Unit 2 DB: The Artist as an Individual Genius
Framing the Era
Michelangelo, Pope Julius II, and the Sistine Chapel
The first artist in history whose exceptional talent and brooding personality matched today’s
image of the temperamental artistic genius was Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475–1564). The
Florentine artist’s self-imposed isolation, creative furies, proud independence, and daring
innovations led Italians of his era to speak of the charismatic personality of the man and the
expressive character of his works in one word— terribilità (“awe-inspiring”). Yet, unlike most
modern artists, who create works in their studios and offer them for sale later, Michelangelo and
his contemporaries produced most of their paintings and sculptures under contract for wealthy
patrons who dictated the content—and sometimes the form—of their artworks.In Italy in the
1500s—the Cinquecento —the greatest art patron was the Catholic Church headed by the pope in
Rome. Michelangelo’s most famous work today—the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel ( FIG. 22-1 )
in the Vatican—was, in fact, a commission that he did not want. His patron was Julius II (r.
1503–1513), an immensely ambitious man who, like some other medieval and Renaissance
popes, sought to extend his spiritual authority into the temporal realm. Indeed, Julius selected his
name to associate himself with Julius Caesar and found inspiration in ancient Rome. His
enthusiasm for engaging in battle earned Julius the epithet “the warrior-pope,” but his 10-year
papacy was most notable for his patronage of the arts. Julius fully appreciated the propagandistic
value of visual imagery and, upon his election, immediately commissioned artworks that would
present an authoritative image of his rule and reinforce the primacy of the Catholic Church.When
Julius asked Michelangelo to take on the challenge of providing frescoes for the ceiling of the
Sistine Chapel, the artist insisted that painting was not his profession—a protest that rings hollow
after the fact, but Michelangelo’s major works until then had been in sculpture. The artist had no
choice, however, but to accept the pope’s assignment.In the Sistine Chapel frescoes, as in his
sculptures, Michelangelo relentlessly concentrated his expressive purpose on the human figure.
To him, the body was beautiful not only in its natural form but also in its spiritual and
philosophical significance. The body was the manifestation of the character of the soul. In
the Creation of Adam, Fall of Man, and Last Judgment frescoes, Michelangelo represented the
body in its most elemental aspect—in the nude or simply draped, with almost no background and
no ornamental embellishment. He always painted with a sculptor’s eye for how light and shadow
reveal volume and surface. It is no coincidence that many of the figures in the Sistine Chapel
seem to be painted statues.end sidebarNext >
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
▶
•
•
•
•
The art and architecture of 16th-century Italy built on the foundation of the Early Renaissance of the 15th century, but no single artistic style characterized Italian 16th-century art, and regional differences abounded, especially between central Italy (Florence and Rome) and Venice. The
period opened with the brief era that art historians call the High Renaissance—the quarter century between 1495 and the deaths of Leonardo da Vinci in 1519 and Raphael in 1520. The classical style and the interest in Greco-Roman culture, perspective, proportion, and human anatomy dominated the remainder of the 16th century (the Late Renaissance), but a new style, called Mannerism, challenged Renaissance naturalism almost as soon as Raphael had been laid to rest (inside the ancient Roman Pantheon, FIG. 7-51 ). The one constant in Cinquecento Italy is the astounding quality, both technical and aesthetic, of the art and architecture produced.Indeed, the modern notion of the “fine arts” and the celebration of artistic genius originated in Renaissance Italy. Humanist scholars and art patrons alike eagerly adopted the ancient Greek philosopher Plato’s view of the nature of poetry and of artistic creation in general: “All good poets . . . compose their beautiful poems not by art, but because they are inspired and possessed. . . . For not by art does
the poet sing, but by power divine.” * In Cinquecento Italy, the pictorial arts achieved the high status formerly held only by poetry, and painters and sculptors became international celebrities for the first time. None achieved greater fame than Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and Michelangelo— the greatest masters of the High Renaissance in Florence, Milan, and Rome—and Titian, Venice’s leading painter. For all their artistic genius, even they were constrained by their patrons’ wishes and could not create entirely freely (see “ Michelangelo, Pope Julius II, and the Sistine Chapel ”).
Leonardo da Vinci
Born in the small town of Vinci, near Florence, Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) trained in the
studio of Andrea del Verrocchio ( FIGS. 21-12 and 21-16 ). The quintessential “Renaissance
man,” Leonardo possessed unequaled talent and an unbridled imagination. Art was but one of his
innumerable interests, the scope and depth of which were without precedent. His unquenchable
curiosity is evident in the voluminous notes that he interspersed with sketches ( FIGS. 22-6 , 22-
6A , and 22-6B ) in his notebooks dealing with botany, geology, geography, mapmaking,
zoology, military engineering, animal lore, anatomy, and aspects of physical science, including
hydraulics and mechanics. Leonardo stated repeatedly that his scientific investigations made him
a better painter. That is undoubtedly the case. For example, Leonardo’s in-depth exploration of
optics provided him with a thorough understanding of perspective, light, and color. Leonardo
was a true artist-scientist. Indeed, his scientific drawings (for example, FIG. 22-6 ) are
themselves artworks.Leonardo’s great ambition in his painting, as well as in his scientific
endeavors, was to discover the laws underlying the processes and flux of nature. With this end in
mind, he also studied the human body and contributed immeasurably to the fields of physiology
and psychology. Leonardo believed that reality in an absolute sense is inaccessible and that
humans can know it only through its changing images. He considered the eyes the most vital
organs and sight the most essential function. Better to be deaf than blind, he argued, because
through the eyes, individuals can grasp reality most directly and profoundly.
Leonardo in Milan
In 1482, Leonardo left Florence for Milan after offering his services to Ludovico Sforza (1451–
1508). The political situation in Florence was uncertain, and Leonardo must have felt that his
particular skills would be in greater demand in one of Italy’s princely courts (see “ Art in the
Princely Courts of Renaissance Italy ”). He clearly believed that the Sforza court in Milan could
provide him with increased financial security. The letter Leonardo wrote to Ludovico seeking
employment in Milan is preserved and is, at first sight, surprising. The Florentine artist devoted
most of the letter to advertising his qualifications as a military engineer, mentioning only at the
end his abilities as a painter and sculptor. The letter illustrates the breadth of Leonardo’s
competence and also underscores the decisive role that individual patrons played in the history of
Renaissance art.And in short, according to the variety of cases, I can contrive various and endless
means of offense and defense. . . . In time of peace I believe I can give perfect satisfaction and to
the equal of any other in architecture and the composition of buildings, public and private; and in
guiding water from one place to another. . . . I can carry out sculpture in marble, bronze, or clay,
and also I can do in painting whatever may be done, as well as any other, be he whom he
may. *That Leonardo selected expertise in military engineering as his primary attraction for the
Sforzas is a measure of the period’s instability. In any event, Ludovico accepted Leonardo’s
offer, although he did not give the Florentine artist a salaried position until several years later.
Leonardo remained in Milan for the next 17 years, during which he created the masterpieces that
are the basis for his lofty reputation then and now.
Leonardo and Michelangelo on Painting versus Sculpture
Both Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo produced work in a variety of artistic media, earning
enviable reputations not just as painters and sculptors but also as architects. The two disagreed,
however, on the relative merits of the different media. In particular, Leonardo, with his
intellectual and analytical mind, preferred painting ( FIGS. 22-2 , 22-4 , and 22-5 ) to sculpture,
which he regarded as lowly manual labor. By contrast, Michelangelo, who worked in a more
intuitive manner, saw himself primarily as a sculptor. Two excerpts from their writings reveal
their positions on the relationship between the two media.Leonardo da Vinci wrote the following
in his so-called Treatise on Painting:Painting is a matter of greater mental analysis, of greater
skill, and more marvelous than sculpture, since necessity compels the mind of the painter to
transform itself into the very mind of nature, to become an interpreter between nature and art.
Painting justifies by reference to nature the reasons of the pictures which follow its laws: in what
ways the images of objects before the eye come together in the pupil of the eye; which, among
objects equal in size, looks larger to the eye; which, among equal colors will look more or less
dark or more or less bright; which, among things at the same depth, looks more or less low;
which, among those objects placed at equal height, will look more or less high, and why, among
objects placed at various distances, one will appear less clear than the other.This art comprises
and includes within itself all visible things such as colors and their diminution, which the poverty
of sculpture cannot include. Painting represents transparent objects but the sculptor will show
you the shapes of natural objects without artifice. The painter will show you things at different
distances with variation of color due to the air lying between the objects and the eye
[atmospheric perspective]; he shows you mists through which visual images penetrate with
difficulty; he shows you rain which discloses within it clouds with mountains and valleys; he
shows the dust which discloses within it and beyond it the combatants who stirred it up; he
shows streams of greater or lesser density; he shows fish playing between the surface of the
water and its bottom; he shows the polished pebbles of various colors lying on the washed sand
at the bottom of rivers, surrounded by green plants; he shows the stars at various heights above
us, and thus he achieves innumerable effects which sculpture cannot attain. *As if in response,
although decades later, in a letter to Benedetto Varchi (1502–1565), a Florentine poet best
known for his 16-volume history of Florence, Michelangelo wrote:I believe that painting is
considered excellent in proportion as it approaches the effect of relief, while relief is considered
bad in proportion as it approaches the effect of painting.I used to consider that sculpture was the
lantern of painting and that between the two things there was the same difference as that between
the sun and the moon. But . . . I now consider that painting and sculpture are one and the same
thing.Suffice that, since one and the other (that is to say, both painting and sculpture) proceed
from the same faculty, it would be an easy matter to establish harmony between them and to let
such disputes alone, for they occupy more time than the execution of the figures themselves. As
to that man [Leonardo] who wrote saying that painting was more noble than sculpture, if he had
known as much about the other subjects on which he has written, why, my serving-maid would
have written better! *