Research Entry 6:The Portrait of Cosimo I as Orpheus

 

Bronzino, Portrait of Cosimo I de' Medici as Orpheus, Estimated Date 1537-39. 

The  portrait of Cosimo de’ Medici are a subject of particular interest. Bronzino’s portrait of Cosimo as Orpheus was likely not meant for public display- the classical with was imagery for the imperial court. It’s Ironic that Alessandro de’ Medici the sexual extravagant, was depicted by Pontormo as a disciplined draftsman, while Cosimo- the disciplined statesmen was captured by Bronzino as a sexually potent demigod- Hercules. There are several suggestions as to why Bronzino decided to paint Cosimo the way he did. Humor, Artistic experimentation, and there are also suggestions that Cosimo sought to teach a lesson to the King about the dangers of sex and the importance of procreation (Strehlke, 29).

 Detail of Above Image

Bronzino, like Cosimo covered an array of styles that carried into several interlocking social worlds. Each artist was able to decide how to portray their artistic portrayals with a sense of “dissimulation” (Strehlke, 30). Pontormo on the other hand, did not belong to the academy and never abandoned the inspiration for his earlier work; he showed no interest in subscribing to the manner of transforming heroic figures into demigods through forms of ancient scripture. Bronzino proved himself by meeting the needs of the new regime. Bronzino and Pontormo’s complex relationship as friend, brother, father and master meant that Bronzino would not distance himself too far, dispite their artistic differences. Bronzino wrote many poems, especially to honor the deaths of friends- at Pontormo’s passing, he wrote more than 14 (Strehlke, 30).

Research Entry 5: The Male Portrait.

The ages in Pontormo and Bronzino’s portraits are difficult to identify. In 1531, Bronzino painted a portrait of 18- year old Guidobaldo della Rovre as a mature man with armor, a thick beard and large codpiece- a sign of military and sexual potency (Strehlke24). Pontormo’s Francesco Guardi depicts a 16- year old, Beardless and obviously too young to fight as he guards the bastions of Florence. The author of the book, (Strehlke) suggests that these are signs of abstraction- that they are figures of youth, idealized and difficult to capture in the real world. In 1532 Bronzino began working on a collection of paintings of young men. The settings for them all literary in which painting was speaking silent poetry.

 

Bronzino, Guidobaldo della Rovre, 1531-32. 

 

 

Pontormo, Portrait of a Halberdier (Francesco Guardi), 1528-30. 

 

Pontormo’s portrait of Alessandro de’ Medici, 1534, captures a young man in the middle of a drawing- and in profile- as most female portraits are done. Alessandro would later gift it the painting to his mistress. Like the portrait of The Two Men, the depiction of Alessandro is structured around the viewer (Strehlke, 19). Pontormo also paid special attention to how Alessandro’s hands were positioned. The uncomfortable work captured the chaotic backdrop of Alessandro’s life that he had witnessed first hand- a man noble in spirit, but not as a man. Alessandro was later murdered by his cousin Lorenzino because he felt he was a tyrant who, “had taken away every civilia, vestige and name of the republic.” (Strehlke, 19).

Pontormo, Alessandro de' Medici, 1534.

Pontormo's Young Man with a Book, is dressed all in black surrounded by contemporary wooden furniture. The private architectural setting speaks to Florentines who seek style and a rime of living in disenfranchisement. “They sought to define what it is to be Florentine, by appealing to both a literary tradition based on the authority of Petrach and Dante and a parallel artistic tradition based on the authority of Michelangelo.” (Strehlke, 25). During the rule of Alessandro, there is a record- through poetry- of such Florentine men missing.

 

Pontormo, Portrait of a Young Man (with a book), 1535-40.

 1527 was marked by the sack of Rome and the summer of the plague. Several hundred Florentines died each day and by the end of the following summer, 30,000 Florentine lives had been claimed (Strehlke, 26).

Varchi’s poems evoke a political absence of the time. Bronzino’s, Lorenzio Lenzi celebrates the power of painting to render a presence (Strehlke, 27). At the same time, accompanied by contemporary sonnets, It suggests a lyric poetry that laments absence- creating a double negative. This idea goes way beyond the humanist model for portraiture. The language of art was universal; at this time so many had died or been cast out for political reasons, painting and sonnets was a way to bring the Tuscan community back together (Strehlke, 27).

 

Bronzino, Portrait of Lorenzio Lenzi, 1528.

Duke Alessandro was proceeded by Casimo I, who was 17 at the time. He was praised for being peaceful and loved by the people. He also showed immense skill at asserting continual commercial growth in Florence (Strehlke, 27).

Reaserch Entry 4: On Friendship

Pontormo, Portrait of Two Friends, 1524

 
Pontormo’s, Two Men with a passage from Cicero’s “On Friendship,” is closer in spirit to the paintings of the North, than it is to the contemporary court paintings in Europe. The man on the left holds a piece of paper with a passage in which Cicero talks of friendship as being important to life “because it embraces countless ends, is never untimely and is never in the way.” (Strehlke, 14). Vasari recognized this as being a portrait of two of Pontormo’s close friends- but being ever the Medici Courtier- he denied knowing the name of either man, saying, “it is enough that these portraits are by the hand of Pontormo.” (Strehlke, 17). Vasari also noticed the change in style in Pontormo’s paintings- but simply wrote about them as being stylistic changes (Again- he big his tongue for the Medici) (Strehlke, 12).

“Pontormo implies that these few lines from Cicero, which epitomize the values of true friendship- faithfulness, honor, honesty, love and indeed every republican virtue-- have been sent like a letter through without address or signature. The parallel between letters and portraits was particularly favored by humanists in discussions of the relative merits of the two forms of self representation between friends.” (Strehlke, 18).
Essential to the reform of Italy was the art of Literacy. By the end of the 15^th century, young Florentine men- nearly 30% were able to read and write and attended some sort of school (Strehlke, 15). Bronzino and Pontormo were both literate and shared an engagement in the reading writing and discussion of vernacular texts (Strehlke, 14). Their engagement in the literary art linked them to their contemporary, Michelangelo. A remarkable number of portraits are accompanied by texts which discuss clear reasons on how their portraits should be read (Strehlke, 14).

The role of poetry was enormous to Pontormo and Bronzino. As a writers methods evolve- so does a painters

Research Project Entry 3: The Beginings of Change

Italy was undergoing a transformation of language- in its style and imitation. There was a sizely debate on the powers of having a universal language- to be understood in value and usage. This was a particularly passionate subject for painters. They took great interest in this as the debate paralleled with the visual language in art. Language allowed artists to engage with a broader educated society (Strehlke, 9).



 When the Medici made their first return in 1512 the debate took an even greater significance. Pontormo’s, Vertumnus and Pomona, commissioned by Leo X, in a way help prepare the viewer to understand his later portraits and the relationship of natural appearance to dissimulation and the “assumption of style that is artfully artless.” (Strehlke, 9).



 Visari writes that Pontormo “overworked his brain in inventing figures for his fresco, Vertumnus and Pomona, but that labor is invisible to the viewer.” (Strehlke, 9). The complex array of peasant characters are nude or heavily draped in heavy folds of cloth. The overall arrangement of characters is calculated arrangement of contrapposto and a interplay in exploration of the courtly themes- ease and judgment; a balance of Machiavellian ethics and courtly mannerism. Each character relies on one another for complete understanding. The gaze of the seated figures look after us, but it is more that a simple outward stare. This is simply a start to such a complex idea in which a sense of communication is established. This is the beginning of a complex network of subjective associations that link the observer to the drawing. In the context of language, it is also important to take note that Pontormo avoided stylistic flattery by avoiding a direct reference- historical or contemporary (Strehlke, 9, 10).

Pontormo, Vertumnus and Pomona, 1521

 

 

Detail of above Image

The Supper of Emmaus, 1525, was painted during Pontormo’s retreat to the Certosa. At this time the Plague had come to Florence and Pontormo was given the opportunity to escape the city to paint frescoes in the new Cloister. He took Bronzino with him (Strehlke, 10). In the Supper of Emmaus, he created a life size depiction of Christ with two apostles and several brothers that Vasari knew- who he describes with admiration, “they could not be more alive, or more alert.” (Strehlke, 10). The inclusion of portraits in religious narratives had a long tradition in Florence. Typically these inclusions are difficult to decipher. In Pontormo’s painting however, the “mystical truth of Christ takes place eternally in the human presence”. The idea that human and divine are incarnate in a historical present poses the deepest questions about the status of portraiture for Pontormo in the 1520’s. At this time Pontormo took great interest in the study of Durer’s prints- especially the Large Passion and Small Passion Series. The floppy hat, rough stools and simplified table setting are evidence that Pontomo took direct reference from him (most specifically the Small Passions series).- a Northern style that took less of Classical approach that was flourishing in Italy (Strehlke, 10, 11).

 

 

Pontormo, The Supper of Emmaus, 1525.

 

Detail of above Image

  

 Pontormo began to rely in Durer and his compositional sketches for bases of his paintings. It is difficult for historians to decipher which drawings he did from life and which he did from recreations of Durer’s prints.

 

 

Durer, Examples from the Small Passions Series, Woodcuts, 1511.

 

Mannerism

Mannerism began to make its first appearance in Cinquecento paintings as a counter to the High Renaissance. According to Bellori, there was a decline, “artists, abandoning the study of nature, corrupted art with la maniera… on idea based on practice and not on the imitation of nature.” (22). The focus of nature slowly began to be replaced by a tendency to generalize and idealize (27).



In the 19^th century mannerism was known as a decline that began in Rome in approx. 1530. This decline was characterized by “unjustified habitual peculiarities, remote from nature”. This decline was considered inevitable and correlated with the status change in artists in Italy in which they transformed from journeymen to courtesans (24). The new aesthetic was a response and possibly even a rebellion to the high Renaissance.



Art in Italy was constantly in a transition, and there is no official distinction between the first Florentine generations that began experimenting in the mannerist styles (285). Vasari constructed a list of the attributes missing from paintings before 1500 and the contributions made to the trade during the 16^th century. He viewed art in the mid century as if it were at a peak, an “ultimate limit“. The main contribution he mentioned was what he called “a new unified sweetness in color.” (38). Another example of a change in the structure of art was figures in rest and motion - the principles of positioning figures. Armenini described it as, “whatever surface the flat light of maniera touches, this surface, flat or not, tends to look flat until one pauses to analyze it.” (39). Painters like Bronzino experimented greatly with three dimensional posing suggesting a link between flatness and the need of freedom and flexibility (41).



In the years that followed the religious and political turmoil in Italy, mannerism became a complex means of illustrating spiritual urgencies and repression. Artists responded sophistically by continually changing their stylistic renderings. Even the art of Mannerism has evolved and changed- even in views of the contemporary (286).



The concept of mannerism- and parts of the readings were difficult to grasp at first. At the end of the day, mannerism was a response to the Renaissance and it gained influence from other artists and a changing social status for artists. All great things must come to and end. The Renaissance, to many, was viewed as an apex for Italian art. The interdiction of change was received with mixed reviews- and the change that preceded the Renaissance was Mannerism. Also- it is important to note that Mannerism is still alive today, though it has transformed from its original forms. Even the second generation of mannerism painters in the mid 1500’s evolved from the first masters in the genre. I guess the point here being that it is the nature of art to continue to transform and it will continue to do so as it has in the past; and that each transformation will be met with an array of acceptance and opposition- which will inevitably fuel the next wave.


I apologize for their not being any photos. Is anyone else having troubles with them not loading to Blogger?

The Last Judgement

“Michelangelo followed the tradition of placing Christ at the center surrounded by the elect… Striding forward, he raises his arm and looks without emotion toward the damned; his gesture is not simply one of condemnation but of command… Rotating around the Apollonian Chris in his sun like radiance, the composition moves like the planets around the sun in the Copernican cosmology” (133, 134).  

 

In 1534 Michelangelo returned to Rome. It took him nearly five years from this time to complete the last judgment (132). The controversial altar piece was the artistic vision of Michelangelo himself, in which the reward and punishment after death was it main point- “an important tool of the Church to enforce obedience.” (132).  It is clear in his presentation that Michelangelo still loved for nude human form, but some forms of the painting are unique. There is no indication of the picture plane, bystanders are absent and there are even some who believe that the distorted Bartholomew is a self portrait of Michelangelo himself – since it is the only figure in which he signed his name underneath (135).

 

 The last judgment was not particularly popular upon its unveiling. From the beginning the nude forms were a source of cynicism. In 1545 Pietro Arentino wrote a letter to Michelangelo saying that the artist had made a spectacle of the scene. “The painter has made a spectacle of martyrs and virgins in improper attitudes, men dragged down by their genitals, things in front of which brothels would shut their eyes in order not to see them. Our souls need the tranquil emotions of piety more than the lively impressions of plastic art.” (189). Pope Paul had taken serious consideration into having the fresco destroyed- and had reportedly asked that Michelangelo “fix the nude forms.

        At this same time, Protestants declared that decoration of churches were of superfluous luxury and saw a better fit for money- towards the poor- instead of expensive art projects. The Catholics defended their images by relying on their importance to the illiterate.

       Michelangelo’s art was defended by Fabrini who justified the altar piece by saying that the Last Judgment, “embodies allegorical meanings of great profundity which few people arrive at understanding”. (192). If this understanding is true, it creates a paradox –to me- in the views of the Christian defense to the Protestant criticism.

 The article we read suggests that the last Judgment may be so controversial because of how copied it was. By printing- the work was able to reach a very broad audience who saw it outside of its original context. It was a constant source of inspiration for young artist- there were even 17 different versions made by the end of the century (192). It was probably the inappropriate responses that officially prompted the church to condemn and sensor the painting. Daniele was hired to remove the lewd portions of the painting by adding draperies, turning heads from their original position. Most of the nudes remained, however the overall tone of the piece moved a worshiper to laugh and shame- instead of devotion (192, 193).

 

 

The most interesting part of the reading to me was, Michelangelo's "Last Judgment" as Merciful Heresy. The article looked at the painting as being forwardly modern and de-Christianized. The artists and connoisseurs marveled at the foreshortened forms and technique, while the religious were nervous about the growing heresy in Europe (48). 

 

What I got from all the articles is this. The church hired Michelangelo anticipating the classical- idealized inspirations that drove the ceiling. However Michelangelo had aged, matured, and so did his ideas. He was becoming less concerned with a beauty that was fleeting and more so with our eternal selves- our souls. For a man who seemingly strived for perfection- this piece did not fit the bill for the time. It was used as an example of how to not do while painting sacred images. The over all intent of the message was also lost. The propaganda piece that the church thought they were commissioning seemed to loose its meaning as viewers were distracted by the figures and forms. However what I feel the piece did do was influence the future of art. The gestures, the figures the hidden meanings- it was just something that wasn't appreciated by the church at that time.

Reaserch Entry II- The Importance of the Medici Family

Politics, Politics, and More Politics… With Some History In-between…

 

Florence Italy. The Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore.

(My attention grabber, as I am about to overwhelm you with names and dates) 

In 1494 Charles VIII of France invaded Italy in which their unimpeded pursuit took them through Naples- aided by modern cannonry. The results were devastating. Piero de’ Medici, Lorenzo the Magnificents’s heir as ruler of Florence, surrendered to the invasive force and as a result the Medici family was removed from Florence. With this the second Florentine Republic was established (6).
 

Italy in 1494, before the invasion by Charles VIII of France that year.

 

Dominican reformer, Fra Girolamo Savonarola saw this foreign invasion as a sign of God’s wrath against a corrupt people- an idea that fueled the most powerful political, moral and spiritual force in the city- the renewal. It aimed at transforming Florence back into a city of God. As part of the transformation- remnants of Renaissance Florence- portraits, books, poetry and finery were burned because they were considered vanity and worldly luxury. Eventually, after much civic revolt and Savonarola’s excommunication, he was burned at the stake in 1498. His ideas did not hold, but did continue to have an influence for nearly fifty years after his death (6).

 Although Florence had returned to a republican government, it was unable to protect itself against danger from abroad. In 1532 the city was forced to agree to the return of the Medici. The election of Pope Leo X (Lorenzo the Magnificent’s son, Giovanni), was a Medici dream, but a nightmare for the now Papacy-dependant Florence who was in turn exploited for its wealth (6, 7).

For 15 years 1512-1527 The major powers in Europe fought for posession of Florence.  In 1523, Giulio de’ Medici’s illegitimate son of Lorenzo’s murdered brother Giuliano, was elected Pope Clement VII. He ran Florence in a feudal manner and his disastrous policies eventually led to the sack of Rome by Emperor Charles V Clements. For the third time, the Medici family was expelled from Florence. With this, Pope and emperor found in each other a common cause. Charles wanted papal support against the English and German reformers- but he needed Florence’s riches for security (7). Meanwhile, Clement wanted Florence for the Medici- an act that could only be delivered by Charles. Charles promised to commit all of his resources to restore the popes family to Florence and did so by promising his 7 year old daughter, Margherita, to Clements nephew, Alessandro de’ Medici and placed a “deposit” of twenty thousand ducats on the proposition. (7)

 In 1527 the plague claimed 30,000 lives and nearly ¼ the population of Florence. In 1528, and marked by the beginning of the end of the plague and forfilling the desire of Savonarola, the Grand council voted Christ as the “sole and true lord and king.” (7).

 The battle for the third Republic faced civil strife and struggled against foreign powers. In 1529 the Florentines sent a declaration of defiance to the imperial troops set guard around their city. By this time in history, Florence had been now ravished by war, plague and hunger. 

 Ordained by Charles V, Alessandro de’ Medici then made his entry into Florence as “capo”- head of the city. From this point his power would be hereditary, the duchy- a territory over which a duke or duchess has jurisdiction- was established through a constitution in 1532. For the next decade Florentine exiles would cling to the ideals of the Republic and vent their hatred of the Medici from abroad. Many left Florence at this time, including Michelangelo, preferring to live under papal rule in Rome (8).  

Through the plague, revolutions and sieges, Bronzino and Pontormo remained in Florence. They became were of a civic culture based heavily on religious and political debate. “We need not revive old concept of Mannerism as a style of anxiety to understand that Pontormo and Bronzino’s representations of their own world would be neither conventional nor easy to understand.” (8). Florence’s politically stressed and reformed foundation is what defines a large portion of the artists evolution- and this is the essence and main subject of this research project.

 Holy moly that was a lot of information crammed in there, but it was all important for understanding Bronzino and Pontormo's artistic creations…. Up next, the beginning of Bronzino and Pontormo’s career under the Medici.

Titian's Venus of Urbino

“A nude woman reclines on a bed. Her pet dog dozes at her feet. In the background, two servants either remove her garments from , or return them to, a cassone. The nude’s pose derives from that of the ancient Venus Pudica. Unlike the classical goddess, however, this woman does not conceal her breasts but rather uses her right arm to prop herself up on two plump white pillows. The weight shift of the ancient figures standing contrapposto is transformed into an almost spiraling pose of fluid motion… Whereas the classical Venus turns her head in profile, away from the viewer, Titian’s goddess beholds us directly.” (Goffen, 8)

     Titian is described by Goffen as the the first international artist. He was born in 1488-90 near the foothills of the Italian Alps. In his teens he relocated to Venice where he joined the studio of Giovanni Bellini. From the very beginning of his career, Titian had set himself a reputation and acquired several public commissions. His presence dominated in the art community had an influence on many of the great masters active in the Vatican Republic (Goffen 1-3). He had also caught the eye of several powerful and wealthy patrons, including Charles V and his son, Philip II of Spain- which of course he benefited from both socially and financially (Goffen, 3).   

      Titians Venus of Urbino is the subject of todays exploration. In 1538 Titian produced the Venus of Urbino for Duke Guidobaldo. The mystery in the painting is the representation of the subject- which appears to have been conceived without specific literary reference (Goffen 4, 5). The composition is spacious and asymmetric with the nude female form occupying the foreground; capturing a moment in which she reclines in her bed surrounded by her bedroom furnishings- a setting which had not been shown before. Who is the Venus of Urbino? Because sexuality and gender are bound to understanding the identity, Goffen’s article called into question the role of the reclining female form. Judeo-Christian tradition creates a sense of hatred and mistrust for woman- created from the sin of Eve, the downfall of mankind - is the Venus simply a prostitute- pornography? But this creates a paradox with Mary- the mother of Christ- the means of redemption- was this Titians perspective- a creature as it is in beauty, and not as a figure of transgression (Goffen, 10).

      “A prostitute may pose for a nude or indeed for any other character and provide the appearance- but not the morality or the identity- of the painted subject.” (Goffen 11, 12). To me, this is much more than simply a painting of a nude and that is why it has captured so much attention. It is not a question of whether he is a goddess or a whore- but how he represents her and how that defines the role of the beholder (Goffen, 12). It is undeniable that 16^th century Italian culture condemned the view of woman to be lesser than that of man (Goffen, 15) - but I feel as though Titian painted the Venus with a sense of sympathy. The setting- which is extremely personal, creates a sense that she is more than just an object- beautiful to look at yes- but there is more to her character. Her setting tells us that she is likely a wife and has some background of education. Her skin is warm and lifelike and her presence inviting without being overly suggestive. Her gaze is also new to the viewer- to me it as if she is looking straight through them- as if their opinion is irrelevant.  

Introducing Bronzino and Pontormo- Reaserch Entry I

Jacopo da Pontormo

(26 May 1494-31 Dec 1556)

     Born with the name Jacopo Caucci, Pontormo was one of the most original and influential Mannerist painters who lived in mid sixteenth-century Florence. Pontormo was the son of a long forgotten painter and was left orphaned at a young age- he was shuttled around under various apprenticeships including time spent with Leonardo DaVinci (Strehlke, 4). He is described as having an eccentric and expressive personality and had protection under the support Medici family. He collected influence from Michelangelo- whose haunting faces and elongated bodies directed a majority of his work (Strehlke, 2; all-art-pontormo). His subjective portrait style did not lend itself to the state portrait… “It was Jacopo who, in recording the appearance of his sitter, first sought to combine a massive imaginative simplicity and dignity of presentation with an intangible evocation of individual character (Strehlke, 2).

Agnolo Bronzino

(November 17, 1503- November 23, 1572)

     Angolo Bonzino, whose original name was Agniolo Di Cosimo, was another Florentine painter whose polished and elegant portraits became outstanding examples of Mannerist painting. He was also orphaned at a young age and found himself working under Jacopo da Pontormo as an apprentice. Bronzino and Pontormo were separated in age by only nine years. His masters’ eccentric style, Michelangelo and Raphael had an overwhelming impact on his artistic style. He too found himself under the protection of the Medici family where he became a court painter. His paintings had examples of great technical proficiency. Some of his courtly works show “preeminent examples of Mannerist portraiture: emotionally inexpressive, reserved and noncommittal, yet arrestingly elegant and decorative” (Strehlke, 5; all-art-bronzino).

     Durring the sixteenth century, Bronzino and Pontormo were amongst the greatest creators of private portraiture. Over the last two decades, a collection held at the Philadelphia Musem of Art has revealed new information about the close relationship between these two artists. The exhibition examines the development and transformation of the painted portrait in early sixteen-century Florence; often in collaboration, they sought a new way of portraying the Florentine man. Jacopo Pontormo's portrait of Alessandro de' Medici Agnolo Bronzino's allegorical portrait of Cosimo de' Medici, serve as the centerpieces of the collection. In both artists work, portraiture is about recognition- who one is or who one wishes to be. The unusual portraits of the Medici embody the cultural concerns- both literary and artistic-- of their time without alluding to their political roles.
“…For Pontormo the human personality exists in a murky void. Attention is focused on the face, and the only detail that is admitted relates to the profession of the sitter… Bronzino, on the other hand, portrays the individual in a setting- a physical setting… and an intellectual setting too.” (Strrehlke, XII)

Jacopo Pontormo's portrait of Alessandro de' Medici                Bronzino's allegorical portrait of Cosimo de' Medici
 
     The collection of paintings and drawings in the Philadelphia Art Museum’s exhibition gives us a unique look into Bronzino and Pontormo’s artistic creations and even more so insight into the intensity of their friendship. Now that Pontormo and Bronzino have been introduced- alongside the context of Strehlkes, :Pontormo, Bronzino and the Medici; The transormation of the Renaissance Portrat in Florence," Reaserch Entry II will dive more deeply into their artistic transformation and the political movements of that time that influenced their growth.

Sources

Strehlke, Carl B. Pontormo, Bronzino and the Medici: The transformation of the Renaissance Portrait in Florence.

http://www.all-art.org/early_renaissance/pontormo1.html

http://www.all-art.org/early_renaissance/bronzino1.html

Leonardo and Michealangelo- Readings from Blunt's Artistic Theories in History...

       “The basis of Leonardo’s scientific observations, which covered every branch of the study of
        natural phenomena- zoology, anatomy, botany, geology, as well as mechanical and
        mathematical problems- was a profound belief in the value of experiment and of direct
        observation. It was by what he actually saw- in the human body, in plants, or in the formation
        of rocks- that he entirely outstripped his contemporaries, even the experts in the various
        siences which he studied.” (Blunt 24).

       What we know of Leonardo came from the journals he had written and that are now in private and public collections. Driven by his faith in the material world and the evidence from the senses, he became a pioneer of many forward ways of thinking. Many of the facts he observed took centuries for them to be fitted into “mans scheme of the universe.” (Blunt 25). Leonardo used mathematical and scientific principles for the base of many of his observations, an aspect of his personality that carried into all parts of his life- including his paintings. “…The art of painting is to be judged by two standards: the certainty of its premises and methods, and the completeness of the knowledge represented by its productions;… the eye, the actual measurements, and principles of geometry.” (Blunt 26). To Leonardo, art represented nature, a kind of truth- which is why he favored the trade of painting as to sculpture- an art form that didn’t incorporate color- use aerial perspective, transparent subtleties and many other things. (Blunt 26). To Leonardo, all aspects of painting were science based and was and imitation of nature. “Those who devote themselves to practice without science are like sailors who put to sea without rudder of compass and who can never be certain where they are going. Practice must always be founded on sound theory.” (Blunt 27). He thought that it was knowledge that guided art, and it was disappointing to him when artists relied on tricks and short kicks for imitating nature. He also goes on to say that he recommends the painter always carry a mirror- to see if the reflection matches the painting- and not to attempt to improve upon it. He makes a comparison to Alberti- who focused on reflecting an ideal human form. Leonardo concentrates on the vast infinite ways to represent the human form- that proportions of a man are fixed- but the parts should be harmonious among themselves- you should not see, for instance, a woman’s hand on a muscular arm (Blunt 32). He also felt as though a painter should not devote themselves to imitating the manner of another painter - what will eventually lead the to exclusion of nature- mannerism (Blunt 33).


       Our sources for Michelangelo are varied. Poems show us the more direct look into his person, he also had several biographies- that unfortunately do not include some periods of his life and include, at times, conflicting stories (Blunt 58). It is rare however to have an artist who wrote (through his poems) exactly how he felt about his art.
       Michelangelo’s works changed over time. During the first period- his worlds reflected the ideals of High Renaissance Humanism- something clearly visible in his works in the Sistine Chapel. Unlike Leonardo, his aesthetic preference was towards beauty- rather than scientific truth- though he did study it and rely on it as a system of guidance (Blunt 59, 61). It is also fairly obvious that His faith played a huge roll in both how he conducted himself both in life and in art. Physical beauty to Michelangelo, was next to godliness and thus it became an important part of his work, “For Michelangelo it is by means of the imagination that the artist attains to a beauty above that of nature, and in this he appears as a Neo-Platonist. To him beauty is the reflection of the divine in the material world..” (Blunt 62).
       During Michelangelo’s second period of art- he paid less attention to physical beauty and instead he used it as a means of conveying and ideal (Blunt 66). His Last Judgment was seen by many as a failure. “The most fundamental principle of the High Renaissance seems here to have been neglected for there is little reconstruction of the real world, no real space, no perspective, no typical proportions. The artist is intent only on conveying an idea.. Through the means of a traditional Renaissance symbol, the human body. (Blunt 66). At this time- Michelangelo describes through poems that physical beauty passes away- it is a cheat (Blunt 66, 67).
       In the last two decades of Michelangelo’s life there is another change in his art and ideas. He begins to give up the idea of beauty as a symbol of the divine. By then, it is simply an idea that distracts from true faith.


       When I think of the Renaissance, the two huge names that immediately come to my mind are Leonardo and Michelangelo. To great men that lived in a world-changing period of time. Though the two were in the same trade, they could not- to me- be any different; neither greater or lesser than the other. Leonardo relied on the sciences and mathematics to guide all of his endevors. To him, beauty was not something that could be created through the use of "smoke and mirrors," it was the use of a true understanding in nature that was the key to successfully guiding his mind and art. Michelangelo saw things slightly differently. To him the idea of beauty began as something skin deep (more so figuratively than litterally). Beauty was a link to godliness. His art went through several transitions- all of which seemed to correlate to upset within the church-transitions that eventually lead him to believe that beauty was distracting from the truth- which to simplify things drastically- was faith.
      

Who is Leonardo? A review of Gopnik's article...

                Adam Gopnik’s article to me, felt like a book review (I am unaware of the actually context of the article). He begins his adventure into the mystery of Leonardo by introducing the idea of a story that he wrote as a teenager. Enthralled by the man who was the father of so many inventions and undoubtedly way ahead of his time, he writes about how strangely un-human the man truly was. “To make a long, and rather shamelessly rod Serlingish, story short, the art historian (Adam) eventually discovers, in a previously unknown codex that Leonardo was an alien, that the rocks were the landscape of his native planet, and that the fingers were pointing longingly back home.” (Gopnik, 1)

                Gopnik also dove into the readings by some of the current popular books about Leonardo. Nicholl’s, “Leonardo da Vinci: Flights of the Mind” and Kemp’s “Leonardo”.  He outlines the main difference of these two books being primarily their perspective; Kemps from the inside out, Nicholl’s from the outside in.
                Kemp’s strategy of decoding Leonardo was to “define what he thought Leonardo was doing, and why” (Gopnik, 1). Suggesting that what Leonardo was searching for was a universal system of proportion- beyond the aesthetic.  Kemp writes, “Leonardo was the first to tie the artist’s nothing of proportional beauty into the wider setting of the proportional action of all the powers of nature.” (Gopnik, 2) He also suggested that the thought processes driving Leonardo’s research were based on a visual intellect, as compared to a mathematical one.

 

                Nicholl’s account of Leonardo was much different. His book follows the restless activities of Leonardo during what he describes as a “lucky life”. Gopnik seemed to favor Nicholl’s approach by describing it as worldly narrative, detailed, vivid and human (Gopnik, 2). He dives into the complexity of Leonardo’s thoughts and how he created himself an image that the patrons pursued. Personally, I find his notebooks fascinating and have added this book to my reading wish list.

               

                “Nicholl makes Leonardo not less strange, perhaps, but surprisingly more appealing and well rounded—not a spaceman but an artistic type whose lineaments one recognizes: the artist as     self-sufficient man, with a strong, private sense of ironic humor, affectionate but not much          engaged with his family and lovers, devoted to the realization of this images, surrounded by a court of helpers and hangers- on whom he watches with detached amusement… (Gopnik, 2).

                Gopnik also dived briefly into the DaVinci code calling it, “plain burn-at-the-stake blasphemous,” (Gopnik, 4). Another, a personal thought; I find this hilarious, because I thought it was a terrible movie and it completely turned me off of wanting to read the book.

                Gopnik ends his review by recapping the achievements that Leonardo made. He also creates for us a timeline of large movements and reminding us that much of Leonardo’s work was unavailable to the masses for centuries. He Ask us to question how much he actually provided us for some large movements- including the scientific revolution or the Renaissance.  

                It is no surprise to me that a one-of-a-kind man probably lived a one-of-a-kind life.  The truth is, we tear apart his words, his scribbles, and his paintings. Everyone has an opinion or a point of view of who Leonardo really was as a man. But truthfully, no one really knows for sure. Maybe that is one of the things about the man that makes him so great to us today. Perhaps we just want to know the secret that made him so great. Maybe he didn’t contribute so much to these giant movements that we previously have given him credit for. But, maybe instead- he was the pioneer for the people- to at least plant seeds in their heads to let them know that great things can happen when you think or do things a little differently; or even by just doing things for yourself- the things that you love.

                His ideas in many ways were groundbreaking. He was the first great mind to try so many things that no one else had ever done before. He scribbled inventions in the margins of his notebooks that work perfectly several hundred years later and managed to capture a smile in a painting that still resonates. Who wouldn't want to know his secrets?

Roma Caput Mundi

Roma Caput Mundi::


       Rome, head of the world. Through the rises and falls, Rome is a city that has managed to endure. And endurance that was re-invigorated by the deliberate invention of the Renaissance papacy, religion, humanistic scholars and money (Rowland 1, 2).
       Poet Francesco Petrarca was inspired and passioned by the city of Rome- which at this time was a city of “ashes” in the mid 15^th century. Influenced by his personal interests, he began to collect ancient Roman manuscripts. The past gave home a set of standards by which to measure the creations of the present (Rowland, 3). These revitalized standards began to once again encourage the arts and trade- eventually encouraging the blooming of Rome into an important commercial city. The residents of Rome lead by St Francis, believed that their work in restoring the city was an answer to the call of God (Rowland, 4). In the end, what was the true drive for the revitalization of Rome was money. Economic growth and the return of the Papacy made it
a place of employment (Rowland, 5)

       “Rome provided a constant stream of pilgrims, drawn to the ancient sites where saints had
       performed miracles or died in the faith. Many of these faithful visitors were desperately poor,
       but many were not. They came, they worshiped, and they spent…” (Rowland, 2)

       As the years turned into the next century, collaborations between the church, scholars, artists and entrepreneurs hurdled Rome’s economic standing. The popes began to invest large sums of money into revitalizing the city fueling its growth as the new Christian capital (Rowland, 6).        Humanism played a huge role in the growth of Rome. The humanistic movement yielded a special sense of authority in a society rebuilt on religion. It became a way for talented men to improve their social status (Rowland, 7). This movement also encouraged the Vatican Library to become an important part of the city. The Vatican Library was what Pope Julius II based his whole rule of Rome around. He hired a humanistic speaker to speak publicly about the importance of learning to the preservation of civilization (Rowland, 12). It was the aim of Julian to persuade every visitor of Rome that Catholicism was the transcendent truth (Rowland, 12).

       “In many respects, Julius II gave definitive shape to the Renaissance papacy, an institution
        he supported with broad vision, close attention to finance and implacable resolve. He took
        full advantage of the fact that his papal name evoked the memory of another holder of the
        priestly title.. Julius Caesar.…” (Rowland, 11).

       Unfortunately, the treasury that Pope Julius II worked so hard to fill was emptied by his successor, Pope Leo X, or Pope Terribile. The years under Pope Julius II were the last in which were driven by antiquity, arts and oratory. What encouraged Rome to grow and flourish- the Religion, money, humanism and the Papacy was coming to an end. But this time, the city remained standing.

       “Rome had fallen to the Visigoths and Vandals, the expanding city made the barbarians’
       conquest look less and less real; the destruction they had visited upon the city was at long
       last disappearing under new construction. By 1600, the Eternal City, ever larger, ever
       more beautiful, was well on its way to becoming gorgeous, irrefutable physical fact.”
       (Rowland, 13).

Patronage and Popes: Saints or Sinners?
       The Renaissance papacy was worldly in the sense that it was the largest, most complex international institution in Europe. It relied on the central Italy tax base as a financial foundation- directed towards the consolidation and growth of the Papal state through military actions (Patridge, 12, 13). Not only was the Renaissance church worldly- it was corrupt. Popes exaggerated and abused their power to appoint uneducated family members to high office positions and used church lands for personal propaganda. “Clerics of the church were often poorly educated, lax in their vows, and undisciplined” (Patridge, 13). Many Popes saw themselves as the new Christ figures. They maintained their diluted sense of power by controlling council committees.
       Protestants in northern Europe eventually rejected the church- causing the biggest complication to the papal primacy. Believing that human kind was “justified by faith alone,” they eventually rejected the entire priesthood and considered the bible as their only authority (Patridge, 14). As a response to this challenge- the papacy encouraged the revival of the classic cultures. The rinascita (rebirth) which was the source of the word “renaissance” was introduced through the rebuilding of the ruins of Rome. Encouraged by the humanist mindset, the literary and artistic history of Rome was being re-discovered. Rome began to once again thrive on the foundation of the Papacy, humanism and the pilgrims who sought to visit such a richly religious ground (Patridge, 15).

       “It was the papacy that led the church through the slow and painful process of reform…
       The inquisition, reestablished in 1542, enforced orthodoxy and the Index, founded in
       1571, suppressed Protestant ideas by banning heretical books. The proper education of
       priests and effective ministering to the laity became high papal priorities (Patridge, 16).

       With the goal of re-Christianizing the world, for the second coming of Christ, the orders were required to follow strict obedience and adherence to vows in order to restore a renewal of religion, learning, peace and prosperity.

Response:
       In these readings- I was captivated by the entirely human portion of the readings. It is indisputable that the Roman Renaissance reflects Rome at both some of its highest and lowest points. To me, growth and destruction is an indisputable part of western civilization. I think it is simply human to grow to comfortable- and every once in a while we need that reminder and need to “reset”. I see this parallel in both the readings from Patridge and Rowland. The Roman papacy became corrupt, driven by greed and selfish worldly desires. The same goes for the great city of Rome, what once was a powerful epicenter for civilization crumbled under its own reins; it too, needed to be rebuilt. The idea of the Renaissance- a word that is derived from the root “rebirth” encapsulates this idea beautifully. The rebirth of a historically rich city was fueled by the renewed vigor of the Catholic church.

Flight of Mind- Take II, Page 209-247

Pages 209-247

 

"The manuscripts are a map of Leonardo's mind. They contain everything from the briefest half-sentence or squiggled calculation to fully worked-out scientific treatises and literary exercises. Their subject matter ranges from anatomy to zoology... The great lesson of the manuscripts is that everything is to be questioned, investigated, peered into, worried away at, brought back to first principles." (Nicholl, 7)

The First Notebooks

          The earliest- intact- notebooks from Leonardo date back to the mid 1480’s. Scribblings and writings of his are known to exist from before this time- but it was at this point that he began habitually keeping his collected thoughts in books. The oldest known notebook is most likely Paris MS B in which the subject matter is imaginative and diverse- a trademark of Leonardo’s various pursuits and interests (Nicholl 209). Architecture, maps, personal notes (like funding information and mailing addresses of models) and futuristic military technology are organized and scribbled on each page.
          MS B has the first detailed designs for Leonardo’s flying machine- the ornithopter. It is essentially an
aircraft that flies by flapping its wings. Designed specifically to imitate the flight of birds, it differs from the helicopter that initiates flight by a helix movement. He explores the ideas of the helicopter in a later entry. “The screw will find its female in the air and will climb upward.” he writes (Nicholl 212).

　

The ornithopter- Flying-machine. Designs from paris MS B Showing horizontal and Vertical version.

A drawing of Leonardo’s Helicopter- the first known helicopter design.

         The drawings are thorough, have operation instructions, material lists and mathematical requirements. They are the written account of ways, means, and theory.
          I am unsure as to if any of these blue prints ever made it off of paper- but it is interesting to think of how these ideas may have been received at this time. The words extraterrestrial and sci-fi were used by Nicholl to describe such inventions. I feel like so much of his pursuits were a little forward for the masses to accept.
          Leonardo’s notebooks also include a large amount of puns and word games collectively called rebuses (this particular example anyway). The purpose of the rebus was to avoid the use of words, by using pictures (a visual code), linguistic interpretations, and double meanings (Nicholl 218).

An example of a Rebus- in which sometimes a single picture or a collection of pictures represented a word- it was a means of mapping out ideas. Each rebus had a solution and a key to help guide to the correct answer (Nicholl 218).

.
          Nicholl sees these drawings- along with poems, other puns and recorded jokes as a means to color Leonardo’s personality. That these jests were means to entertain himself, and less so in the conventional means of entertaining others, or making them laugh.
          If I were to interject with my own opinion- from what I know- I would agree that Leonardo may have internalized a lot of his thoughts and conversations. The more I read, the more I feel as though his notebooks became someone to talk to. A place to write his thoughts- and maybe by putting them down, they talked back to him.

The Moor’s Mistress

Lady with an Ermine (1483-1490) Oil on Panel.

          We discussed the history of Cecilia and the background of her portrait in class. This painting has always been one of my favorites. Ill simply re-cap my favorite parts.
          Cecelia, became Ludovico’s courtesan sometime around 1487. As Nicholl eloquently puts it, “…it was not until 1490 that we have incontrovertible evidence of the liaison in the time-honored form of pregnancy.” While pregnant with Ludovico’s child, he marries the Daughter of the Duke of Ferra, Beatrice- for political reasons. According to Nicholl, it is rumored through other sources that Beatrice refused to consummate the marriage while Ludovico continued to pursue Cecilia (Nicholl, 228).
          The Painting was “painted on the backdrop of sex, gossip and poetry,”- for the appreciation of her lover (Nicholl, 229). Nicholl uses this as a foundation to compare Lady with an Ermine to Ginevra de’ Benci- both aesthetically and in meaning. The attentiveness of the subject, the ¾ view, and the gaze outside of frame parallel to each other physically. Subject wise, the idea that resonates in both of the paintings overall was to capture a “kind of love object.”
          Nicholls interpretation of the Ermine was particularly interesting to me, “The ermine, because of its temperance… will rather let itself be taken by hunters than take refuge in a muddy den, in order not to stain its purity.” (Nicholl, 229). Leonardo was very clever to take the character of an animal, and to place it in the portrait of Cecilia in place of her paramour- who in context- wouldn’t muddy his shoes to marry his real lover from a lower social standing. I wonder if he ever caught onto the fact that the artist paralleled him to such a creature- a natural predator (as Nicholl puts it). Sometimes I feel we can over think paintings- especially in an art setting where everyone aims to dissect and interpret. I don’t think it is possible for us to overanalyze Leonardo’s paintings, drawings, poems. I am just getting this sense of a man whose mind never quit working. Someone who could find meaning and natural pattern in everything, and that if he wasn’t- he wasn’t seeing it right.

The Anatomist

          Thanks to Leonardo’s notebooks, we have a written record of his first interests in anatomy- during the late 1480’s. He made such profound achievements in this area that it is debated as to whether this was his greatest- most significant achievement. In 1489 at the age of 36, He began mapping and documenting the human body more in depth and ever before.

“The orthodox felt that anatomy was a curiosity too far: man was made in God’s image, and should not be stripped down like a piece of machinery… There is a certain dogged courage in these investigations, which were beset by taboos and doctrinal doubts, and which depended on the stressful and repulsive procedures of post-modem examination in pre-refrigeration circumstances…” (Nicholl, 240).

          Part of his in depth study of the human figure, in addition to an in-depth study of the scull, body systems, the paths of arteries and veins, muscle groups, the controls of motion and the most famous of all these studies- the proportions of man. The Virtruvian Man is a drawing that tabulates the proportions of the human body- in relation to other parts and measured in palms and fingers (Nicholl, 247).

          The real big questions posed about the Virtruvian man is as to whether of not it is actually a self portrait of Leonardo. An ideal muscular figure- possibly better aged than 36 with perfectly symmetrical features and stern expression suggests to some that it is more than a picture of someone. Could it actually be one of the few portraits of the man we rip apart the words of his notebooks to so eagerly learn about.

The Virtruvian Man

Flights of Mind

"The manuscripts are a map of Leonardo's mind. They contain everything from the briefest half-sentence or squiggled calculation to fully worked-out scientific treatises and literary exercises. Their subject matter ranges from anatomy to zoology... The great lesson of the manuscripts is that everything is to be questioned, investigated, peered into, worried away at, brought back to first principles." (Nicholl, 7)

 

 

What I got from Flights of the Mind, were essentially theories and insights into discovering the real Leonardo. By exploring signature works he attempts to encode both his lifestyle and attitude. Nicholl does not channel his energies into overt psychological analysis (leaving that to Freud- which I find terribly interesting and what I briefly tip toed into in my previous blog) or an over-interpretation of his works of art. Instead he painstakingly reads and attempts to decode every written word in Leonardo's journals. He attempts to illustrate who Leonardo was- as a real person, as compared to the "almighty" image that he carries with him today. Decoding "mental events," jokes, doodles, snatches of poetry, drafts and letters, household accounts, recipes, shopping lists, bank statements, names and addresses of modes, etc... (Nicholl, 4)

Leonardo was essentially abandoned by his father, withheld from his mother, and raised by an artistic master, who we assume, resigned himself to painting as a result of his apprentices innate artistic abilities (Nicholl, 20). I guess what I find so interesting about all of this is how Leonardo's life formed him into the brilliant mind that he became. It was the workings of that mind that made him such an important presence in the renaissance and still today. What would we have of his mind if it weren't for his notebooks?  I am an art student. Every year my instructors press the importance of writing in a journal- everyday. Writing, drawing, collecting, thinking on paper, anything... How we can learn so much from ourselves about ourselves by simply reliving these seemingly meaningless moments in time. How even the most simple fluctuation in handwriting can tell us so much about ourselves.
 

What I feel the intent of this book is to aid in finding the answer as to why an artist with so many unfinished pieces can retain such a eminence amongst the ranks the great "masters" of the world- and find himself at the top of a list of the greatest artists of all time. Is there really need to find the answer? Maybe there is no reason. Maybe he is so intriguing to us simply for the fact that he was most certainly a man ahead of his time and we feel we are missing out on what he never got down on paper. A man with too many ideas for his mind to contain. His notebooks were an extension of himself, the drawing board for growth, invention, and a new perspective to life, both his own and mankind's. Today, we study his mind through his scribbles, his jokes, his recipes, and the simple fluctuations of his hand. Would we still regard him as one of the greatest if he had never written anything down? Would we be so interested in him if he had given us everything- all the answers and nothing to search for?



Also- to whoever checked the reserve book out on Thursday and did not turn it in on time- It would be great if you would share it next time. I am giving up after waiting for it for three hours past due- and still counting... I did the best I could with the Amazon.com free preview of the book. Unfortunately lots of material was omitted. I did the best I could with what I could.



I am not sure what I am doing....

Nope, not a clue. Nor do I know what type of content is expected from the blogs- probably a question I should have asked on Monday- but ill give it a shot. A response to Mondays lecture and Humanism reading (9/9/2013) I don’t really have anything interesting to add to Monday’s lecture, nor any questions aside from figuring out this whole blog thing, but I do have a response for what I found to be interesting from Monday. The most interesting part of class, for me, was the documentary on Leonardo. Not only was it delightfully outdated, it had a dry humor about it that helped hold my attention and made me want to see more. I was genuinely disappointed when 9 o'clock hit. I never had a prior opportunity to learn about the life of Leonardo- but it should be of no surprise that an such a brilliant mind did not come from an orthodox upbringing. I had no idea that he was taken from his mother simply because of her social standing and raised as if he was inferior to the rest of the family for that same reason. He was eventually pawned off onto a master artist- as if it was an inconvenience to his family. I guess it baffles me why he wasnt just left for his mother, and unclaimed by his father. It is interesting to think of “what could have been” had he been more included in his family’s interests. But of course it was the cold shoulder from his family and his opportunity under Verrocchio, his mastery artist, that helped make him into the brilliant mind that we still study about today. According to the readings by Martines, Humanism was an intellectual movement that was not for the masses, but instead intended for the upper, ruling classes. The basic training of the humanist was rooted in speaking and writing well. It emphasized the value of continued growth in human beings, individually and collectively. What struck me most about the reading was how focused it was on the social class as an intended target. I interpreted the reading that humanism was something that even within the elite- upper, ruling class, only the lucky ones within that group would move on to study it. I thought it was interesting also that the movement began to encourage looking into classical, pre-Christian sources for learning and studies. It is what I feel is a transition of focus from church to the sciences. It is interesting to me to think of how very alive this movement is in todays times. I apologize for my grammar and spelling- its not my strongest quality. At least I tried..