Ending the Quarter

I had to think on this one for a while, for there were really two artists that really jumped out at me for this quarter in art history. Though I have always loved works from Michelangelo (the Sistine Chapel and the Statue of David are immediately recognizable as some of the greatest works in all history) I have to say I really enjoyed learning about Jan van Eyck at the beginning of the quarter.  His paintings were so exquisite for the time, each person and object that filled his painting revealed a talent that can only be described no less than masterful.  I was so surprised at the level of skill used in the paintings, especially after the part where the documentary reveals how paint was synthesized in those days, and even with these limitations, Jan van Eyck created beautiful pieces of art,

I was enthralled by the Gent Altarpiece, I mean, each of the twenty-four panels replicates how light would play as if they were actually three dimensional objects within the Joost Vijdt Chapel. The precision of detail left me in awe; in the scene the “Lamb of God,” you can walk up to the painting and pick out even the smallest blades of grass. You can see the very veins in Eves arm and the slightest shadows on Adams foot making him appear as if he was really in our world.

Also, the “Arnolfini Portrait” really caught my eye in terms of his unmatched skill at the time. The craftsmanship raised the bar to a standard unseen before his paintings. Fabrics flow with as much variance in shadow and texture in this painting as in real life.
Jan van Eyck truly was ahead of his time.

The Two "David"s

In the Baroque period, we see a shift in ideals from the Renaissance Period. Renaissance art usually depicted moments before important events took place, with little to no (implied) movement. Art in the Baroque period, however, took a wide turn from those thoughts with dramatic poses in every scene and is recognized by rich colors and stark contrasts in black and white. Taking a look at the Michelangelo’s “David” from the Renaissance Period in the 16^th century and comparing it to Bernini’s “David” from the Baroque Period in the 17^th century can give us clear indications as to what was sought after in each century. Both statue depict the same young man, David; the Biblical hero who defeated the giant of a man, Goliath, with his sling and five stones.

At first glance, one can immediately see a difference in the way the two Davids are posed; Michelangelo’s is calm, almost reflective, with an air of relaxed composure; even though this statue depicts David, the young, clever man who defeats a seven foot tall colossus, it does not seem to tell his story. The tranquil form certainly does not look like someone who is about to battle or just battled a near monster, the contrapposto way of his arms and leg suggest a state of thinking, revealing the ideals of the Renaissance Period in idealism and humanism. Contrastingly, Bernini’s “David” shows the man at the height of the action. Both figures demonstrate each of the artists’ superb skills with details down to the slightest vein, but Bernini’s David depicts him in a dramatic pose. One can see the stress and anticipates the next action, a winding up of the arm just before it releases the sling creates a visually stimulating experience none had witnessed before. Michelangelo’s is much more formal in the fact that it is really only meant to be viewed from one side (a look at the back reveals nothing more than the rest of the man’s body), Bernini’s, on the other hand, challenges the viewer to walk around it. Looking at their faces, the contemplative “David” by Michelangelo seems composed and engulfed in thought. Little expression is visible, the blank stare gives the viewer little into the mind of this man and what he is about to do. Conversely, Bernini’s “David” is full of emotion, with a tense mouth and heated stare, one can clearly see the state of alarm he is in and that this is a story of intense battle. Another difference is that one is Michelangelo’s David is naked, while Bernini’s remains clothed, which could be a reflection of the Renaissances ideals in the humanism (the appreciation of the human form) while Bernini showed his appreciation of the human form thorough his use of the dramatic pose.

Both works reveal the ideals from one period to another. I found it very interesting the beauty in both in different ways. Michelangelo sought the splendor in perfection, while Bernini sought to evoke a feeling of instructiveness with the viewer.

Albrecht Durer

Albrecht Durer was a painter from Nuremburg, Germany , and son of the goldsmith Albrecht Durer the Elder. He was also a very accomplished printmaker and established his name in his twenties through this profession, regarded as the greatest artist in Northern Renaissance ever since, and is renowned today for his works in self portraiture. With such great fame, we know much about Durer today because many though his autobiographical writings and many works of surviving art. Throughout his paintings, we see the reflection of the Italian Renaissance style and for this blog, I have chosen his one of his earliest self portraits; The Portrait of the Artist Holding a Thistle.

In 1493, Albrecht Durer created this painting for his fiancé while he was away for a guild tour. The Portrait of the Artist Holding a Thistle was painted in the classic pose; with three quarters of his upper body being showed with him at a facing the viewer at a slight angle. It is said that this painting could possibly be a betrothal painting. Durer has depicted himself in the act of giving a thistle, and it is said that this medicinal plant is in fact an aphrodisiac and for this reason it is seen as an oath of faithfulness for his fiancé Agnes Frey. The inscription reads “Things happen to me as it is written on high," and lead others to believe that the thistles were instead a reference to the thorns on Christ’s head. When he returned at the end of May, 1494, he and Agnes Frey were married. . This painting was significant for the time for that this was one of the very first independent self portraits in Western painting.

Here he has depicted himself in very expensive and sophisticated clothing in much detail. We see each ruffle of his white tunic, each one giving a small shadow, revealing his skill and knowledge in the way light plays. The large and ostentatious gown he wears almost seems to flaunt his wealth and fame. Looking closely, one can even see the stitching of the garment and the meticulous work put into the shades from light to dark. His face is in great detail, we can see the hints of muscles and facial lines to the smallest feature and his neck reveals the soft changes in light though its boney ridges.

As mentioned, Albrecht Durer was more than a painter, but a very celebrated printmaker and he alone made printmaking an art form. Durer elevated the way printmaking was performed and “expanded it’s tonal and dramatic range.” He traveled to Italy quite a few times and was engaged not only by the artistic practices, but the theoretical interests. Here he developed a new interest in the human form; which were reflected in his studies back home and showed his interest in humanism.

During the later years of Durer’s life, his health started to decline, and he focused mostly on theoretic and scientific writings until he died in 1528 and buried amongst his country’s most influential artists. 

Mannerism

In the late High Renaissance time period, Mannerism began to emerge as a response to Protestantism. It incorporates the real visual aspects such as light and shadow, but it is very dissimilar from humanistic paintings from those such as Leonardo da Vinci. Mannerism in a sense embodies more a theatrical feeling rather than the fascination of how realistic the piece is; the people and environment in mannerist art seem much more synthetic. Exaggerated features and appendages are a common sight to emphasize what they sought out for in beauty. In this blog, I will be comparing Pontormo’s “Entombment” and Parmigianino’s “Madonna of the Long Neck.”

“Entombment” (also known as the Deposition of the Cross) was painted circa 1525-28 by Jacopo Pontormo and can be viewed at the Capponi Chapel in Santa Felicia, Florence. At first glance, you can see the theatricality of the expressions on each of the figures faces; each one portraying an emotion of anguish, misery or sadness.  Limbs and gestures fill the piece in a way that was not conventional from the renaissances earlier pieces. Due to the lack of space, all of the figures seem to be fitted almost uncomfortably in the restrictions, even furthering the sense of panic. Also, the Virgin Mary seems much larger than anyone in the painting; she seems to trump Jesus even though he is within our foreground.  We do not see the following of rules such as the pyramid or triangle seen in previous renaissance works, but a much more scattered and chaotic, but balanced, composition.

“Madonna of the Long Neck” (or Madonna and Child with Angels and St. Jermone) is an oil painting by Parmigianino painted about 1535-1540. The painting depicts Madonna holding (a very large) baby Jesus and on the left angels come crowding in the admire him. Though the expressions are not as melodramatic as we saw in Pontormo’s painting, we still get the exaggerated features (as the title suggests). Knowing that the Christ child is suppose to be depicted as a baby, we can clearly see that instead of extended features, his entire body is enlarged, appearing more as a young child; perhaps this was to even further the attention on to him. Also, we see Madonna’s elongated neck, which stretches up and peers down at the young Christ. Also, the angel (on the left in our foreground) legs seem lengthened to a point that does not seem to follow an ordinary appendage. Another contradiction to Pontormo’s work was the seemingly sporadic gesturing. In “Entombment,” we saw movement in almost every limb, “Madonna of the Long Neck” s much more subtle with the figures, with the exception of the Christ child’s restless posture. 

These two pieces both depict biblical stories in a manor much more stylistically than what we saw in previous Renaissance period artwork. Instead of careful system in placing people and figures, a much more random and unsystematic method is being portrayed. Mannerism moved from the realistic point of views to a different aesthetic with a taste that went beyond what we would see in the world.    

The Reflection of Humanism in Renaissance Art

The Renaissance period was seen as a time of “rebirth,” greatly influenced by the acceptance of humanism.  Humanism wasn’t rejecting Christianity, many paintings depict religious icons as a matter of fact, but it did expand beyond portraying religious figureheads on the further interest in realism to human anatomy. We see portraiture of those who could afford it; the art work was no longer controlled by the church. Humanism in art glorified the beauty of the human body and sought to achieve realistic perspectives rather than flat, two dimensional views.

We see a strong ambition to create realistic linear and atmospheric perspectives in paintings. Before, objects and people were flat and had an unrealistic resemblance to what and who they were portraying. With the interest in humanism, however, we see carefully calculated paintings on how an object would look in real space; let us take, for example, a look at Perigino’s “The Delivery of The Key to Saint Peter.” Located on the wall of the Sistine Chapel, this fresco shows the development of linear perspective. As the people and buildings become farther away, they diminish in size and detail, just as we see in the real world. Also, when we look at the stones, we clearly see the space and size of and between each stone reducing as they disappear into the horizon. Further, the sky is not one stark color, but a gradient from blue to white as it too reaches the plane of the horizon. On a closer look at the architecture of the building, the correct use of perspective is used as well. The mid structure is facing us head on as the two on the left and right show their three dimensional properties.

Also, the use of color was greatly refined to further the illusion of depth and capture the essence of what we actually see in the three dimensional world. Perigino skillfully uses light and shadow to emphasize distance in not only the far way buildings, but in the very clothing of the people.  We see the shimmer of more luxurious fabric as appose to the duller colored. There is a direct point to where the light is coming from; we know exactly where the sun is located even though it is not actually in the scene. The desire to paint what is actually seen, to give the viewer a sense that they could simply walk into the painting was influenced by humanisms ambition for perfection.

Humanism also inspired how we see the people in this crowd. Before, they would be flat and incorrectly placed as to how their bodies and limbs would be proportionate to each other. Again, with a drive for realism, we see that when they are not facing forward and to the side, their arms and legs are (logically) not visible due to the fact that they are behind.

Humanism in art sought to reflect the real world, and, in turn, find beauty in things that were once unnoticed. Striving for this, works of art were meticulously  measured to show how we view the world we live in.

Sandro Botticellis "Birth of Venus"

The renowned painting the “Birth of Venus” by Sandro Botticelli reflects what was being sought after in art in the early renaissance art period in Italy, a stylized style with to classical realism.

Painted about fourteen eighty-five to fourteen eighty-six for the villa of f Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici at Castello, Sandro Botticelli used tempra on canvas for the “Birth of Venus,” depicting the goddess Venus emerging from the sea, waiting on a giant, scalloped, shell arriving on the sea shore. She is blown ashore by Zephyr (greek for the west wind) and Chloris, gliding along the left side, surrounded by falling roses. On the right, a nymph comes to greet Venus, rushing to dress the modestly nude goddess.

In terms of color, we see quiet of variety, from the bushes a lush green, deep blue from the sky, to the fiery red of Venus’s hair to her flawless pale skin. What I noticed is the fine use of color to further the three-dimensional   aspects of the painting. As the eye looks off into the horizon, we can see the dark blue of the ocean and sky fade to a lighter, almost white, on the horizon line, just as we see in real life. The green and yellow from the shrubs too fade, furthering the impression one can simply walk into the painting. Within the midground shrubbery, we can differentiate each leaf, for every one of them has its own highlighted area, showing us where the light playfully hits them. But though the way the light hits the greenery and how they fade back resembles a realistic trait, the way they are stylized goes far from what we normally see out in the world, each leaf almost too perfect, it is idealized, but stylized. Also, to bring attract the attention of the viewer, Venus’s ivory pale skin and red hair really stand out on the much darker background; even Zephyr, Chloris and the nymph are relatively darker compared the goddess’s soft colored skin.  Every line from these shapes are crisp and it is clear to see where one element of a shape begins and where one ends.

Going along with furthering the attention towards Venus, Sandro Botticelli uses many more element than color to fixate our eyes on the nude figure. On the left, the intertwined bodies of Zephyr and Chloris both gaze at Venus while helping reach the shore, we can clearly see their line of sight is directing us to the goddess’s arrival. Not only to they do that, but the shapes their bodies make almost seem to point our eye directly to Venus. On the right, we see the nymph hurryingly dashing to Venus, readying the drapery for the goddess. The fabric flows in such a way it yet again helps guide our eyes to the pale form. Also, the background too pushes the focus on Venus, the land ending in such a way that it furthers the attention to her. Venus herself uses her sexuality to draw our attention; one hand covering (with not too much success) her breasts as the other covers her genitalia.

Contrary to what was created by Leonardo di Vinci or Raphael, Sandro Botticelli had Venus is portrayed in classical realism. Her skin is flawless, revealing beauty not found in the real world, along with her hair cascading down her body in perfect waves of red. Her limbs and body are ideally proportional, but her neck is unusually long and her shoulders seem to be not exactly proportionate to the elongated arms. And her face is idealized in a manner we would again not normally see on an everyday woman. (Though what could we expect from the goddess of love?). She shifts her weight more on her left leg, allowing her right to gently rise, revealing the use of contra posture.

Overall, Sandro Botticelli’s depiction of the “Birth of Venus” reflects how classical realism was influencing Italy over naturalism. Perfection was admired and sought as beauty more than what was seen in everyday life. Even though the background greenery and wavy ocean exposes a more stylized taste, the depictions of Venus, Zephyr, Chloris and the nymph confirms the classical realism being beheld in Italy.