I've been waiting forever to write on a subject like this, and I promise that I'm going to keep it as far away from “Bernini is better than Michelangelo because...” as possible..... even though he is.
During the Baroque period in the 17th century they incorporated ideals like naturalism, and a very small amount of idealism, into their work. While they also rejected humanism, because it wasn't the subject for art at the time due to the counter reformation.
In Bernini's “David” you can see that David is portrayed as a more naturalistic person, and not entirely idealized like Michelangelo's “David.” With Bernini you can see a lot of muscles on David's body, however you don't see all of them, and David is also much more mature looking. Unlike Michelangelo's where you see every muscle on young David's body in perfect definition.
Even though Bernini's David isn't idealized, it's still a depiction of a famous Classical character and it makes up for not being idealized with the amount of drama and energy that can be seen in it. Michelangelo's David is very static standing there in contrapposto, and just being the ideal person who accomplished something great (or is about to.) While with Bernini's David it's a lot harder to tell what David is doing, because the statue looks different from every angle.
From one angle it looks like he just got his sling into position to throw it, but from other angles it looks like he is building up the energy and power in his body to launch it at Goliath. From one angle in particular it looks like the exact second that he is going to throw it with all of his might. This illusionism was valued in Baroque art, and for David it really helps trick the viewer into to thinking that the statue is going to start moving.
Both of these statues where made of the same material and depict the same story, but because of Baroque art Bernini wanted to show a Classical David in action, while also using illusionism to involve the viewer with the story to make it seem as if part of it was happening right in front of them. To that end I believe that Baroque art added ideals that Renaissance art needed, and I'm glad that it was able to borrow from the Renaissance and improve upon it to make the great works of art that we can see today.
(p.s. Bernini made stone look like squishy skin!) http://maitaly.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/proserpina5.jpg
4 comments:
I love the "Pluto and Proserpina" statue (the one that is linked at the end of your post). I once had a professor who would call this the "marble to marshmallow" effect. Incredible stuff.
-Prof. Bowen
I completely agree that Renaissance art really needed some of the new ideals that Baroque art incorporates. I think it is interesting how these statues represent evolution in art.
The "Pluto and Proserpina statue is very remarkable, the "squishy skin" is amazing. The fact that Bernini create it from marble seems unbelievable.
I agree with you that michelangelo's David is much more idealised, like i would beable to tell he just fought a giant. Though i do enjoy being able to see two different perspectives of David. I really liked your post.
Jennifer Groce
Personally, I would have to say you are right. Bernini's David takes the cake. It has so much information in just a simple sculpture and emphasizes such a greater story than that of Michelangelo's!
Post a Comment