|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 36 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Illustrations: This is not a History Lesson |
Posted by
Cashmere on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 01:10 PM PST
In fifteenth century Italy there was a distinct separation between social classes. The Florentines valued harmony in their lives, especially in their paintings. They were characterized by a balanced composition and muted colors. Deep reds and siennas were seen frequently, and compositions were mapped as precisely as architecture. Pale blues and dirty yellows became the norm and they were good. Tempera was used and frescos were popular. This was the Florentine lifestyle: clothing was ideally conservative and the ideal woman was the personification of the Madonna. Their style of painting is what is typically thought of when the High Renaissance is mentioned, and at times encompasses both Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. Everything was good, for a while.
Move northward to Venice. The painters there had been in contact with the Flemish and learned of a new innovation in the art of the area. Oil paints became immensely popular, and colors that were never before seen became true to life as cobalts danced with the brightest yellows and golds. This also reflected the lives of the Venetians, who drank to life and love and had the brightest clothing of all the courts. They also reflected emotion in their lives, much more than the Florentines. Although they began with the same roots as the Florentines, their paintings held the influence from the northerners: valuing atmospheric perspective and using oil paint on a lighter background. The light that was reflected inside the work became very important, and their lives were multidimensional. It is only natural that they were scorned by the rest of Italy for their liberal style. Feuds between these two great cities lasted throughout the Renaissance, one side scorning the other for their “inferior” way of life. The Venitians were shunned at higher social functions outside their province and thus became further isolated from the rest of their world. The Florentines continued to shave their heads and dye their hair, fitting into the ideals of their culture. At the time Michelangelo was in Bologna he was still considered a great Renaissance sculptor and was loved by Florentine art collectors. The rejection of Venetian life became institutionalized. Rome, in an effort to bring splendor back to the Catholic church, began importing artists from all over Italy, specifically Michelangelo. The seventeenth century was wracked with religious turmoil: the Protestant reformation was well under way and the Counter reformation was not achieving desired results. The style of the High Renaissance was rapidly changing to reflect this turmoil, and there was an influx of Venetian artists working for the clergy. Their region had been affected most prominently by the change, since they were still in close proximity with the German and Flemish painters. The first person they inspired was Michelangelo, as he also spent some time in the northern regions before being called to Rome. Although he was the epitome of High Renaissance his work began to change, adopting the more brilliant hues of the Venitians and elongating his figures. The Sistine Chapel was then painted and he began sculpting again. His last pieces were never finished. In the twentieth century Art Historians considered Michelangelo to be one of the High Renaissance Masters, along with Da Vinci and Rafaello. The Sistine Chapel became a national treasure and a tourist attraction, with lines rounding down the blocks hours before its doors would finally open. The Italians declared it the pinnacle of High Renaissance art and of Michelangelo’s career: the muted colors and demure faces became trademarks of his style. In the nineteen eighties, however, the walls and ceiling were so covered in various human pollution that the figures were hard to distinguish. The entire chapel was closed down for months as restoration crews carefully stripped away the layers of grime and fixed the cracks in the plaster. All of the walls plus the massive ceiling were beginning to chip in places, which had to be fixed, and the only paints that would adhere were the same types of pigments used in the original. At the end of the labor intensive process the doors were finally opened. The first thing that was noted was the clarity of the disegno in the thoughtfully rendered figures. The splendor of the church had finally been restored. The colors were not even noted until the art historians began to take slides. Brilliant crimsons swept through the azure skies, and the yellows were as dazzling as the sun! Of course the restoration team was blames: surely they had used chemicals that were too strong and destroyed the essence of Michelangelo’s tonal range. The immediate reaction was to cover the chapel in dust once more, since most of those historians had written entire books about Michelangelo’s muted palette. Third party art historians were then brought in to inspect the style of painting. The critique that followed finally determined that the entirety of the Sistine chapel had been painted in a Mannerist style, and for the greatest accuracy art history books should mention Venetian painters as a primary inspiration for the movement. The Chapel itself was to be reclassified. Rafaello, who had also been considered a purely Florentine Renaissance painter, was also reviewed and proclaimed Mannerist as it slowly became a more accepted term. That reclassification is still changing beliefs about the culture of that time, and the italian belief structure was not completely known until that discovery. Before that there was no reason for the rise of Baroque. And don’t even think that this was just a history lesson.
|
|
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 4.7
Total ratings : 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not a History Lesson | Login/Create an account | 12 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: This is not a History Lesson
by Meranda_Jade (Meranda@mymind.com)
on Jul 10, 2003 - 01:27 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I think I could identify with the Venetians... very cool Cash... very cool...
|
Re: This is not a History Lesson
by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com)
on Jul 10, 2003 - 04:00 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://devin.vibechild.com/
|
The cool thing about writing in extended metaphor is that not everyone can do it. Some people can't even write one layer. It's HARD to keep your other layers consistent. It takes a lot of clarity in your head - and that's something you can't fake or practice. You can learn to use big words, or you can learn your subject matter and write something academic, but if you want to write between the lines, it takes more than a fancy typewriter.
|
Re: This is not a History Lesson
by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.com)
on Jul 11, 2003 - 04:58 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.saradevil.com
|
The term classic is often used to define the music of the middle to late 18th century, the period that followed the Baroque. Among the characteristics of classicism are the use of a highly stylized form, paying attention to the detail, and maintaining a strict musical discipline. Among the composers noted for this music were Hayden, Mozart and Beethoven. Although the music has great appeal it is entirely structurally sound, and moves very little outside of a fixed and rigid thematic pattern.As the 18th century wound to a close music began to take a turn and worked its way into the Romantic area.
As with many things in the late 18th and early 19th century Romantic music brought with it a sense of the strange and fantastic. Creativity was the word of the day and style and form began to take a back seat to the wild and sensual music of composers such as Schubert, Chopin and Liszt. Symphonic music became poetry, piano music turned into the dense and difficult nocturnes, and the art song was developed, music that is only on outlet for the libretto. During the Romantic period the Opera was awash in stories of escape, plots to revolt, the rise and fall of various groups, and the wholly fantastic in history and the future. The music became more fantastic and more absurd, and at the same time more moving and beautiful.
All of this began to decline and Neo-classicism rose to the front, bringing back controlled form and style. Music returned to a more predictable thematic style, and once again paid with almost religious fervor, attention to the detail and discipline, which had been set down by the masters of the mid 18th century. Stravinsky was one of the finest players, and Also sprach Zarathustra his greatest work in the style.
And yet it all ends in what we now call Modern music, which has produced nothing as new, interesting, or original as its predecessors.
|
Re: This is not a History Lesson
by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com)
on Jul 11, 2003 - 06:22 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.hotelshade.com
|
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" -Santayana's Dictum It's amazing to me that creative conflict is as universal as the concept of art in general. I know more about the Renaissance period then I do many others, and I'm always finding out how much more there is to know. Thank you Cash, you rock.
I wonder if the Florentines and the Venitians had the same conflict over incoming influences and dilution of their art and lifestyles. It sounds like they would actually hae stayed quite happy if they stayed in their own playgrounds, but I can so see the amazing battles that would ensue when the Florentine home owner wanted to paint his home in muted tones and take into consideration the the houses surrounding his own and the harmony of the street; and the Venitian walking in, looking at his own house across the street and saying "Jewel tones, definately jewel tones."
How do you say who was right? Why bother? Neither one was right except for themselves. For my own sake, I'm glad they both existed considering the amazing developments in art, culture, music and so many other ways the Renaissance has so enriched our lives today.
Oh, and Cashmere: I think I read the article too quickly this first time through and you probably explained it really well, but what was the mannerist movement? I have a horrible memory for artistic schools/movements that I haven t heard of at least ten times.
|
Re: This is not a History Lesson
by Squire-of-Gothos (Brian0049@hotmail.com)
on Jul 11, 2003 - 09:12 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
I've been skipping my math class at college lately, and 99.99% of the time, I sneak into a classic art lecture by one of the professors here. I've just fallen in love with all the nuances of changing art and the events covered throughout that time. Great article Cashmere!
|
Re: This is not a History Lesson
by chameleon on Jul 11, 2003 - 10:18 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Magnificent! You are right, it is not just a history lesson. As far as i see it, it was a story of cultural rebirth. I could be wrong though, and be completely missing your point! Even if I don't get the messages between the lines, you have spun an intriguing yarn of historical knowledge,and I thank you for sharing with us, as history is an amazing thing... As Shade replied, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it!"
|
Re: This is not a History Lesson
by Cashmere on Jul 12, 2003 - 04:23 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
*blush* Thank you everyone, I am so glad you enjoyed my article.
Chameleon- That is one of the points you can take. If you found meaning in it then it accomplished part of its purrpose.
Squire_of_Gothos- Art History is a beautiful thing, although I a not quite sure you should be skipping other classes to experience it. *grin*
Meranda- Yup, you are definitely a Venetian....
Devin- You could not have flattered me more deeply
|
|
|