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?