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.