Renaissance Art seems to have an enormous appeal to our culture. The works of artists such as Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci are very clearly well painted or sculpted and are comfortably digested by just about anyone seeing them. You do not need an advanced education in order to enjoy these works and they are commonly seen in advertising and on television because of their universal appeal. At one time I owned a Mona Lisa Lunchbox and personally was tickled to be able to identify Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel God and Adam Painting on the bottom of a pool in Rocky Horror Picture Show.
It is interesting to contemplate why this would be so. These artists are not painting or sculpting current trends. Even the understanding that modern people have of the place that religion has in our culture is vastly different. At the time these works were done the Catholic church in most of Europe had an incredible influence, though admittedly it was going through major changes with Martin Luther nailing documents on Churches and Henry VIII booting out the Catholic church in England and Popes being held for ransom by the Holy Roman Emperor... still, it was a time that church had an enormous influence on the lives of individuals and though the majority of people in America do admit to being of faith, they do not allow doctrine to influence their lives nearly as much as they do television.
So why do these works seem to resonate? They are beautifully rendered. There is a real understanding of anatomy and a very natural look about the figures. The imagery is often powerful and can be interpreted by most people (though I would suggest that the interpretations that come about may not be correct...) And I would imagine that people are comfortable in saying that the works are works of art. Your average individual can stand up straight, point at them and say with confidence “that there is ART” where they may have a little more trouble identifying works since the advent of photography which seems to have been the impetus to modern and contemporary art.
I am looking forward to the opportunity to get to study more of this period in art. I recently created a work of theatre about the life of Henry VIII and was lucky enough to get to do research in London for the 500th anniversary of his coronation. The research was very exciting as there was such a plethora of paintings of Henry and his multiple wives as well as many of the statesmen involved and they were brought together and exhibited in several museums throughout London. As the production was a puppet oriented performance it was doubly exciting to have these incredible references and they deeply affected my sculpting style and color palette for the show. It will be interesting to compare other works with the paintings I have become familiar with.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi! Welcome to ART 236! I look forward to reading your posts and working with you this quarter. I'm sure you were able to see a lot of amazing works of art in London. Hopefully you visited the British Museum and the National Gallery!
ReplyDeleteYou have some great thoughts about why the Renaissance period seems to be popular. I think it's interesting that you described Renaissance art as beautiful, and then backed up that statement by describing the naturalistic appearance of Renaissance figures. As we continue with this course, you might want to consider why some people find naturalistic and realistic figures in art to be beautiful. I think that there can be lots of reasons for this interest in naturalism, but I'll give you one possible suggestion: perhaps some people like to recognize a little bit of themselves when looking at a work of art, and they can best do that with a work of art that is naturalistic and life-like.
-Prof. Bowen
P.S. My favorite portrait of Henry VIII is this one by Hans Holbein, which was painted in 1540: http://www.wga.hu/art/h/holbein/hans_y/1535h/06henry8.jpg.