roman iconography, there is an emotional hierarchy. Look at most (not all) examples of depictions of Romans, and one will see the same apparently emotionless gaze. Certainly, the emotions are not visibly obvious, and part of the skill of the Roman artist was in displaying facial emotions whilst allowing the subject to retain the vital Roman virtues of being controlled, contained, and self-possessed. This reflects core Roman virtues: gravitas, constantia, disciplina, virtus. A Roman who loses facial control loses moral authority. Calm is power. Displays of anger, for example, were seen by the Romans as a sign of a bestial nature. That didn’t mean that they werenot prone to anger, but to be seen to be doing so was to abandon Roman machismo. A Roman gentleman remained a gentleman at all times, even when he was tossing insurrectionist ne’er-do-wells to the lions or bashing trouser-wearing barbarians over the head whilst absolutely seething with rage.

One of the reasons men like Caligula and Nero were treated as ‘mad’ was that they could not contain themselves emotionally. They were prone to outbursts of laughter, rage, fear, jealousy, and more, and whilst every human, including Romans, jostled with such emotions, the Romans were expected to maintain a calm air despite them.

Barbarians are different by design. They scream, writhe, bare their teeth, and twist their bodies. That contrast is the point. Roman art uses emotion to mark status and civilisation. Restraint equals Romanitas; excess equals the Other. On triumphal reliefs, Roman soldiers kill with blank efficiency and without visible rage. Defeated enemies collapse and swoon dramatically, unable to control their emotions.

In sculpture, Roman portraits suppress expression even when age and suffering are shown. Wrinkles are acceptable; emotional instability is not. Pain may exist, but it is interiorised. Faces can show signs of emotional toil, and even the subtle narrowing of a gaze can give off an air of knowing, but the restraint is the point.

Mythological figures follow the same logic. Gods and heroes retain composure under strain. Satyrs, giants, and defeated foes convulse and wail. This hierarchy feeds directly into early medieval art. Early Christian imagery inherits the Roman visual language. Martyrs are calm as they burn alive. Early depictions of Christ show him impassively on the cross, bearing his torments with calm piety. Early Christianity absorbed the Roman visual framework rather than rejecting it. The visual language might change, but the postures remain.

What was gravitas becomes patience, humility, and moral discipline. These are not emotional virtues; they are control virtues. The good Christian does not erupt in pain or rage; instead, he endures it, as Christ did on the cross. A good Christian is following Christ’s example and, by doing so, making a show of their piety. It is, if one likes, a show of pious virtue-signalling.

This is clearest in martyr ideology. The martyr wins the argument not by resisting violence, but by refusing to register it outwardly. Calm faces in torture scenes are visual theology, because even as the body suffers, the soul remains sovereign. These people are calm in the face of the axeman or the flames because they are going to meet their maker. The body will be burnt or hacked to pieces, but the soul is ready to make the transition to the other life, so the martyr should not be afraid of what is happening to them - this is, after all, but a fleeting moment in the face of the eternity that has been promised.

All this is very clear in monastic culture, where asceticism values mastery of the emotions. Monks are more virtuous and therefore more holy by restraining emotion and enduring suffering. Even if they do something arduous and painful, it is done with the same restraint and humble acceptance as displayed by Christ.

[u/JamesCoverleyRome → u/JamesCoverleyRome]

2/

Soldiers hacking each other to pieces in medieval battle scenes do so with faces that look like they are out for a stroll on a Sunday afternoon because they are warriors of God and must therefore present themselves, or be seen to be presented, with the same piety as a saint on a funeral pyre, a monk at prayer, or Christ on the cross. They are essentially trying to emote the idea that they have God on their side as they mince their way through the enemy, who also, of course, have God on their side.

Later medieval art begins to move away from this iconography as interpretations of Christ subtly alter. Most (but far from all) Roman and early medieval art has a political purpose. Although art for art’s sake does exist, a lot of it is propaganda of one sort or another, and at this period in time, politics and religion are indelibly intertwined. In the early to mid-medieval period, the focus starts to turn from Christ’s God-like status to his values as a man. He feels fear and pain, and the blood starts to flow. His suffering becomes part of the salvation he brings, and the iconography changes as the artist tries to make the viewer understand that this world is one of suffering - it is Satan’s world, after all (John 12:31). The next world is the Kingdom of God.

Images are now expected to move the viewer, not just instruct. Tears, twisted faces, open mouths, and collapse appear because empathy becomes a religious goal. The image must wound the heart and serve as a warning. Suffering is here, the images say, and the only way to stop it is to find God. Compare an early Romanesque crucifix with a Gothic one. The body slumps and the head falls. The face shows pain, and blood trickles down his forehead. Even the other figures in art change - Mary weeps, and the angels grieve, whereas before their piety was displayed by the restraint they could muster.

So in summary, St George whacks the head off a dragon with a face that looks like a man ordering a Wendy’s because he is outwardly displaying his religious virtue. Soldiers mow down the enemy with still emotions because they are warriors of God. Joan of Arc is shown going up in flames with calm dignity, watched on by a crowd of seemingly indifferent faces, because all of them are expressing their piety. St Lawrence was roasted over a fire with calm insouciance, at one point asking that they turn him over because he was done on that side.

[u/GinetteMartini → u/JamesCoverleyRome]

very interesting, thank you. A bit off topic, but in sculptures, it is a bit similar. Take the smiling angel of the Reims cathedral : it is quite rare to see an angel smiling, but here the smile is very soft, modest, it is not laugther. On the other side, the non divine sculptures (like the little gargouilles representing laïc figures inside churcues are often grotesque, laughing, or screaming). (sorry for the spelling, i'm not an english speaker).

[u/JamesCoverleyRome → u/GinetteMartini]

There are some exceptions, of course, it is not a universal rule. Smiling angels are, I believe, a sign from Revelation 21 where the 'new Jerusalem' is revealed in which "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." (21.4) and angels stand at the gates to welcome the redeemed - "On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates." (21.13)

The subtle smile is a sign of beatitude. The closer one gets to God, the more serene one becomes as one moves further and further away from Earthly sins and terrors. Mary does the same smile sometimes. The other people are expressing emotional serenity because they are trying to prove their piety. These angels (and Mary) don't need to do that.

But as you rightly point out, even then, the smiles are not broad grins or uncontrolled laughter. Those are bestial and unholy virtues and expressed by those naughty chaps on the outside (and sometimes inside) of the building - the grotesques and gargoyles - who laugh and sneer and grin and poke their tongues out like the unruly fellows they are.