Writings
“Painting contains a divine force” (Alberti 66). The abundance of Madonna and Child paintings is that thought in application. The Madonna has become an icon with readable symbolism. The culturally surrounding the two paintings in question can be more thoroughly analyzed.
The first painting is that of Fra Filippo Lippi dated to 1460-1465 and given the title of Madonna and Child with Angles and consisting of tempera on panel, tempera at this moment in Florentine art the base for pigment. During the mid Quattrocento Flemish oil paintings had come into circulation and had a significant influence on the artistic community. The change in composition “when Fra Filippo introduced a narrative element and opened up the background to landscape” is present (Holmes 147). Here the “Virgin is shown in three-quarter view” and is seemly in an interior space that is “extraordinary shallow, compressed” (Holmes 147). As seen in northern art, the Madonna is placed “in the front of a window or door” out which a landscape is presented (Holmes 147). The use of modeling is not only utilized in the form of the bodies but the use of lighting is subtly observed. The Madonna’s “substantial body casts a shadow against the molding of the window or door frame. She is shown absorbed in prayer” (Holmes 147). The Madonna’s gaze is not on her Child in motherly affection that is displayed in the second painting but unfocusedly turned away. The opposed is depicted in the Christ Child, “who looks upon her face and reaches out to touch her” (Holmes 147). As a devotional painting the “gravity of the image […] undermined […] through a playful appeal directly to the spectator by the youthful angels holding aloft the Christ Child” (Holmes 147). The fontal placed angel functions as an interlocker has a slight smile in his facial expression. The second angle “ambiguously placed” is all but blocked from the spectators view, being covered by the figures of both the Child and the Madonna (Holmes 147).
The sharp details that are not present in the second painting are vivid in Lippi’s. The richness of the images of the Flemish artists is mimicked, pushing tempera to the limits of its ability as a medium. The “rich tactile features in painting- the ornamented armrest […] the gold embroidered cushion […adorned with] pearls, deftly painted with translucent luster” (Holmes 147). . Lippi has emulated the effect of translucency in the delicacy of the Madonna’s hair and sheer accessories. “The meticulous details of jewelry and embroidery, with their glistening spots of reflected light, imply that he also had models of Flemish paintings in mind” (Paoletti 233). The articulation is form in the crispness of its depiction of objects comes in grave contrast to paintings produces almost half a century later.
The second painting in question is that of Leonardo da Vinci and his Madonna and Child with St. Anne dated to. 1505-1513. In contrast to Lippi in every material, Leonardo choose oil paint and what more unusual on canvas when the traditional painting on panel was solidly in place; canvas was used for painting when the need for transportation would be repeatedly. Leonardo’s painting differs in the basic methodology of construction of the composition from that of Lippi. The introduction of the importance of drawing enabled the artist to arrive on a final composition. “In 1501 Leonardo produced a cartoon of the Madonna and Child with St. Anne […] did not correspond exactly to the Louvre composition” (Brown 41). This marks a step in the progression of artistic technology of process, altering the mind on its mannerism of perceiving the world. “The sketch is no longer the preparation for a particular work, but is past of the process which is constantly going on in the artist’s mind” (Gombrich 61). Leonardo “re-emphasized the important of detailed knowledge of muscular and movement, it be gained through life-drawing” (Ames-Lewis 96). In a greater awareness of the movement and function of the human body the depicting the illusion of three-dimensionality heightens.
Yet for some, “all the science of painting cannot make a picture ‘look real’” (Gombrich 62). To this Leonardo’s “employs voluminous round shapes throughout the composition” (Anders 1042). The flowing nature of his drapery combined with the use of chiaroscuro the artist is able to formulate the depiction of an idealized reality. The Virgin and her mother, St. Anne, are depicted almost as one unit with the adult Mary sitting on St. Anne’s lap. The characteristic aspect of Leonardo’s style is seen in the colorization and use of light on the two women. Within Leonardo’s notebooks he remarks on light. “A dark object seen against a bright background will appear smaller than it is” (da Vinci 133 #242). The figure of St. Anne is no less monumental in form and size then that of the Virgin yet her lighting is darker then that of the Virgin, creating the spacial affect of St. Anne being further back in space, on a different plan within the atmosphere of the painting. The idealized facial expressions of the two women are typical of the time and Leonardo’s style. “The long gracefully curved right arm of the Virgin” as she is reaching done to her son is in repeated in St. Anne pulling her daughter back (Brown 41). The Christ Child standing on the ground, partially nude, and playing with a lamb, the lamb which the Virgin is pulling him away from as an action of an anxious mother. These elements “have a clear symbolic significance [the Lamb’s presence] signifies the Passion of Christ” (Gombrich 61). The formulation of mountainous figures is complimented with the mist covered landscape in the background. The landscape is not longer seen through an opening within an interior space but is depicted in an open exterior space interacting with that of nature. “Leonardo’s concern for unifying his composition extended to his use of the painterly device of sfumato where light washes of pigment would have created shadows to blur the boarders” (Paoletti 274). The crispness of Lippi’s painting is ever more apparent when placed besides that of Leonardo’s soft expressions.
“The movements and poses of virgins are airy, full of simplicity with sweetness of quiet rather than strength” (Alberti 80). Both paintings have achieved this at very different times and in differing approaches to painting. One can not say that one is better then the other for they are from different centuries, different mediums and are working for patron’s whose views of the ideal form varied. Both paintings show a Madonna and Child, each with their own additional figures. The interaction of the Madonna towards the Child differs immensely but then the evolution of secularism in religious themes was greater in the time of Leonardo, when naturalism had extended to behavior and emotional relationships played a factor in the figural arrangement.
II
The statue of David, dated to 1501-1504, by Michelangelo has become an icon to the world of the Renaissance. Carved in marble, this statue has represented Florence through the centuries. The completion of such a work has caused a rippling effect of influence over what man can do. The study of humanism, the competitionous atmosphere between artists, and the demand for art all play significance when one discusses David.
The David has had a long history with Florence. With the expulsion of the Medici from Florence the reestablishment of Florentine identity as a Republic gained priority. The Wool Guild’s commission of the David was for the north tribune of the Dumo but it never found that placement. When Michelangelo finished the statue “he presented a heroic figure that resonated with the most telling symbols of Republican Florence” (Paoletti 389). The final placement of the David in front of the Palazzo della Signoria added to “sort of political message later attached to the sculpture by Vasari” (Turner 163). Like David standing up against Goliath, Florentine Republic stood against others. David became “a symbol of liberty for the Palace”(Tuner 163).
The actual material has a longer history then that of the David. The marble block was abandoned from a previous project and “languished uncarved for more then forty years” (Wallace 65). As a result of the marble block being partially block out, the figure of David is surprisingly narrow. Narrow may be but the sheer size is monumental. “David would be the biggest and bravest of that sculpted race of heroes […] to fan the glory of both artist and his city” (Turner 168). The fame of Michelangelo was building but enormous at this point in his career. At this point in time unfinished projects were accepted by the public just to have something of his. The David came to represent “his ideas about anatomy, proportion and movement” in his almost definite attitude with the care to minuet details Michelangelo put in to the form “revealing a profound knowledge of structure and functioning of the body” (Wilde 16). When commissioned for the north tribune, the stature would be only perceived from a great distance below. The details such as the veins in the hands would not be humanely visible.
Michelangelo’s “extraordinary skills and his ability competes with and surpass the sculptural successes of classical antiquity”; the works remaining from antiquity seen as a climax of artistic perfection (Paoletti 289). The Renaissance being a re-birth of in a re-interest in humanistic studies, the emulating of classical art was ideal. The figure of David “without any doubt this figure has put the shade every other statue, ancient or modern, Greek or Roman” (Wallace 55). Michelangelo studies and idealization of the male nude figure is a reoccurring aspect of his career. His David was a symbol of his knowledge and understanding “both for its realistic representation of the male human body and for the idealism that Michelangelo has projected on to the body” (Paoletti 389). The male nude is seen in antiquity but in the sixteenth century free standing nudes in public space had little president. “The nudity of the figure was unusual for the representation of David, Donatello’s David notwithstanding” (Paoletti 289). In the context that Donatello’s bronze David is the only other nude David in the Florentine spectrum, the nuance that Michelangelo takes can be seen is comparisons.
When looking at bother statues of David, the endogenous expression and figure of the Donatello is more apparent next to the realism of Michelangelo’s. “The pose of the figure and David’s mature body, along with nudity” in Michelangelo’s David brings forth the ecclesiastical and civic significance (Paoletti 389). Donatello’s David produced for the Medici, carries a greater sense of sexuality than that of strength. The competition between artists on the achievement of idealized perfection of the human form comes from the core of rendering the “illusion of life and movement” (Gombrich 128). The furrowed brow and enlarged eyes bring a life to the marble. The inner life of a piece with a sense of torment and determination for it is a depiction of David before he has vanquished Goliath; Donatello’s David having already preformed this battle with goliath’s head under foot. “David was the epitome of Florentine exaltation of the body […] splendid nudity, a heroic body as vessel for a heroic spirit” (Turner 166).
The David never was placed on the north tribune. A consul was organized in order to decide where in the city this statue would be placed. This being made up of “masters, men, and architects” arrived upon the front entrance of the Palazzo della Signoria (Klein 40). This placement would cause Donatello’s Judith from her location. Judith was easily agreed upon to move. “The Judith is an omen of evil, and no fit object where it stands” (Klein 41). Her placement in front of the one building of governmental authority and, with the republic, justice was thought of as an ill location. The image of the female killing a man was not in harmony with the ideal role for women. After 300 years of being outside, exposed to the elements, and in 1843 undergoing a hydrochloric acid wash to clean it has lost all the luster that the marble, polished with beeswax, would have had (Paoletti 388).
Michelangelo’s statue remains a presence in modern society. It has been reproduced in small plaster, buttons, tee shirts, postcards, etc. The theories behind the David being a psychological portrait of the artist continue. And yet Michelangelo has achieved immortality in that “the David is visible proof and universally recognized symbol of aspiration, overweening ambition, and stunning accomplishment of what we call the High Renaissance” (Wallace 55).
III
Imagery of the female form in the later part of the quattrocento varied in theme depended on its context. “If a painter wants to see beautiful women […] he has it in his power to bring them forth” (Gombrich 62). Devotional art had progressed to a more secular imagery and the presence of Greek mythology greatly increases with the growth of humanistic studies. The two pieces of artwork in question demonstrate this broad spectrum of the Florentine ideal female.
The first work is Sandro Botticelli’s Primavera dated 1482 painted using tempera on panel. The large format of mythological and allegorical paintings that Botticelli produced gained favor in the decorations of private homes of the Florentine patrons. The Primavera was commissioned to Lorenzo di Pierfancesco de’ Medici, a cousin of Lorenzo the Magnificent. It is now thought the commission of this paintings was an “elaborate allegory on the marriage in honor of Lorenzo di Pierfancesco de’ Medici wedding to Semiramide d’Appiano in 1482” (Paoletti 282). The reference to patronage also in recognizable as the orange trees were a symbol of ‘medicina’- the root from which the Medici family is derived. Botticelli’s composition is special in that it is one of the first surviving paintings after the classical period depicting classical gods almost naked and life-size. The “elongated proportions of the figures, their attenuated limbs, the sensuousness of costume, and the tapestry- like landscape make this painting one of the most self-consciously artificial images of the century” (Paoletti 282). The references to all’ antica sculpture, in the form of the idealized female bodies, blend with the contemporary concept of the ideal form of the female figure, the women's domed stomachs demonstrating the contemporary ideal of beauty. The female figures “possess the elongated elegance” in their frozen movement (Anders 1026).
The painting consists of a progressive narrative from right to left, with three groups of figures. The Primavera is “a tapestry-like frieze of figures on a flowery ground” (Paoletti 282). Each groups not interacting with the others but maintaining their own allegorical reference. Starting on the right is depicted “an ice blue Zephyrus, the wind god” in the act of what is know as the rape of Chloris, beginning with “his embrace of […] the spring nymph” (Paoletti 283). The female figure adjacent to Chloris is that of Flora. “A leafy vine extends from [Chloris’] month mingles with the blooms on Flora’s dress” connecting them as the progressive evolution of Chloris in becoming Flora in the single concept of fertility, depicting the afterwards of her encounter with Zephyrus (Paoletti 282). Continuing to the left “Venus, the goddess of love, stands very slightly to the right of center” and slightly positioned in a center of the painting in contrast to the foreground location of the rest of the narrative, is isolated from the actions surrounding her as a surveyor of the allegorical coming of spring (Paoletti 282). A blind folded “Cupid aiming his arrow” over the head of the Venus towards the three Graces dancing in a circle to the left (Paoletti 282). The form of the three Graces contains an “eroticism of the female figure, whose diaphanous drapery does more to reveal then to conceal their bodies (Paoletti 282). This use of translucent and wind blown drapery “emerged within contemporary fifteenth century conception of antiquity as expressed by Leone Battista Alberti” as to “promote the depiction of wind-blown drapery as means of producing pleasing effects […] as if they were naked, since the cloths are made to adhere to the body by the force of the wind” (Randolph 42-43). Yet after all the innuendos of their form, the presence of Mercury is distracted by the oranges just overhead.
The use of mythological images is in contrast to the second painting only in thematic nature. The Birth of the Virgin, dated 1485-1490, by Domenico Ghirlandaio is one segment of a fresco cycle commissioned for the Tornabuoni Chapel located within the Santa Maria. The fresco’s walls contained two distinct narratives: to the right, the life of Mary and the left, the life of John the Baptists (Kren 1). Michelangelo was then part of Ghirlandaio’s workshop and is thought to have painted to very top portions of the fresco cycle.
The figures of women in the Birth of the Virgin are in contemporaries in form and depiction to the ideal women of Florentine society. Vasari commented on this second scene in the cycle, that “it contains a window which lights the chamber and actually deceives the beholder” demonstrating the skill in illusion (Kren 2). The space of this constructed bedroom, “which is skillfully constructed along perspective lines, opens up like a display case” (Kern 2). St. Anne is depicted in the middle-ground to the left propping herself up in her bed. Behind her lays the larger space of the room, which is vacant of figures. The walls are covered in wooded panels, “such woodwork often framed mist paintings, so called spalliere” (Turner 132). Above this is a frieze of putti that wrap around the wall flushed against the wall and ceiling. This might be in reference to the Cantorias carved by Nanni di Banco and Donatello. Under the feet of the putti lays a inscriptions in Latin that reads: “Nativitas tua genitrix virgo gaudium annunziavit universo mundo (Thy birth, O Virgin and Mother of God, brings joy to all the world)” (Kren 2). At the foot of St. Anne’s bed sit two women and a third standing, all three women frozen in preparation to wash the baby Mary. In the drapery of the standing figure that same wind-blown fabric from Botticelli’s painting is observed. The figure furthest away from St. Anne has her head turned in direction of the entourage that has entered the room.
The reconcilability the allegorical figures relates to Ghirlandaio’s use of contemporary portraiture with his paintings. Ludovica Tornabuoni, the young daughter of the patron, is depicted with four of her companions “walking towards the bed in order to visit the woman who has just given birth” (Kren 3). Ludovica is depicted in profile, a traditional angle for female portraits, “is wearing a magnificent brocade garment and standing very upright” is not so much a reference to her wealth but indirectly symbolizing her father’s (Kren 3). “They are emblems of status” (Turner 134). The use of contemporary garb and personas introduces once more the idealized form of females. These women “represent highly idealized women concordant with contemporary notions of beauty; porcelain complexions, plucked eyebrows” (Turner 134). In the top left-hand corner, the narrative flips into the reverse, depicting a scene that happened before conception of Mary. At the top of the stairs are shown Anne and Joachim embracing (Kren 3). The scene in its entirety contains a narrative but it is arranged in such a way that all the events seem to occur simultaneously. But like the Primavera the presence of a female narrative is evident.
IV: A
A re-interest in the art of antiquity is a key shift in the history of art; the Renaissance being a rebirth of this interest and imitation of the greatness of Roman achievement. Florence is considered the origin for the formulation and development of this renaissance of all’ antica. The study of the literature and letters of Roman as well as the artistic form and architectural vocabulary is defined as humanistic studies. The gathering of this information played an important role in the development of the Renaissance. “Early humanists and artist had begun to collect antiquities ranging from coins to sculpture” (Turner 137). The writings of poets and philosophers influenced the imagery of sculpture and painting. Yet this is not a sudden interest in the ruins of Rome but a turning back on what was already present.
Florence, itself, was a city founded by Rome. By the trecento the format of the city was far from the Roman grid plan that was uniform thought Roman cities, but through the streets the “entangled ‘Roman’ core of the city” was still present (Trachlenberg 154). The formulation of design of buildings was idealized in the elements of Roman motifs. “The vocabulary of architectural form, based upon a measured study of Roman buildings” was revived in new constructions (Klein 31). Alberti’s ideal city was one of balance and order, allowing for light filled piazzas was arranged in the language of all’ antica.
In attempts for a fashionable and presence of authority new buildings were not necessarily constructed but added on to. In the case of the Palazzo Rucellai, a façade was added to the exterior surface “as the outer skin of the building” (Trachlenberg 158). Alberto use of all’ antica can be seen in “most of the details derived from classical vocabulary, all were uniquely reformulated” and thus not following the traditional rules of form (Trachlenberg 195). Changes to the classical form, taking the individual elements and placing a nuance in their arrangement is an example of Roman influence being present but also a progression in form in accordance to the contemporary style. Still in other references to classical architectural language, tradition was emulated. “Florentine cornice work often depends on classical elements like the dentil and egg-and-dart” (Trachlenberg 197). Allowing for small details to reference all’ antica but in modest mannerism.
The progressive attempts towards the technology to imitate the images of nature continue throughout the quattrocento. “The whole idea of art imitating nature found desire support in Greek and Roman writings about art” (Klein 36). The advancements in art seen first in sculpture at this time enable one to isolate different elemental stylistics that appears in Florentine Sculpture. The sculpture all’ antica functioned as a “classical prototype” (Gombrich 125). Working off of classical examples gave the work a greater presence in the emulation of the style all’ antica. Nanni di Banco’s Santi Quarto Coronati shows an example in the form and appearance of the four figures. “These monumental figures are in neither contemporary nor medieval dress but wear the togas of Roman antiquity” (Turner 58). The facial expression and variety in age are explained in that “Nanni based his heads on several Roman portrait types” (Turner 59).
Vasari’s writings giving a basis view of Italian art places “Donatello as closer to the ancients the any other artist of the time” (Turner 56). This comment is that of Donatello reaching closer to the perfection that was considered in Roman sculpture seen in its “superior mastery of representation embodies in classical sculpture” (Gombrich 123). In looking at Donatello’s St. Mark at Orsanmichele the mimicking of treatment of “drapery suggests the quality of flesh and muscle beneath” verse the contemporary style of International Gothic using drapery as a pattern decorative element (Turner 56). The figure of St. Mark’s “narrative naturalism is so complete” that the statue is seemed to have a inner life of emotion in its facial expression and off-set weight position (Gombrich 124). This life to sculpture was the “illusion of life and movement” in a still object (Gombrich 128). This stylistic naturalism is seen to climax in Michelangelo’s David.
“Without any doubt the figures has put in the shade every other statue, ancient or modern, Greek or Roman” (Turner 163).
The influence of the all’ antica was not isolated to sculpture and architecture but is seen in the depiction of architectural structures within the painted imagery. Domenico Ghirlandaio’s Adoration of the Shepherds places the Virgin and the Christ Child in front of a sarcophagus, which is functioning as a manger for the hay being eaten by the cow. “The sarcophagus style…with narrative all’ antica” is set between two fluted columns and an arch Triumfo in the background (Gombrich 125). Also the astounding affect that the use of drawing for experimentation and studies has its link to antiquity. “The earliest drawings made from the posed, nude studio model date from the same time as these studies of the structure of classical sculpture” (Ames-Lewis 94). The drawing of figural sculpture aided in the resulting three dimensionality that a painting could achieve.
“The evolution of art is a study approaching towards natural appearance… it is a competition with Nature in which the artist selects her best form” (Wilde 7). In the mind of the Renaissance the art all’ antica was the perfection of man’s ability to emulate nature. It was the high point of society and culture. The Renaissance was a re-awakening of those aspects that made Rome great in their eye.
Works Cited
Ames-Lewis, Francis. Drawing in Early Renaissance Italy. Yale University Press: New Haven, 1981
Alberti, Leone Battista. On Painting. tran. John R. Spencer. Rouledge & Kemgan Paul: London, 1956
Anders, Glenn; John M. Hunisah; A. Richard Turner. The Art of Florence: volume II. Abbeville Press, Publishers: New York, 1988
Brown, David Alan. “Raphael, Leonardo and Perngino: Fame and Fortune in Florence” from Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael: In Renaissance Florence from 1500-1508. Ed. Serafina Hager. Georgetown University Press: Washington, D.C. 1992
da Vinci, Leonardo. The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci: volume I. ed. Jean Paul Richter. Dover Publications, Inc: New York, 1970
Gombrich, E. H. Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance. Phaidon Press: London, 1966
Holmes, Megan. Fra Filippo Lippi: the Carmelite Painter. Yale University Press: New Haven, 1999
Kemp, M. Leonardo de Vinci: the Marvellance Works of Nature and Man. J.M. Dent &Son Ltd: London, 1981
Klein, Robert. Italian Art 1500-1600: Sources and Documents. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1966
Kren, Emil and Daniel Marx. “Frescos of the Right Wall: Stories of Mary” in Domenico Ghirlandaio: Tornabuoni Chapel. Web Gallery of Art. http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html
Paoletti, John T. and Gary M. Radke. Art in Renaissance Italy. 3rd edition. Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 2005
Randolph, Adrian W. B. Engaging Symbols: Gender, Politics and Public Art in Fifteenth Century Florence. Yale University Press: New Haven, 2002
Tinagli, Paola. Women in Italian Renaissance Art: Gender, Representation and Identity. Manchester University Press: New York, 1997
Trachlenberg, Marvin. Dominion of the Eye: Urbanism, Art and Power in Early Modern Florence. Cambridge University Press: New York, 1997
Turner, Richard A. Renaissance Florence: the invention of a new art. Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 1997
Wallace, William E. “Michelangelo: In and Out of Florence between 1500-1508” from Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael: In Renaissance Florence from 1500-1508. Ed. Serafina Hager. Georgetown University Press: Washington, D.C. 1992
Wilde, Johannes. Michelangelo: Six Lectures. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1978