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.

Michelangelo's Last Judgment: Part 2

In continuing reading Marcia Hall’s chapter on the Last Judgment, I found it interesting of the reaction that Michelangelo received. Due to the changing religious climate what was accepted 30 years ago, was no longer accepted. Again, if we use the Sistine Chapel as an example, even though the style has changed as Michelangelo matured as an artist, we can see that he had always used nude figures, especially nude males. Also, he has always manipulated his figures into seemingly impossible poses that show off the strength and vitality of the human figure. However, either Michelangelo was ignoring the religious climate or he ignored directives from his patrons. No one can know what made Michelangelo painted such an altarpiece other than he was simply painting as he had become known for. Either way, the reaction was probably not what he expected. Pietro Aretino, a friend of Michelangelo’s, wrote, “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.” This is interesting because this probably isn’t Aretino’s true opinion. He was under suspicion from the Church and was afraid he writings would get him in trouble. One of the easiest ways to appease the Church at this time was to condemn someone else. Michelangelo was an easy target having just finished the Last Judgment. Even after Michelangelo’s death, theologians were using his Last Judgment as an example; an example of what not to do when painting sacred images. During the mid-1500s and well into the 1600s, the Church was feeling threatened. New sects of Protestantism were emerging all over the world, and the power that the Church held was diminishing. It was only because of that, that I believe that the Church would have turned their back on one of the most famous artist of their time. They needed to set an example for the rest of the world and reaffirm the Church’s power. They used Michelangelo has that example.

Michelangelo's Last Judgment

Marcia Hall’s chapter on Michelangelo tells a brief history of the Last Judgment and starts to analyze the differences in Michelangelo’s fresco verses the other depictions of the Last Judgment. During the Renaissance, the Last Judgment had not been a popular subject due to religious upheaval sweeping across Europe. Some historians believe that with Michelangelo’s return to Rome, he brought a reassurance that Rome was returning as a cultural center. Hall wrote, “Where Michelangelo departs from the tradition is in his extraordinary figures. They are nude, and they do not reflect the full range of physical types and ages; on the contrary, they are all akin in their ideal strength and energy, representing Paul’s concept of the spiritual, or glorified, body.” This is where I disagree. Michelangelo wasn’t leaving tradition behind, or at least he wasn’t leaving his tradition behind. I would agree, he is leaving tradition behind in the sense he is not following other artists’ examples, but then he has never followed anyone else. If we look up at the Sistine Ceiling, we can see that he is simply recreating the success of those frescoes. He idealizes the figures, in the sense that they are young and dramatic and depict Michelangelo’s idea of an idealized male human form. Again, he is using foreshortening and contrapposto poses that hardly anyone had ever seen before. 

Another aspect of Hall’s chapter that I find interesting is she mentions that Michelangelo depicts his angels without wings, almost as if this was a new idea. However, we have seen Michelangelo do this before. In his Donni Tondo, historians believe the idealized, nude figures in the background are actually angels. In the Last Judgment, Michelangelo is reusing his pervious forms and painting tactics, but what is interesting is that the public views it as new and shocking, even though they have an example of Michelangelo’s work above their heads. Michelangelo was simply reasserting himself into the fabric of the art world within Rome.

Goffen's Introduction to Titian

Rona Goffen’s Introduction to Titian was very interesting. It really illuminated the influence Titian had on the art world. He studied with Giovanni Bellini and started working under the master. He would eventually gain his own reputation for being a portraits. This skill leads to Titian to be recognized by Charles V, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and his son Philip II of Spain. After Charles V’s death, Titian would be inherited by Philip II. Titian would be commissioned for many portraits and other paintings. He would also create paintings that Philip II would later acquire. These paintings were not commissioned, but Philip II would acquire these paintings just because they were created by Titian. This is a modern way of buying art. Today, art dealers and collectors simply purchase paintings and pieces of art because they were created by a certain artist. I found this fact interesting because it is truly the first time in history that the artist is taking control of their career. Most art we learn about today is commissioned; the artists didn’t decide to paint the paintings that were created. Someone else decided what the artists created. However, Titian took control of his career. He catered his paintings to royalty but then was able to persuade Philip II of Spain to acquire his paintings simply because he painted them.

Another aspect of Goffen’s Introduction I found interesting is the discussion of misogyny in terms of Titian’s Venus of Urbino. Goffen is arguing that misogyny was an everyday presence during the Renaissance; it was present in literature, church, and art. The Church told everyone that it was Eve who caused the downfall of man and that she had many daughters and those daughters birthed the women of the world. Therefore, all women were innately going to cause the downfall of man. However, the Virgin Mary was the mother of Christ; the man would bring redemption to the world. Mary is alone in the world; she is the only woman like herself.

Goffen argues that Titian’s paintings of women are not pornographic in the sense of being purely sexual. Titian’s art always seems to involve some kind of affection or empathy for the subject. Also his women never seem to lacking in personality, unlike the women depicted in the writings of Pietro Aretino, a good friend of Titian’s and a writer. I found this idea interesting because it implies that Titian looked beyond the common attitude toward women. The idea that all of Titian’s women had a personality or inspired empathy, showed that he was thinking that women were not always thought of as the downfall of man, but they could be something else. They could be people with thoughts and emotions. But, what I found even more interesting is that Titian hide these thoughts and opinions in paintings that would be readily accepted as misogynic, like his Venus of Urbino.

Check out this clip I found. It gives a great background of Barocci's life and shows his paintings. The clip is about 6 1/2 minutes long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60X9kasX8UU

Madonna of the Rosary

Barocci was commissioned for another altarpiece in the city of Senigallia. Only this time it was for the Confraternità dell’Assunta e del Rosario. The Brotherhood was started in 1481 in Rome to promote the devotion of the Virgin Mary. The Brotherhood in Senigallia contacted Barocci in 1589 to start his painting. It took him four years to complete this commission.

At first glance, Madonna of the Rosary looks almost a direct copy of his Perdono. St. Dominic kneels in the same pose as St. Francis, only in reverse. He is kneeling slightly off-center, again Barocci is playing with the vertical axis in his altarpiece. If the Virgin Mary drops the rosary, which she is holding it will land in the section of habit that St. Dominic is holding out. Barocci depicts St. Dominic this way because the rosary is the focus of this altarpiece, not St. Dominic or even the Virgin Mary and Child.

Perdono

Barocci, Madonna of the Rosary, 1589-1593

Mary and the Christ Child are also in almost identical poses; looking down at the saint. And again, Barocci uses registers; the heavenly versus the earthly. In early studies, the registers were not as clearly defined; the Virgin Mary and Child simply appeared, drifting into the earthly realm on a cloud-like wisp. However, the finished altarpiece shows a distinct register between the two realms. Barocci uses angels and cherub-like figures to act as the separating cloud.

Study

Previous studies show that Barocci tried many different compositions before settling on the composition he used for the Perdono.

 Another study

 

One unique feature of Madonna of the Rosary is the ring of figures that edge the golden glow behind the holy figures. While Barocci actually paints a halo behind the Virgin Mary, this ring of figures acts as an oversized halo around the holy mother and child. This illusion is completed with the heavenly gold clouds that are behind the two figures. The light from the heavenly realm is making, by contrast, the earthly realm look darker and more dissolute.

Barocci's Entombment

The Confraternità della Croce e Sacramento was a confraternity founded at the end of 15^th century in the city of Senigallia. Senigallia is a sea-side town on the central-east coast of Italy. Originally, the Confraternità della Croce e Sacramento used a small stone church outside the city walls. This small church was built in 1520; however, the Brotherhood felt distanced from city and in the late 1560s the brother started to build a new church within the city walls near the Cathedral of St. Peter. In 1576, masses were being held within this church. On February 3, 1578 Federico Barocci entered into a contract negotiations for a commission for an altarpiece. The painting began in May of 1852, according to the Brotherhood’s records. Before Barocci’s altarpiece the only decoration in this church was a representation of the Brotherhood’s impresa, or their symbolic insignia; which was a representation of the Eucharist.

All records suggest Barocci had a large influence on the size and placement of this altarpiece. He placed it within a tall-vertical arch. This helps emphasizes the depth within the painting. Later, this altarpiece would be known as the Entombment. Barroci depicts Christ being taken down from the cross and carried towards his tomb. Labors are struggling to wrap his body as Mary Magdalene kneels in front of the body of Christ praying; modeling the appropriate behavior for the congregation viewing this altarpiece. A group of women are seen in the foreground. In the background, there are three crosses high up on a hill side. Directly opposite of those crosses is a 16^th century castle. However, the real focus of this painting, are the three crosses up on the cliff. Especially, the middle cross, which would mirror an actual cross that would hang over the altar; this would create a visual vertical axis for the congregation’s eyes would follow down to the altar where the Eucharist would be laid out. So while, the Brotherhood was essentially changing the focus of their decoration, Barocci would refocus it again by playing with the relationship between the altarpiece, the actual cross in the church and the altar and Eucharist.

Image of the church today: Notice the vertical axis of the cross from the painting, to the actual cross to the altar.

   Barocci, Entombment, 1579-1582, Senigallia, Santa Croce

Sources:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://senigalliachiese.altervista.org/blog/chiesa-della-croce/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DConfraternita%2Bdella%2BCroce%2Be%2BSacramento%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D642

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

Barocci's Biography

Federico Barocci was born around 1533. He is from the providence of Urbino. During the time of his childhood, Urbino was becoming a famous region for producing great artists, like Raphael. Federico Barocci’s artistic training started from at an early age. His father, Ambrogio Baroccio, a watchmaker, and his uncle, Bartolommeo Genga helped gain him his first apprenticeship with Battista Franco Veneziano, called Il Semolei. Il Semolei was based in Ubrino, where Federico lived with his family. Other artists Federico apprenticied with were his uncle, Barolommeo Genga, Francesco Manzocchi and Taddeo Zuccari. Little seems to be known about Barocci’s life, even though he had a personal biographer. We do know that he only went to Rome two times in his entire life. The first time was to study during the 1550s and the second time was during the early 1560s for a commission from Pope Pius IV. However, it is believed that last trip to Rome was the artist’s undoing. During a picnic in 1563, a rival poisoned him, causing him to return to Urbino where he lived the rest of his days. He died in 1612

Sources:

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=450

http://www.virtualuffizi.com/biography/Federico-Barocci.htm

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/federico-barocci