Patronage and the Popes of Rome

Rome was heading into ruin. The city was suffering. The Papacy had moved to Avignon on the say so of the French king and the French cardinals. It was not until the 14^th century that the Papacy returned to Rome. However, they returned to a city that had been depleted of almost all of its economic value; pilgrimage sites. The Papacy invested large amounts of money into the city and with them gone; the city was slowly on its way into ruin.

Ingrid Rowland’s article recounted key moments in Roman and Church history. All of these key moments dealt with the patronage of a pope. The first pope who recognized the power of Rome was Pope Martin. He started to move the Curia, the Catholic Church’s administrative body, from Avignon back to Rome. It was not until Rome had reached economic stability that the popes of Rome became a patron of the arts. Rowland’s article uses lots of historical evidence. This makes her argument strong, since she is tying the economics of the city to the main patrons of art. She argues that it was not until Rome reached economic stability were the popes willing to become patron of the arts. One of the greatest projects a pope accomplished was the Vatican Library. It was a resource from books and manuscripts in a time where all written word was still copied by hand. She ends here article with recounting the beginnings of Pope Julius II. He is considered the greatest patron of the arts for the time. Rowland argues that he does this, in order, to tie the Papacy to Julius Caesar and ancient Rome, a time of great art and culture.

Loren Partridge’s book takes a different approach to the patronage of the Catholic Church. He is trying to argue that the popes started to commission religious art with parallels to the Papacy, in order, to try and cover up their corruption. During the 14^th and 15^th century the Catholic Church was a corrupt place. Popes placed relatives in high ranking positions; some took mistresses and bore children. Partridge is arguing that in order to cover up the corruption the popes started commissioning these great works of art and encouraging culture to a once dying city. He uses more art to emphasize his point than Rowland. He also weaves social context into his argument. Overall, both articles show an interesting side to patronage, the popes, and Rome; were they trying to encourage economic growth within a city or trying to cover up a corruption that went back centuries?

Adam Gopnik's "Renaissance Man"

A mystery will always shroud Leonardo Da Vinci. He was a mystery while he was alive, and he continues to be today. No one really knows the real Leonardo Da Vinci. We get glimpses of his mind through his notebooks and paintings. But again, those only offer glimpses; they will never give us the whole story. But, somehow, these glimpses have made Leonardo a famous man. Today, whenever anyone mentions Leonardo’s name, whatever is associated with it becomes fact. I believe this is Adam Gopnik’s point in his article, “Renaissance Man”.

Adam Gopnik talks about the three major academic writers of Leonardo: Martin Kemp, Charles Nicholl, and Kenneth Clark. Each of these writers has a different angle that they write from. Kemp tries to define Leonardo by his mind and not by his actions. He then tries to explain why Leonardo did some of the things he did. Charles Nicholl’s book is more of the traditional biography. He details Leonardo’s life, his commissions, his patrons – basically Nicholl recounted the history of Leonardo, but not necessarily the true mystery; Leonardo’s mind. Kenneth Clark, whom is considered one of the best writers of Leonardo, wrote about Leonardo’s “renegotiating the line ‘between science and symbolism.’” But all these writers, instead of clarifying the life and work of Leonardo Da Vinci, helped the mystery continue.

Before I discuss the impact of Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code, I want to admit that I read the book. Almost every time I drive from Bozeman to Seattle and back again, I listen to the book on tape. When I first read the book, I was in middle school; I didn’t understand the difference between fact and fiction, especially when it was interwoven so skillfully. Today, I enjoy it as a good story, nothing more. Ok, confession time is over…

While Gopnik only writes on Dan Brown’s book for two short paragraphs, this book has helped fuel the flames of the mysterious Leonardo. While the book is considered a blatant lie by the academic world, to the general population, Brown’s book is considered fact or at least a plausible reality for Leonardo’s life. Whether you take the book as fact or fiction, almost everyone agrees that this book moved Leonardo from a mysterious man of the Renaissance to a completely new level of mystery, that I don’t know if anyone can define.

Adam Gopnik concludes his article with the idea that no one knows the real Leonardo and it is highly unlikely we will ever know. However, maybe the real Leonardo is the Leonardo that we have all built in our minds; the one who designed tanks and submarines and painted beautifully. Maybe the real Leonardo is the mystery.

The Porziuncola Indulgence

Perdono, painted in 1574-1576, became one of Federico Barocci’s most important paintings. The Perdono was to become the high altarpiece for the Conventual Franciscan church of san Francesco in Urbino.

 Perdono

 

 This was the third painting Barocci completed for the Franciscan church. His other completed paintings for the Franciscan church were the Madonna di San Simone (1560s), and Immaculate Conception.

 Madonna di San Simone

 

 Immaculate Conception

 

 

The Perdono depicts the temptation of St. Francis. One version of the story is, St. Francis was praying one January night in the small chapel of Porziuncola when he was seized with temptation. To combat the temptation, St. Francis stripped and threw himself into some rose bushes. However, wherever the saint’s blood touched beautiful rose blossoms appeared and his temptation disappeared. Angles then appear to lead St. Francis back into the church where Christ and the Virgin Mary appeared in a vision. In the vision Christ promised St. Francis an indulgence for all the pilgrims who visited the chapel from Vespers on the first of August to Vespers on the second. The miracle was confirmed with the indulgence by Pope Honorius III when he was shown the roses.

It was this miracle that Federico Barocci was commissioned to paint. He was commissioned in 1571 by the Coventual Franciscans and Nicolo Ventura detto il fattore. It was rare for the Conventual Franciscans to commission painting. Many historians believe it was to counteract the Observant Franciscans whom claimed to be guardians of the chapel of Porziuncola. It was a battle over indulgences. The more indulgences a church earn, the richer it became. The Conventual Franciscans believed that Barocci’s painting would help them in this endeavor. Also, some historians believe this was a decisions that the Franciscans made to battle the growing popularity of the Dominicans.

Before Barocci painted his altarpiece, this miracle had only been painted once before by Ilario da Viterbo in 1393 for Porziuncola chapel. There are many similarities between these two paintings. Barocci painted the moment when Christ and the Virgin Mary appeared to St. Francis. In Barocci’s version St. Nicholas is included (a request from the patron). However, St. Francis is centered in the painting in a ¾ view looking up to the divine figures. Since then this has become a standard pose for St. Francis to be depicted in.

In the centuries since, the Church has been unable to confirm whether this miracle of St. Francis actually happened or not. The indulgence of Pope Honorius III has since been lost and some believe that the indulgence never existed. If that was the case, what was the point of the Franciscans commissioning Barocci to paint this particular story? Many art historians are still debating this. Some think that it was a made up story to combat the power of the Dominican’s story about the rosary. Others think that since the Porziuncola was on the plains below Assisi (a major center for Franciscan monks), the Franciscans wanted a pilgrimage site there. There is still a great deal of mystery surrounding this painting, but all agree the Perdono is one of Federico Barocci’s most important paintings, in terms of style and form.

Sources:

Lingo, Stuart. Federico Barocci: Allure and Devotion in Late Renaissance Painting. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008) 63-66

Lavin, Aronberg Marilyn. "Images of a Miracle. Federico barocci and the Porziuncola Indulgence". Artibus et Historiae. 2006. Web

McGarth, Thomas. "Dominicans, Franciscans, and the art of political rivalry: two drawings and a fresco by Giovanni Battista della Rovere". Journal of the Society of Renaissance Studies. 2010. Web

Leonardo da Vinci: Flights of the Mind - pages 349-379

From Charles Nicholl’s book, Leonardo da Vinci: Flights of the Mind, I read pages 349-379. These pages were particularly interesting because they dealt with Leonardo da Vinci’s time with Il Valentino, the bridge from Constantinople to Pera, the canal project on the Arno River, and the beginning of the Mona Lisa.

Cesare Borgia, commonly known as Il Valentino, was Leonardo da Vinci’s patron from 1501 to 1502. Leonardo was Borgia’s military engineer. Borgia became intrigued with Leonardo when Borgia set his eyes on the new Turkish threat. Leonardo was to design a machine that could attack the Turks from underneath the water. In other words, a submarine. It was in 1501, when Borgia established his court in Imola. For the year of 1502, Leonard focused on making details maps of Imola and the surrounding area. The notebooks from the year 1502 are filled with maps of every kind. As 1502 turned into 1503, Borgia and Leonardo moved toward Rome, where Leonardo left Borgia’s service.

 

Sometime in 1503, Leonardo designed a bridge that would traverse from Constantinople to Pera. He even sent a letter with his designs to Constantinople to be considered. We don’t know the response Leonardo’s bridge had in Constantinople. However, on October 31, 2001 Venjørn Sand unveiled an 100 yard version of Leonardo’s original design. Sand’s bridge is a pedestrian bridge that spans over a motorway in the town of Aas, 20 miles south of Oslo, Norway. The bridge cost £1 million. It is one of many designs of Leonardo’s designs that have traveled through time into the modern age.

 

 

 

Leonardo’s canal project on the Arno River was a relatively short lived project that ended when disaster struck; the Arno River flooded and killed 80 people.

It is after this disastrous canal project that Leonardo started on his most famous project, the Mona Lisa. Very little is known about this famous painting. Today, the Mona Lisa is at the Louvre in Paris, France. The Mona Lisa is also called La Joconde (France) and La Gioconda (Italy). It is from the Italian name that many historian believe the identity of the Mona Lisa is Lisa del Giocondo. Another theory on the translation of the name is Playful Woman or the Joker Lady. However, most believe the identity of the Mona Lisa is Lisa del Giocondo. Lisa del Giocondo was born Lisa di Antonmaria Gherardini to a wealthy Florentine. She married Francesco di Bartolomeo del Giocondo when she was fifteen. The woman depicted in Leonardo’s painting is believed to be in her 20s. While most of the evidence points to Lisa del Giocondo, no one truly knows the identity of the woman Leonardo painted. Not only is the Mona Lisa surrounded in mystery because of unknown woman’s identity, but the painting itself has a unique history has well. The Mona Lisa was stolen in 1911 by Vincenzo Perugia and wasn’t seen again until 1913 when Vincenzo Perugia tried to return the painting to Italy. Vincenzo Perugia was arrested later that year.

 

While the Mona Lisa is an interesting and diverse subject, what I really enjoyed about these 30 pages was how diverse Leonardo’s projects were. The brief history of 1501 to 1503 was diverse in terms of projects and locations. Leonardo traveled from Imola to Siena to Florence. It shows that Leonardo was advanced way beyond the 16^th century. However, it was amazing that powerful people were commissioning Leonardo for many of these projects. This shows that people of the 16^th century were truly interested in the ideas of Leonardo. Many times when a person is advance beyond their time, the leaders tend to ignore or ridicule them. That does not seem to be the case for Leonardo. These 30 pages prove that. He has a man with many interests and he proudly followed those interests, even when the solution to those interests wouldn’t be realized for 500 years.

Lauro Martines, "Humanism: A Program for Ruling Classes:

The Renaissance was a time where the human mind was one of the main concerns for artists. Artists were concerned with music and literature and other subjects dealing with the human condition. This is not a new idea, it simply has a name. Historians now call this idea, Humanism. However, it is simply a revival of the type of thinking that happened during the golden years of ancient Rome and Athens. Bernardo Giustiniani believed that “letters and culture always followed a great empire.” During the 15^th century, Florence, Venice, Milan, and Rome started to emerge as powerful city-states with vast economic resources. Those resources held great appeal to artists, because that meant commissions. The majority of commission would eventually lead to a subject concerning Humanism.

Humanism was the predominate thought for about 60 years, from c. 1400 to 1460. It however, didn’t just stay in the realm of art. It bled into the civic realm as well. It was a train of thought that encompassed so much of the 15^th century population. They had to reconcile the ideas of the ancient world with the modern Christian world. Also they had to deal with humanism in terms of their government.

Lauro Martines’ article “Humanism: A Program for Ruling Classes” deals with the idea of Humanism in terms of the dominate social class. So mainly dealing with, what would now be considered the upper-middle class. Martines uses historical data and literary references to prove his points. He uses literary references written from the 15^th century making them more reliable than if they had been written in modern times. Overall, Marines uses strong references and makes a good argument that Humanism was largely restricted to the upper-middle class.

A Brief Introduction to Federico Barocci

Considered one of the most influential painters of his time, Federico Barocci, was born in Urbino, Italy in 1533. His father was a watchmaker, however, Federico Barocci had early access to many of Titian’s works, due to the fact, many of Titian’s works made up the ducal art collections. Considered a Mannerist painter, Barocci traveled to Rome in the 1550s to further his studies. In the 1560s, he participated in a fresco project for Pope Pius IV with many other renowned artists. It was during this project he thought he had been poisoned by a jealous competitor. He would return to Urbino in 1563, where he would be chronically ill until his death in 1612.

The life of a painter during the 16^th century was dependent on the support of patrons. Federico Barocci had many patrons, including Pope Clement VIII, King Philip of Spain, and the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II. Because of his patrons, he was the highest paid painter when he died in 1612. Since his death many painters, including Rebens, Annibale Carracci, and Guido Reni have been inspired by his unique style of painting.

Federico Barocci, Self Portrait, ca. 1600

Source: "Federico Barocci", The National Gallery. n.p., n.d., Web, 8 September 2013