Tags
Art, artist, John the Baptist, Leonardo Da Vinci, Mona Lisa, Renaissance, Renaissance Man, The Last Supper, World Art Day
I’ve always said that I was born too late. Usually I just mean that I’d be happiest as a 1950’s housewife. A real June Cleaver-type, you know? Vacuuming in heels? Heck, yeah, I’m there! But it’s even more accurate to say what my dad has told me.
“You were born in the wrong century.”
*sighs* Yep, he’s right. The 21st century just isn’t doing it for me. Now, the late 15th, early 16th century? When the art world was flourishing with incredible religious paintings and sculptures? YES. That’s where someone like me belongs.
The Italian Renaissance was a time when everything old was made new again, and creativity was abundant. The Renaissance effectively ended what is known as the Byzantine era. It pushed away the stiff, flat forms that had dominated art during the Middle Ages, replacing them with much more classical, realistic depictions of the human body, harkening back to the art of ancient Greece.
Now, I love Byzantine art. I mean for crying out loud, my Twitter bio says, I’m a “Commission artist specializing in Byzantine styled Bible symbolism.” But there is nothing more beautiful to me than the religious works that emerged from the hundred year period of about 1450 to 1550.
Many great artists came out of the Renaissance period. Michelangelo, Sandro Botticelli, Titian, Fra Filippo Lippi, Carlo Crivelli, Raphael. But the greatest of these was arguably Leonardo Da Vinci.
Born April 15, 1452, 563 years later, Da Vinci is considered one of the greatest artists of all time. He is the quintessential “Renaissance Man”. The artist was known primarily as a painter, but he was so much more than that.
Da Vinci’s thirst for knowledge was second to none. He painted, he sculpted, he was a mathematical genius and a military engineer. He studied botany, anatomy, and astronomy. In addition to being an accomplished artist, he was also an architect, intellect and a scientist, and perhaps one of the most brilliant inventors the world has ever known. He studied absolutely everything and I believe it was his vast knowledge that allowed him to create such breathtaking works of art.
In truth great love springs from the full knowledge of the thing that one loves; and if you do not know it, you can love it but little or not at all.
He didn’t just paint a picture. He created the forms and figures knowing exactly what went into their natural being. At a time when ordering an anatomy textbook from Amazon didn’t exist, Da Vinci, like other artists prior to the 20th century, took things apart to see how they worked. Some of his most impressive works are his anatomical drawings. What better way to learn how the human body went together than to cut one apart!
The painter who has a knowledge of the sinews, muscles and tendons will know very well in the movement of a limb, how many and which of the sinews are the cause of it, and which muscle by the swelling is the cause of the contraction of that sinew.
Unlike some other great artists, Leonardo’s list of paintings is a fairly short one. There aren’t hundreds of Da Vinci’s to be admired like there are Van Goghs. The number is actually more like only 30. You may also be surprised to learn that Leonardo Da Vinci’s most famous work is actually one of my least favourite paintings.
The Mona Lisa is thought to be a portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo, a Florentine cloth merchant. The Louvre in Paris is the painting’s home and they date the piece to between 1503 and 1506. I’d venture to say that a thousand stories have been birthed by that one mysterious smile. This unknown lady has become one of the most famous women in the world.
What is fair in men passes away, but not so in art.
The painting has been beautifully executed. From Lisa’s delicately veiled head down to those soft, luminous hands at rest. She is a wonderful example of Leonardo’s mastery of sfumato –a painting technique characterized by imperceptible transitions between colours and tones. Sfumato literally means “to evaporate like smoke”. Da Vinci’s gradations of shading are soft and subtle. There are no lines or borders. Light blends into dark, and no hard transitions are visible.
But the technical perfection is, to me, flawed by one simple fact: Mona Lisa is not an overly attractive woman. For me, she lacks the beauty of, say, the angel or even Mary in “The Virgin of the Rocks.”
Now, originally I started a little write-up talking about the two versions of “The Virgin of the Rocks”, but there’s such a great little mystery there that I’ve decided to save that discussion for its own blog post. Stay tuned!
Another of Leonardo’s lovely ladies is the girl in “La Belle Ferronniere”, or “Portrait of a Woman of the Court of Milan”.
There is also the Virgin in a cartoon by Leonardo housed in the National Gallery of London — “The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and the Young St. John the Baptist”.
Alone, she’s a figure of striking beauty, but with its extreme shadows and highlights, the work as a whole is a tad unnerving to look at. Especially the eerie figure of St. Anne…
A similar work made the news a few years back when the question of “To restore, or not to restore” started a very heated debate. Now, yes, I have some pretty strong opinions myself when it comes to restoring/conserving artwork, but that too is a topic for another day.
The painting in question was Da Vinci’s “The Virgin and Child with St. Anne”.
As you can see, the surface of the painting had become quite splotchy, and some of the back boards had cracked, leaving a nasty visible “break” down the center of the figures. Many were concerned that restorers were over-cleaning the work, and that instead of enhancing the work’s original colours and bringing to light small subtleties lost thanks to the multiple coats of browning varnish, that the painting would turn into something completely different than what Leonardo had intended. I watched a fascinating documentary about the painting’s restoration — “Leonardo da Vinci: The Restoration of the Century“. Here’s what it looks like now.
The most striking difference is the brightness of the blue on Mary’s clothes. The restorer filled the crack and did all the touch up in acrylics. I actually watched the documentary twice, because let me tell you, this is somewhat of a dream job for me. If I lived elsewhere, you would probably find me in the back room of an art museum, conserving the art I hold so dear.
As with any old painting, it’s difficult to know for sure what was “okay” to remove and what perceived “flaws” might actually have been intended by the artist. The restored painting looks very nice, but the topic of whether this went too far is still very much alive. One of the cool things the cleaning uncovered though? A fingerprint in blue paint obscured by the dirty varnish hidden in the leaves of the tree. Obviously the remnant of some finger-blending. Is it Da Vinci’s? It certainly seems likely, and I think that’s pretty cool.
…whatever exists in the universe, in essence, in appearance, in the imagination, the painter has first in his mind and then in his hand.
It’s difficult sometimes for those of us who were born in the latter part of the 20th century to imagine a time when airplanes didn’t exist. We live in a world with some pretty amazing technology, but because we’ve never had to live without it, the sheer magnitude of the inventive genius behind it can be lost on us. A few hundred years before the Wright Brothers made history at Kitty Hawk, our Renaissance Man was already imagining what it would be like for man to leave the ground.
Da Vinci did extensive research on birds and studied the dynamics of what made them fly. He designed a helicopter, parachute, and a pair of enormous wings whose design resembles today’s hang gliders. His flying machine designs show that Leonardo was undoubtedly ahead of his time. In his notebooks can also be found sketches of war machines — things like tanks, a scythed chariot and a one-manned battleship. His giant crossbow and machine gun are very impressive, as are his designs for mortars that fire explosive shells. This is the kind of artillery that wouldn’t actually be produced until the 19th century. Oh, and did I mention he was designing an automobile too?
I wish to work miracles; it may be that I shall possess less than other men of more peaceful lives, or than those who want to grow rich in a day. I may live for a long time in great poverty, as always happens, and to all eternity will happen, to alchemists, the would-be creators of gold and silver, and to engineers who would have dead water stir itself into life and perpetual motion, and to those supreme fools, the necromancer and the enchanter.
Caravaggio is my favourite artist, but Leonardo Da Vinci is a close second. My favourite painting would have to be his “Saint John the Baptist’, painted about 1507.
I absolutely adore this painting. I loved it so much that I even painted my own version of it some years ago.
“St. John the Baptist” is quite possibly the last of Leonardo’s paintings done entirely by his hand. (Like many of the great masters, Da Vinci worked with assistants later in his life.) It’s so beautifully painted that it takes my breath away whenever I see it.
I’m not a quarrelsome person, but there is something about this piece that I would like to say. It’s likely to offend, but seriously, that’s just too bad. It’s said that Saint John’s design is a reworking of an angel in a previous (and now lost) painting by Da Vinci. Allow me to quote from a book I have. As a great lover of both art and Biblical symbolism, and Da Vinci himself, I take great exception to this posturing:
“The conversion of The Angel into the almost perversely sensuous St. John bears erotic, possibly homosexual implications. For though St. John points piously upward toward the Prime Mover with his right hand, his salacious, inviting gaze and his nudity, barely concealed by a seductive leopard skin, allude instead to carnal desire. This St. John is a sort of fallen angel, who engages the spectator in a clearly obscene through.”
Mhmm. It continues in the same perverted vein, but this is enough for what I have to say. Just one simple thing, really: Get your f*cking minds out of the gutter. I can not even fathom the depths of filth that people will sink to in order to satisfy some disgustingly twisted lust in their wicked and rotten little black hearts.
And this isn’t just some fringe of society who try to read this kind of perversion into artwork. It’s the “experts” and “scholars” who promote this thinking. I will not even bother going into the symbolism *I* see in this piece (and yes, I DO think John is depicted in a more feminine manner on purpose), but suffice it to say, I do NOT find this painting represents ANYTHING the above quote suggests. I have had my fill of people who see phallic symbols in everything. Not EVERYthing is about sex. Got it? Yes? Good.
Painting is the way to learn to know the maker of all marvelous things.
There are two other works that I simply must mention here. The first is one I have already written a bit about in a previous post, “Depictions of Christ in Art“. It’s Da Vinci’s recently discovered “Salvator Mundi”.
What a glorious painting! In 2011, “Salvator Mundi” became the first Da Vinci work to be accepted by scholars in more than a century. The modelling of the paint is superb and our Lord has been depicted with a mesmerizing, haunted gaze. A little different than the Jesus in the second of Da Vinci’s most famous paintings, “The Last Supper”.
I love this painting as well. It’s full of symbolism. You know, there aren’t many people throughout history that I’d really like to meet, but Leonardo Da Vinci is one of the few I would. He doesn’t receive nearly enough credit for the things he understood and the incredibly clever way he worked symbolism into his art. That ownerless knife-wielding hand…? And no, it’s not Peter’s. (And for crying out loud, it IS John, not Mary Magdalene next to Jesus. I smell another blog post that discusses the symbolism in “The Last Supper”…)
There just are no words to describe Leonardo. Not adequately. The man, the artist, the master. He was always eager to learn. To practice, to experiment. He wanted to understand how things worked, and why they worked. His life was spent creating and he has left us with much food for thought if we care to look for it. There’s much more to his paintings than meets the eye and his genius is evident in his abundance of sketches and designs. Da Vinci was a man centuries ahead of his time. An artist, a thinker, a true Renaissance man, whose unique talents will continue to live on through his art for centuries to come.
As long as these my limbs endure, I shall possess a perpetual sorrow, and with good reason… It is a hurt to anyone to lose such a man, for nature cannot again produce his like.
Note: All quotes are attributed to Da Vinci.
One of the best exhibits I ever saw was the Da Vinci exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. It was breathtaking to look at his notebooks and sketches and try to imagine how little of what he was drawing was actually known or even imagined at the time. This is a great post Wendy. Also, another curious connection revealed between you and my wife. she also was born in the wrong century (or so her husband has been known to say). I think she would have been more at home in the time before electricity. Maybe not as far back as you would like to travel, but not so much at home in this day and age.
Thanks, Dan! And oh, wow, I’ll bet that was an amazing exhibit. I have not had the pleasure of laying eyes on any of Da Vinci’s works in person yet, but that’s something I’m determined to do someday. And yes, it’s actually quite humbling to see his incredible designs and to know that they came from inside his head, not from what already existed around him. I think he must have had one of the greatest minds the world has ever known.
And seriously, right now, I’m dying to know two things, if you’d be so kind as to ask your wife: Munsters/Addams Family… Coke/Pepsi! Sorry, I just have to know now!
OK, Wendy, I have the answer but it’s inconclusive. She likes the Munsters. She likes Pepsi but she isn’t a fan of the fizz.
Munsters and no fizz? Two out of three sounds pretty good to me!
You’re both good sports, Dan. Thanks for asking her. :)
She is a good sport. She’s not a big fan of soda. One reason is the fizz. Who knew there were two of you :)
“I’m not a quarrelsome person”…LOL. ;)
Actually, I’m not so sure you’d be happy in the 15th-16th centuries. Yes, all of this incredible art was being made, but I doubt you, as a woman, would be a part of that in-crowd…or even lucky enough to see it in person. Actually, I shudder to think what life was like for women back then. Perhaps, in some ways, you’re right where you need to be in order to enjoy everything that you do. You can still have pearls, an apron, and heels in order to vacuum, if you prefer.
Symbolism in art – means different things to different people. I think the great artists, like Da Vinci, left it to the “eye of the beholder” to decide. I try not to scold others so harshly for their opinion, even if I think it’s baloney. I agree with you in some ways – I don’t see sex in everything – but then again, there are other things that are meant to remain a mystery for all time.
Ha! Let’s just say I put a lot of effort into not making too many fusses in public, okay? ;D
You are right in the sense that I CAN enjoy a lot of things I like right here and now. And I DO very much enjoy pearls, heels and my fancy ruffled apron! We can agree on that.
As for what it was like during the Renaissance period, beautiful art was actually quite readily accessible. In a time when much of the population was illiterate, paintings were how stories were told. At that time, most paintings served a practical purpose rather than just being something pretty to decorate your walls with. And don’t forget too that even though we only remember the big names like Da Vinci and Michelangelo, there were MANY other extremely talented artists producing works too. I doubt that you could walk into nearly any building in Italy and not see some gorgeous art.
Female artists weren’t unheard of in the 16th century either. This would actually make an interesting blog post, but I can name you a dozen successful female artists that came out of the Renaissance. Sofonisba Anguissola and Artemisia Gentileschi are probably the most famous of the group. Was it easy? No. But you know what? It’s not easy now either — for men or women. Regardless of how well you paint, it’s very difficult to get your foot in the door if you don’t have a wall of certificates stating you’ve received the proper education to call yourself an “artist”. Which I personally think is pure rubbish. Not having a piece of paper doesn’t mean you’re not an artist, and having it doesn’t make you one. Personally, fame isn’t something I’m overly interested in anyway. These female Renaissance artists may not be as widely known as Da Vinci, but they were successful during their lifetimes. They had famous patrons and were respected by the people that mattered — those who enjoyed their art. And they had families to boot, so I’m going to have to say that I still think I would have fit right in!
I’m going to have to disagree with you about symbolism in art meaning something different to different people though. I don’t believe that. It’s only since about the late 19th century that the idea that art is subjective has become accepted. Again, considering that art was meant to tell a story to the viewer, you wouldn’t be a very good story teller if your message wasn’t clear and was left to interpretation. Speaking for myself, I would be very upset if I overheard someone commenting about one of my paintings and they were giving it a different meaning than the one I intended. Even in a mysterious symbolic piece you can be guaranteed that the artist has thought about what he’s painting and why. Only the artist knows the true meaning of a piece, but he strives to make that meaning known to the viewer. Otherwise, what’s the point?
I don’t scold people for their opinions, but to me, what I described in the post isn’t an “opinion” per se. An opinion should be based somewhat in truth. But taking the perversion of today’s day and age and trying to apply it to something that came out of a different time altogether? I don’t see any logic in that. I have a Pinterest board (a number of them, actually) that’s full of half naked women. According to the people I’m criticizing, that would be proof to them that I fancy women in a sexual way. If that were the case, then surely *I* of all people would know it, and I can assure you, that is NOT true. Even in the slightest. I admire the beauty of the female form. The way I admire trees and flowers, birds and animals. I don’t want to have sex with women! You see how ridiculous it is to push that kind of idea? And a lot of people are so gullible that they swallow it hook, line and sinker. And I’m sorry, but that just pisses me right off. I can’t stand to see something that took a great deal of time, effort and thoughtfulness reduced to a damn secret sexcapade. I think poor Da Vinci would roll over in his grave to hear these people cheapening his work. And to me, that’s exactly what they’re doing. And I can’t just keep quiet about it like it’s okay. It’s not okay. In the art world, when the “right” person in a position of power states that an “opinion” is “true”? Then that’s what starts being taught as the truth. I don’t like it one bit. And I wanted others to know that I don’t hold to that junk at all. And I think those kinds of ideas are a great detriment to the art, the artists, and life in general.
Keep the focus on the art and not the “politically correct” agenda of the day, you know? Sex is not everything. Just let that go, people. Please. :P
“An opinion should be based somewhat in truth” – that’s not an opinion though. Opinion: “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.” A person’s opinion can be (and oftentimes, in this crazy world, is) as off the wall as they like – no logic necessary. You’ll go MAD if you try to battle the opinions of others. That’s why I have to step back, breathe, and sometimes cut myself off from the world of social media. Too many people needing their opinions to be heard!
I’ll agree that some artists have a definite story with their symbolism, and it’s appropriate at times, but others, I think, while they may have something in mind, still leave some images open to interpretation. As with anything, there are artists that run the spectrum – from those who want control over every detail to those who leave it completely open to the imagination. I like it a little in-between.
So as not to be quarrelsome, I’ll end on that opinion.
St. Anne does look a little eerie… Maybe it’s just a very stern, motherly look!
I’ll go along with that! Oh, and side note — glad to see that I survived the great BlackCatPratt blog purge of 2015!!! :)
Few survived! I had to clean house (in pearls, no less). Feels good! Taking a break from Twitter & some other social media noise too, so you may only see me here and there.
Yes, I discovered this when I tried to tag you on Twitter the other day! Sometimes I get the urge to up and leave too, so I understand. Hope to still see you (here and on Pinterest) and that you’ll come back to Twitter eventually too.
I’m a very disagreeble person but it seems we share similar perspectives on most things in life. Maybe it’s because I am also an artist. Of course when you always speak your mind, you will appear to be quarrelsome. Never mind, the modern world is mad. Keep up the good work my dear friend.
Thanks so much, Tawia. I’m glad to hear that I’m in such good company!
Pingback: Monster Masterpieces A Gogos | Seeker of Truth
Pingback: Michelangelo’s Masterpieces | Seeker of Truth
Pingback: Beautifully Baroque: The Art of Peter Paul Rubens | Seeker of Truth
Pingback: The Lost Art of Animation Backgrounds | Seeker of Truth
Awesome article! Thanks for sharing.
Pingback: “The Story of Mankind”: A Hollywood PSA: Was Anybody Listening? | Seeker of Truth