Early vs. High Renaissance

The work of art from the Early Renaissance that I have chosen is the Camera Picta by Andrea Mantegna, from the Ducal Palace in Mantua, on page 620. And the work of art from the high Renaissance that I have chosen to compare it to is Corregio's Assumption of the Virgin from the Parma Cathedral in Itally, on page 653. More specifically I should be saying that I will only be comparing a part of the Camera Picta, its domed ceiling, to the Assumption of the Virgin.

Upon the domed ceiling Mantegna painted what is called a tour de force of radical perspective in a technique called di sotto in su, “from below upwards.” It makes it appear as if the dome has opened up to the sky and heavens above the building. He painted the opening to this sky as a large oculus in the form of simulated marble and a mosaic-covered vault. Looking down through the oculus are a series of figures ranging from children, to adults, to even a peacock. There is even a large pot painted on the top opening of the oculus, looking as if it could fall down onto the viewer.

This same kind of illusionistic ceiling can be seen later, in the high Renaissance, in Corregio's Assumption of the Virgin. This time on a more grander scale, that employs other painting techniques, such as foreshortening, idealism, and sfumato. The “opening” in this ceiling leads up to a blinding white and yellow light, as figures are clouds are pulled and swirled upwards toward it. There is even one figure out in the middle of the painting as if he is either being sucked up towards the light or falling down away from it. Either way though the figure looks frantic and is reaching out to the other figures in the mass of clouds.

In the Camera Picta there is a good sense of depth in the sky from the clouds gradually getting smaller as they fade back into space, and are covered with atmospheric perspective. There is also a good sense of depth from the oculus, that makes the opening really look as if it's a tube leading into another space. However, even though some of the figures have body parts extending out into our space, a lot of the figures have rather flat faces and features. Naturalism is also lost with the wings and halos that some of the figures have as well, and their isn't a great amount of dynamic unity in the painting. Some of the figures do have their bodies angled in ways to help move your eyes around the painting, but there are still rather stiff and some of the figures (or heads) are just kind of there and not doing anything.

While in Corregio's painting there is a lot of dynamic unity. Every figure in the painting is posed in a dramatic way, and trying to hold onto something as the clouds and winds pull on them. One figure can be seen holding onto a plant for dear life, while others are seen grasping to other figures around them while their clothes are blown and twisted around them. Because of the picture some of the figures do look flat and the perspective is lost, however there is still a great amount of detail and foreshortening happening with arms, legs, and bodies as there are blown upwards into the sky. The sfumato also adds a soft touch to the painting making clouds and people farther into the painting look fuzzier, and adding depth to the painting. There is also a great sense of naturalism in the painting, unlike the Camera Picta there are no halos, or wings, on any of the figures and you can see great details in the muscles and features of each figure.

However despite these differences I would not say that Corregio's painting is better than Mantegna's. This is because both of these painters and paintings accomplish the illusion of space on a flat surface. Both were able to accurately portray an opening to the heaves on a ceiling. And despite how simple Mantegna's is there is something that I really like about just seeing the clouds slowly disappear as they get higher and higher up.

--------------------

On another note I would also like to add that I was tempted to write about Michelangelo for this blog, but I didn't want it to be nothing but a 500 long rant about what I do and don't like about his work. I do recognize him as having amazing talent in the way he can portray clothing, hair, muscles...etc. in marble. But when I see things like this http://renresearch.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/michelangelo-night.jpg a woman who has breasts that are about a foot wide apart.. I can't recognize Michelangelo as a truely great artist.

Early Southern Renaissance

The work of art from the early Italian Renaissance that I have chosen to examine is the Jacob and Esau, Panel of the “Gates of Paradise”” (East doors) by Lorenzo Ghiberti. The panel, by itself, is 79cm square and made of gilded bronze. My initial reaction to it was how well I thought space was portrayed, along with how well the figures are formed in the bronze.

The linear perspective used in this scene gives off a very strong portrayal of depth in the panel, and it can even be seen represented as the floor tiles within the scene. These tiles continue far into the background before fading into the unknown. Figures in the panel also decrease in size the farther they are into the background, and like the lines of the tiles they too begin to slowly fade away. This fading, or vanishing, seems to be form of atmospheric perspective because the figures become fuzzier and loose a lot of their definition. This can especially be seen when Rebecca is listening to G-d and when she is giving birth to her two sons.

While this linear perspective is drawing the eyes of the viewer into the scene, there is also a story advancing from the background to the foreground. This continuing narrative tells the story of the lives of Jacob and Esau through the use of calculated spacing between the scenes, so that the viewer will be able to follow along in only one panel. I'm not sure though if this scene would be considered as a Historia. It has the characteristics of one, it tells a historic story, it instructs the viewer in a pleasurable way, it has a large number of figures placed in a wide variety of dramatic and emotive poses, but I'm not sure if I see any of the figures communicating to the viewer. None of them are starring out at the viewer, but there is one figure in the center of the panel that appears as if he could be pointing at an important feature within the panel.

The light and shadow used across the bronze also adds depth and form to both the scene and to the figures within it. This is the only use of color in the panel, and it is executed very well. Through the play of light and shadow human form can easily be seen beneath clothing, and clothing it self takes on form through the shadows created within its folds. The shadows inside the architecture, coupled by the perspective of the ceiling and arches, creates a very believable building and space within the scene. It's almost as if the figure could take his finger and poke it all the way through to the other end of the building.

The style of the figures, and of the scene, is very naturalistic and classical. Several figures can be seen in either a contrapposto, or semi contrapposto like stance. Their bodies are proportionate and you can see foreshortening happening with some of the figures. One good example is the figure in the center of the foreground, standing either as if he has just taken a step, or as if he is in contrapposto. His left leg is raised and pushed out into our space, and foreshortened to make it seem like a believable pose.

The scale used for the figures and the scene is also very believable and naturalistic. The dog seems to be the correct size of a dog; all of the humans throughout the space are proportionate, and the building is a large and believable space that the viewer could easily see the figures walking around in.

One other interesting thing about some of the figures in the panel is that parts of their bodies, or clothing, extend outside of the panel and enter into our space. It makes it seem as if the figures are not contained within the work of art, and could easily move around and venture outwards to the other gilded panels on the door.

The Northern Renaissance I Respect

Judging by the documentary I would say that the types of ideas that were valued in the Northern Renaissance were religion and status based. In the second half of the documentary it is mentioned that religious images had the ability to enter the soul through the portal of the eye. I never knew this before, and now I understand why so many religious paintings were created and why they were so important for the culture of the time.

I always understood religious paintings as a way for people to view religious figures from history, but I never knew that when people gazed upon them they believed that part of the figure would enter them, and that they would then experience the figure as a real person and not as a work of art. And now I also understand how much these paintings must have meant to the people that commissioned them. Especially if they themselves were included in the painting, along with the historical religious figure that they connect themselves to.

Along with religious purposes paintings became a way to show status. Courts originally commissioned tapestries to be made for them, but when Jan van Eyck started a painting revolution in Northern Europe paintings became a way to show status and value. If you were able to have a portrait done of yourself, or of you with some saint or religious figure then that would count towards you, and increase your court value.

And since in Flanders it was believed that courtly expenditure trickled down and improved the lives of common people then paintings were a great, and cheaper, way to do this. Even people with lower incomes could afford some of these paintings, and with them they could improve their reputation and status by being able to say that Jan van Eyck did a painting of them, just as he did with the Duke of the area. (These paintings were cheaper than gold and jewels).

Despite this though, paintings weren't always considered to be a very respectable craft. And in fact were first considered to be along the same lines as a what a tanner would make. Sculpture was considered to be the most valuable and respected craft of the time. Altarpieces were sculpted, rather than painted on the inside, while just their doors and casings were painted. Jan van Eyck changed all of this though when he finished his brother's painting The Ghent Altarpiece. This started the Northern Renaissance, and Jan van Eyck's style of painting became highly valued. With it's remarkable realism and attention to detail.

This realism, or naturalism, was the style for the Northern Renaissance. Figures and scenes were painted in a way that made them look, in some cases, as if they could step out of their frames and join us in the real world. Jan van Eyck was the master of this style and put a tremendous amount of time and effort into each of his paintings. With using layers upon layers of oil paint and washes that he made himself. These layers caused his paintings to be illuminated, and when light shines upon them in a certain (but specific way) then they reflect light, and create shadow, as if the painting were an actual part of the room, and as if the figures were real. Even to the tiny details put into jewelry that show a reflection of a nearby window that would be shinning onto the painting.

Jan van Eyck is one of the few artists in history that I truly respect, and I hope that one day I'll be able to paint just one small miniscule object the same way that he did, with the same amount of luminosity and detail.

Art History 236

Hi everyone! I saw some people on the group list that I recognized from last term, and I also saw a whole bunch of new people. I am looking forward to reading your blogs again, it's really nice to get a different perspective on these art styles.

Just some other stuff to get out of the way: my name is Amanda Hanson I'm a Senior BFA drawing and painting major here at CWU, though I still have a year left of college after this one. My favorite medium is watercolor and I have just now started to learn oils. I'm not a big fan of this artistic period, but I do like a lot about it; and I'm even less of a fan of what we will be learning in spring. However I am a very big fan of prehistoric to ancient Greek art.

When it comes to art in the 15^th and 16^th Centuries I am not entirely sure why it is held in such high regard in our culture. I also do not know why Renaissance art is considered better than other types of art. I do however think that it is all a matter of personal preference for people. Some may consider art from the Renaissance to be better while other people may consider contemporary art to be better, while others might say that both suck and prefer something else.

I also think that artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Raphael get the most attention in our culture because they were the artists that got a lot of attention in history. Michelangelo was working for the church, Da Vinci was literally doing everything, and Raphael was just as much of a prodigy as the other two were. They were the lucky ones in history to get the attention focused on them. And even I admit that they had talent, however I also say that for every good work of art that Michelangelo did there was always a woman painted in it who was horribly disfigured and looked like a man with a messed up boob job. But then again I also think that Gian Lorenzo Birnini was a better sculptor and makes Michelangelo look over rated. Its not that I have anything against Michelangelo, I think he was a talented artist with a good sense of humor in his work, but at the same time my personal preferences keep him out of my all time favorite artists.

In the past I have had an art history class that covered 14^th to 17^th Century art, but I am looking forward to learning about some of it again, and I am hoping that this time around I will be able to understand why people like it so much.