Saturday, October 12, 2013

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.
      

3 comments:

  1. Comprehensive and with a convincing personal element, which one always looks for in such responses. Please check "Creatively Curating Christine" blog for her take and my comment--something else to consider (on Leo) . . .

    ReplyDelete
  2. I cam much to the same conclusion as you, Jen. It is interesting to wonder if Leonardo lived as long as Michelangelo---if his artistic theory, and methods, would have transitioned like Michelangelo's did. Humans tend to evolve throughout life, and Michelangelo lived 21 years longer than Leonardo.

    ReplyDelete
  3. very impressive article ha. When I was writing mine I started with the idea that Leonardo was much better than Michelangelo but after thinking on it some more they can't be compared that way because they are so different. As humans we battle over our feelings and the science of life. With those two they complete both spectrums; we can't have one without the other.

    ReplyDelete