Deposition

Barocci’s Deposition is probably his most famous altarpiece. He was commissioned in 1567 to start the altarpiece, he finished Christmas 1569. The Deposition still hangs in the Cathedral in Perugia. Many historians believe that Barocci would have studied Raphael’s Entombment and some other paintings by him. No one can truly say that Barocci had studied Raphael’s paintings but there are certain characteristics that the people of Perugia would have recognized. Especially the emotion shown with the Madonna and the surrounding figures. The fainting Madonna is very similar to the emotional Madonna of Raphael’s. The surrounding figures in Barocci’s version, are dramatic, Mary Magdalene’s arms are outstretched, reaching toward the fainted Madonna. Another aspect of the painting that the people of Perugia would have at least associated with Raphael’s painting, is the young men that Barocci has depicted taking Christ down from the cross are similar to those of Raphael.

 Raphael, Entombment

However, that is where the similarities seem to have stopped. Barocci’s Deposition is a registered painting. All the women are at the bottom of the altarpiece, while all the me are above with Christ. I personally don’t think it means anything, but thought it was an interesting aspect of the painting. Of the men helping take Christ down from the cross, the only face we can see is Christ’s and the man who is holding Christ’s feet. I found this another interesting fact.

The composition appears crowded with little open space. The viewer’s eyes have very little place to rest, but the eyes move throughout the altarpiece in an orderly way. Your eyes start at the top of the cross, then moving down the center post of the cross to Christ’s head. Then the eyes move down Christ’s body to the man who is holding Christ’s feet. Then the eyes follow down to the Virgin. From there the eyes travel to the edges of the altarpiece and go back up the ladders to once again land on Christ. Barocci uses diagonals to create a composition that is constantly moving and engaging for the public eye.

  Barocci, Deposition

Visitation

Barocci’s altarpiece, Visitation, painted in 1583-1586 for a side chapel in the Chiesa Nuova, is very different than his regular altarpieces, like Perdono. Visitiation appears to be a straight narrative from the Bible. It is not terribly conceptual, like the Misericordia or abstract in the sense of the Immaculate Conception. Again, it appears to be a straight forward narrative.

This altarpiece was commissioned by the Oratorians in Rome. During this time period the Oratorians were collecting masterpieces from modern painters, much like Isabelle d’Este was trying to collect painters for her personal collection. This group, were committed to the study of traditional Christian imagery, especially interested in history of image used in worship. The Oratorians, even as far to contact Cardinal Pierdonato Cesi to talk to the Duke of Urbino, who in turned talked to Barocci. It is believed that Barocci accepted the commission because it would reestablish him in Rome.

  Barocci, Visitation, 1583

Visitation depicts when Elizabeth comes to visit the Virgin Mary and Joseph, as depicted in the Book of Luke. Based on the number of studies that survive, Barocci spent a large amount of time trying to render a painting that took the traditional imagery that the Oratorians wanted and still dealt with the subject in a modern way. In the center of the painting are Mary and Elizabeth standing on some stairs. Interestingly, Barocci depicted Elizabeth standing above the Virgin on the stairs but Elizabeth is leaning down, so the Virgin has a higher hierarchy in the painting than Elizabeth. These two women are depicted many times together, throughout Biblical imagery. This is an usual aspect of the painting because usually, the Virgin is always positioned higher in the painting than anyone else, unless Jesus is in the composition. Based on the studies that survived, Barocci was mainly focused on the different poses of Elizabeth and the Virgin. One even had the Virgin’s back to the viewer – this had never been done before. Overall, Barocci had taken a subject that had been depicted many times and tried to modernize it.

Immaculate Conception

Much like his other altarpieces, Barocci’s Immaculate Conception, ca. 1570s, modern viewers seem to be misunderstand the meaning behind it. Modern viewers tend to look at an altarpiece by Barocci and see pale pinks, and glowing yellows and soft simple piety. Often those characteristics are associated with piety that is simple and sentimental. However, for modern viewers to truly understand the Immaculate Conception, we need to look at the religious context that Barocci created this altarpiece in.

The 16^th century was a time of religious turmoil; the Catholic church was losing power and in the Counter-Reformation, the Church was working on combining art with the new ideals of devotional images. In one image, a painter must have aspect of divoto (devotion) and it also had to have the illusion or allure of vaghezza (vagueness), for it to be considered a successful painting. Barocci was one of the few who truly became successful at this. One of his best examples is the Immaculate Conception.

When looking at the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary is right in the middle of the painting – she is equal distance from all edges. She is isolated within a cloud-like background, no one touches her or even approaches her. She is standing alone with her eyes downcast, in a seemingly pious pose. Small angels/cherubs poke out of the clouds surrounding the Virgin. All we see is their heads and parts of their wings. The Virgin appears to even be standing on the back of a cherub. Near the Virgin’s halo, we can also see additional faces of more cherubs. But they appear to be drawings. Could they be underdrawings for this altarpiece? If so, then why would Barocci leave them and not cover them up? The only place these drawings appear is at the top near the Virgin’s head.

 

Madonna del Popolo

One of Barocci’s best received altarpieces in his lifetime was his Madonna del Popolo (1575-1579). This is also considered to be one of his most complex pieces, in terms of composition and idea.

 Barocci, Madonna del Popolo, 1575-1579

The confraternity that commissioned this piece was the Fraternità di Santa Maria della Misericordia and they were the leading lay fraternity in Arezzo. This confraternity was known for their charitable works both for the church and for the city of Arezzo. They identified strongly with how they represented themselves, so they were known for commissioning artists to create various Madonna images. Some of the artists the confraternity commissioned were Bernardo Rossellino, Bartolomeo della Gatta, Domenico Pecori, and Rosso Fiorentino and Federico Barocci. All of the commissions were extremely different, but were of the same subject: the Virgin Mary presiding over a large mass of people. These image was the confraternity’s logo, in a sense, because this Madonna is concerned for her people and is looking over them. Very much like the confraternity and their charity work.

 

 

Domenico Pecori, Madonna of the Misericordia, c. 1510

Barocci’s Madonna del Popolo, however, is extremely different than any previous commission. He has separated the heavenly realm from the earthly by a cloud, which the divine are sitting on. On the far right there is a baby cherub/angel who seems to be falling off the cloud but is resisting with all his strength, physically pulling himself back up onto the cloud at the Virgin’s feet. This is the closest any of the divine figures get to breaching the mortal realm in this altarpiece. Another difference is in most depictions of the Madonna, she is either alone or she is accompanied by baby Jesus; in Barocci’s altarpiece, the Madonna is accompanied by an adult Jesus.

In the mortal realm the viewer sees a mass of people, but one small group seems to be bathed in golden light, a mother and a small child. The mother is looking at the child instructing it to look up at the divine, but the child is fascinated with a group of figures on the right and is not looking up at the Madonna. I believe, Barocci highlighted this group of figures because it is what a traditional Madonna and child would generally look like. They are also directly opposite of the Madonna and Christ, creating a strong diagonal across the altarpiece.

Another aspect of the painting that is interesting is the center of the painting. It is generally empty, all that shares this space is a small dove which is surrounded by glowing, white light.

This was one of Barocci’s most successful altarpieces in his lifetime. I believe because he was exploring how the divine and the mortal interact and how they can reflect each other. This is the case with the Madonna and Child and the mortal mother and child.

Martyrdom of St. Vitale

Federico Barocci, once again, created a spectacular altarpiece, The Martyrdom of St. Vitale. Unlike the pervious altarpieces I have presented, this one is unknown. Very little is known about it, other than art historians place in around 1580 to 1583.

   Barocci, Martyrdom of St. Vitale

 

However, I found this altarpiece extremely interesting because Rubens would eventually use it for inspiration for his Martyrdom of St. Livinus. It is believed that Rubens was particularly interested in the undulating body of St. Vitale.

 

 Rubens, Martyrdom of St. Livinus

 

Like in Barocci’s Entombment, Barocci was able to pull the audience into the altarpiece by establishing this clear twisting motion in his composition. The viewer’s eyes go to the angel-like figure at the top who is bathed in golden light, then following the downward motion of the arm, the viewer sees St. Vitale. Following the pointed figure of St. Vitale, we look at the surrounding figures and our eyes finally land on the mother with her children, who reminds us of the Virgin Mary. It is believed he used the same model for this figure as he did for his Madonna images. So, our eyes twist and move throughout the painting, but each figure as a twisting motion as well. This device is one that sets Barocci apart from his fellow painters because only he uses this twisting motion to draw people into the paintings.

Mannerism

I found both readings this week very interesting. They both were very focused on the formation of Mannerism and what forms it took. What I found interesting about Freedberg’s book Painting in Italy 1500-1600, was the cultural aspects that he discusses. He writes that early Mannerists were concerned with emotional problems that were highly personal. This is interesting because it is another emergence of personally feelings for the artists and their subjects. Humanism allows emotions to an extent but it focuses on how many thinks, instead of how they feel. Symith’s article suggests that some of Michelangelo’s late paintings could either be High Renaissance or early Mannerist. I am suggestion that his late paintings are early Mannerists based on the evidence presented in these two readings. Many of his writings tell us that he was struggling with many personal issues at the end of his, both emotional and physical. His health was taking a downturn and he felt his art was taking a toll because of it. I believe this idea is evident in Michelangelo’s Last Judgment, especially when we look at what historians believe his is self-portrait; the man without no bones.

Another aspect of the readings I found interesting was Freedberg claimed that Mannerists were painting in a restrictive and reactionary cultural atmosphere and that art was being created under a controlled formulae. Symith seems to support Freedberg’s claim in his article. Mannerists were trying to create the ideal body for painting that could cross over all subject matters. This lead artists to establish a set number of poses for the bodies they were painting. Every pose in Mannerist art seems to follow these set poses; there are about 20 of them. What made them react to the cultural atmosphere this way? What caused artists to tamper down their create processes and limit themselves to 20 odd poses for the human body? What caused artists to turn away from works like Leonardo’s and Michelangelo’s? I think they were reacting to the Counter-Reformation and the lasting consequences that had on the art produced at this time. The Catholic Church was questioning and reviewing their art commissions and I believe the artists responded in kind, which lead to Mannerist art.

Michelangelo's Last Judgment: Part 3

Leo Steinberg’s article on Michelangelo’s Last Judgment takes a very different approach than Marcia Hall’s. Steinberg has picked 15 points to focus on, instead of focusing on the whole fresco. However, instead of being limited to those 15 points, Steinberg is able to discuss the majority of the painting in some form or another. Section 3: That the gesture of Christ reveals a mystery, not a foregone conclusion was my favorite section of Steinberg’s article. He is combining historical writings, historical events, and knowledge of Michelangelo’s past work and style to argue his point. Steinberg argues that Michelangelo depicts the hand gestures this way to suggest the nature of duality in the divine figure; man but divine, anger and mercy, judgment and saving. All these are elements of the duality of Christ. Steinberg is arguing that Michelangelo is not reusing these gestures, as they have been seen on two pervious works, but is suggestion an ambiguous duality that only a select few would recognize. Earlier in his career, Michelangelo sculpted a bronze statue of Pope Julius II, since destroyed; it has been described as having a gesture very similar to that depicted in the Last Judgment. When asked whether it was a blessing or a curse, Michelangelo answered, “It threatens this people, Holy Father, lest they be foolish.” This statement, again suggests the duality of the divine was something that Michelangelo has been thinking about and trying to visual represent for a while. Is the Last Judgment the final representation of this duality? Steinberg suggests it, but cannot prove anything beyond presenting his evidence and leaving it up the reader.