Observations on Roma

con·tra·dic·tion n
1. something that contains parts or elements that are illogical or inconsistent with each other
2. a statement or the making of a statement that opposes or disagrees with somebody or something
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Rome is the center of chaos and contradiction. It is a city that is so closely tied with its past that the present must fight in order to be noticed. The heart of Rome is minutes away from ruins like the Foro Romano and the Colosseo, moments away from the La Fontana di Trevi, the Pantheon, Piazza Navona and Bernini’s Four Rivers Fountain. The past is alive, art and architecture from every era loom around each corner. Centuries of history all mingle together. And yet with the past everywhere there is still a distinct Italian culture that is unique to today.

cul·ture n
1. art, music, literature, and related intellectual activities
2. enlightenment and sophistication acquired through education and exposure to the arts
3. the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behavior of a particular nation or people
4. a group of people whose shared beliefs and practices identify the particular place, class, or time to which they belong
5. a particular set of attitudes that characterizes a group of people
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Rome is alive, a melting pot for people from every walk of life, a cacophony of different languages and cultures all harmoniously coexisting. The Italians strut their streets, aware of their culture, their lifestyle and our attempts to assimilate. We stand at bars quickly gulping down a café, jam onto packed buses pushing and shoving, gesture wildly as we speak as though we are true Italians. Foreigners all attempt to melt into this culture because we are drawn to the life and vibrancy that surrounds us.
im·i·tate vt
1. to copy somebody’s behavior, voice, or manner, especially in order to make fun of him or her
2. to use somebody or something as a model, attempting to copy an existing method, style, or approach
3. to be or look like something else
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

We try to imitate the Italian style. Mold ourselves into cookie cutter shapes of the cool kids we see sauntering down the streets of Rome. We wear the clothes, laughing as we try on the baggy, underwear-showing, jeans of the younger Italian girls. Smirk as we walk into jewelry stores and see the rows of raver bracelets and big, shiny jewelry frequently worn by the younger Italians. We stumble around the cobblestone streets in our new Italian boots and tights. In this sea of style you see the Americans: flip-flops in Winter, Ugg boots and short skirts at the Vatican. You wonder if you look like them? How well are you hiding it? Do the clothes make you Italian? Constantly questioning how well you fit into this unique culture, how well can you imitate? Then you see those who have lived here for long enough they assimilate the clothing, the Italian strut, the hair – trying to become perfect models of Italian culture just like you want to be.

age n
1. the length of time that somebody or something has existed, usually expressed in years
2. one of the stages or phases in the lifetime of somebody or something
3. the age at which somebody is legally considered to be an adult
4. condition of having lived many years
5. age or Age a period in history, especially a long period or one associated with and named for a distinctive characteristic, achievement, or influential person
6. age or Age a relatively short division of recent geologic time, shorter than an epoch
7. a level of development equivalent to that of an average person of the stated age
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Rome is ageless city. This timelessness is present not only around every street corner, but in every Italian man and woman. Italian women seem to have no set age. Although they may be old they have a spark that keeps them young for decades and the younger generation have a maturity that enables them to walk around with their head held high and a sneer on their face. The men never seem to mature. They still stare like boys who have just hit puberty no matter their age. They drool like dogs from across the room and point and gesture wildly in any girls’ direction. From the younger boys you hear the cries of “bella,” “bellisimo,” “amore.” From the older men there are the frequent whispers of adoration and nods and gestures to their friends. Italian women are pillars of maturity: hard, distant and unapproachable. They live in their own shell, closed in from too many sexual advances. The Italian men refuse to grow up, living at home sometimes well past college, yelling and jeering on the street corners at any girls that crosses their path. The men and women appear to be raised on different planets and yet share the same streets, classrooms, jobs and even city.

glam·our or glam·or n
1. an irresistible alluring quality that somebody or something possesses by virtue of seeming much more exciting, romantic, or fashionable than ordinary people or things
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Rome is not all glamour. The streets are dirty and grimy, although every 12 hours the street cleaners appear and sweep the streets with their witches’ brooms. Minutes after the streets are freshly cleaned the trash begins to pile again, the cigarette butts litter the ground and the trashcans start to overflow. At night the streets fill with the younger Italian crowd, who jeer, sneer and yell at the Americans. They stand outside my big, green door and break bottles, chant communist sayings and from time to time riot in the Campo. Graffiti covers the walls of many buildings, a mixture of American and Italian sayings and swearwords. Italians have such a love for their city and culture and yet they disrespect the city they live in. At the AS Roma games the stadium reverberates with Roma cheers, Roma pride bubbles over the edges of the colosseum. But, when you leave you see the youth tagging buildings and the crowds dropping their trash on the ground.

filth n
1. dirt or refuse that is disgusting or excessive
2. something considered extremely morally objectionable or obscene, for example, coarse language or explicit descriptions or depictions of sexual activity
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

But, the greatest contradiction of all is that while this city is grimy, the younger crowds can be menacing and troublesome, people can be rude and pushy there is never a moment that I do not feel safe and in love with this town. There has not been one moment in my trip that I have not rejoiced at the inconsistencies of this place. That I have not simply laughed at my grocery store being closed at five for no reason or smiled and waited patiently in line at the Post Office for an hour and a half. Rome teaches you to slow down, to learn to smile at contradictions, laugh at closed doors, revise schedules and never once complain. Rome wants you to fall in love with this lifestyle, to embrace the three-hour dinners and long walks through the crowded streets. Rome asks that you choose to slow down and appreciate life and learn to live it to the fullest.

love n
1. an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion
2. a passionate feeling of romantic desire and sexual attraction
3. somebody who is loved romantically
4. a romantic affair, possibly sexual
5. strong liking for or pleasure gained from something
6. something that elicits deep interest and enthusiasm in somebody
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Eavesdropping Assignment

The music switches from a Jay-Z song to 50 Cent’s Candy Shop. Three girls walk in singing and laughing, wiggling to the music and shooting stares in my direction as I sit solo at a table writing in my journal sipping on a glass of wine. There is a skinny, plain-faced redhead who sits at the right corner of the table. Her larger, more aggressive-looking, flat-faced friend in the bright red coat is wedged between the redhead and a young Italian woman wearing a black hat with a pompom.

They play with their menus, giggling as they stare at the bartender and then switch to discussing drinks.

“Any draft beer is like 5 euro.” coos the young Italian in her raspy, singsong voice, “but, I’ll ask, maybe he’ll charge less.” She nods her head in the direction of the bartender.

“I’ll take you to the candy shop…” blurs their conversation as they order drinks.

“I like it outside more, better atmosphere, a little quieter, but the view is better inside.” The flat-faced Italian shrugs in the directions of the bartender. Her voice rises and falls in a rhythmic pattern: slow and methodical.

Her friends pause both looking simultaneously confused, “They don’t got a bartender outside…” Giggles fill the air as they all simultaneously smirk towards the bar.

“You can dance inside.” The redhead nods toward the dance platform above her table. “Although you know me, I don’t think you could ever get me up there. Maybe after a few drinks, but I’d really have to be pissed.” Giggles fill the air and the Italians begin to dance in their chairs, the redhead stares at her beer glass.

The Italian in the red jacket begins to rhythmically pack her cigarettes against the table. She checks the mirror behind her, fixing her hair and jacket, all the while smiling at the reflection of the bartender in the mirror. “I’ll be back. Do you think he’d want a cigarette? I should ask…” Talk is masked with a volley of high-pitched giggles and motioning in the bartenders direction.

The redhead and young Italian sit quietly, moving to the music. “I really wanted this pair of boots I saw by San Pietro today. I know I can’t spend any more money, but the were perfect, black and only 40 euro. That’s so cheap in Italy. I should have got them you know.” The redhead chimes in, “But, you want to have money for Torino. I can’t wait to be a little more touristy over there, I am going to ham it up. Can you believe we get to go up there? My mom is so excited.”

“Your mom?”
“Well she really wanted to go to the games, I dunno...” Conversation fades into the music.

The flat-faced Italian walks back in. “I think he’s Cuban. Like I know he’s Hispanic; you don’t look like that otherwise.” She smiles, flipping her hair as she sits down, trying to catch his eye.

“I could do with a Cuban, he’s a cute little one too.”

“Is he Cuban, I mean, well, I’ve never met one…” The young Italian trails off.

“I don’t think he that cute, he can make drinks, I see him at Abbey, he must work there too and he always really nice.”

A second round of beers shows up, the young Italian pays, which starts a lot of muttering and protests from her two friends.

“I owe you two, it’s only 3 euro.”

“But, really I can pay, don’t worry, you don’t have to pay for me.”

The young Italian wrings her hands at the two in the customary Italian prayer gesture. The protests fade out.

“Grazie”

“Va bene.”

“Thanks”

The waiter walks away and the young Italian pulls out her cigarette pack and begins to bang it against the table. The music turns up and the conversation is drowned out.

Pompei

Pompei was amazing. I have some pictures of my adventures there. This is Nicole and I strolling along one of the perfectly preserved streets.



We went into a house and here I am coming out of the very short doorway. This makes me think that people in Pompei were not very tall.



Here I am standing by some ancient painting on the wall of the Pompei baths. The baths also housed some very well preserved dead bodies that were put in little plastic cases. The people were completely solid and covered in ash.



Here I am ordering from Ms. Nicole the bartender. Nicole also acted as our Pompei tourguide, she had the book and all. Good thing she can double as a tourguide and a bartender, that way we can drink and not get lost.



Ciao,
Ema

Windows on History: Caravaggio

Caravaggio was an artist who drew his inspiration from the world around him. In his earlier works Caravaggio grappled with the challenge of how to put reality onto canvas. In his earlier works he is inexperienced, his art is playful and not yet completely refined. Caravaggio was always a unique character, but in his early career he was still living in Rome, not yet a murderer and this innocence can be seen in his work. As Caravaggio matures as an artist his life become more hectic, his choices less reasoned. With the chaos surrounding his life his religious side becomes more profound and all encompassing. His later works are incredible, gripping depictions of saints, without his own spirituality the images would not be so profound and riveting.

Caravaggio used light and contrast to his advantage, he chose earth tones, and painted reality onto canvas. Bacchino Malato is one of his early works that struck me most. The grapes looked real enough to pick off the canvas and eat, but were not idealized grapes, the imperfections were present. Young Bacchus is a model, the viewer is aware that Bacchus is not an invention from the mind of Caravaggio, but a live specimen. In Caravaggio’s earlier works the use of models is much more apparent. The viewer can see when the model has moved, or the position has changed because Caravaggio does not correct it completely. If the arm moves slightly then the arm in the painting becomes larger. Where Caravaggio had mastered the art of rendering reality of still objects onto canvas, humans still presented a challenge for him.

In his youth Caravaggio was a purest. He chose not to taint his paintings with his imagination. While it may have been a lack of confidence that caused him to use only models it seems more likely that his desire for reality to be shown on canvas was the true culprit. In his depiction of Bacchus he has chosen not to show the swaggering, healthy, vibrant drunkard, but instead a sickly younger boy, malnourished, yet still smirking mischievously at the grapes in his hand. This is meant to be a depiction of Caravaggio himself, it is said that his face is the face of Bacchus. By painting himself a sickly form of a impish pagan God he shows himself not only as a sickly soul, but also reveals to the viewer his more roguish character. Caravaggio was known for his fowl temper and unique unfriendly character. His Bacchus depiction could have been a warning to his ways, a sign that he might be a difficult young man to work with.

Using Bacchus as his subject one can also see a playful side to Caravaggio. He seems to be pushing boundaries and enjoying himself. He is not a commissioned artist at this time so he is able to create what moves him. This impish, playful nature can also be seen in his other works during this time, particularly the image of the nude, young Saint John. Caravaggio reveals his mischievous nature through his earlier works.

In his later works there is a shift from adolescent errors to a new and amazing understanding of the materials and models he was working with. All of the sudden the bodies of the characters are real. The viewer waits with baited breath to see the chest of St. Peter move up and down as he breaths or to hear his heart race as they pull him onto the cross. Where Caravaggio’s early works were stunted and static his later pieces have a life of their own. They capture the viewer because the moment Caravaggio has chosen to depict leaves the viewer questioning what led up to the moment and what will happen the second after.

The Napoli Museo Capodimonte houses Caravaggio’s Flagellation of Christ. In this painting the viewer can tell how Caravaggio has matured as an artist. He takes artistic liberties and is no longer afraid to correct body parts if the model moves. He is more aware of the human body and therefore does not draw strictly from what he views, but from his knowledge of the human body. The face of the standing torturer is more gruesome and less realistic because Caravaggio chooses to paint him so that his true evil nature shines through. The use of natural light illuminates Christ and shadows and hides the torturers. Caravaggio also has mastered the art of depicting completely three-dimensional images. The crouching torturer’s head is lit from the behind and obviously directly in front of, although not touching, Christ’s leg. As Caravaggio matured as an artist he began to take artistic liberties as well as became more aware of the human body and his own ability to depict it without being confined to his model. The realism of his depictions and his ability to choose the perfect captivating moment draws in and engages the viewer.

In Caravaggio’s later works he has run away from Rome over an indiscretion at a tennis match. He is constantly on the run and yet it is said that he became more devoted to the church and religion during this period than any other time in his life. Living piously and devoting himself to God. These later works show a shift from impish youth, depicting the Virgin Mary with an indecent amount of cleavage, to a refined older man who serves the church by creating works that violently, passionately grip and move the viewer. The change in Caravaggio’s work marks his move to adulthood. He is no longer a little boy who can be playful. His works show a devotion to God.

There is also a bit of a manic side to Caravaggio. What he sees in his head is conveyed to canvas and the images within his head are dark and gruesome. He sees the world with eyes that are clouded with disgust. His depictions are of what he sees in the world and the world to Caravaggio is a dark and vile place. He stormed around swathed in a black cloak, his face probably never lined with a smile. As Caravaggio grew up any pretense of playfulness and impish pleasure was washed away and replaced with a dark view on the world.



Caravaggio’s depictions, while often gruesome, are more engaging to me than viewing the lighter, more hopeful depictions of Catholocism and the afterlife. Caravaggio pulled on the heartstrings of his viewers and caused them to question their experience with religion and what God truly meant to them. Today, viewing Caravaggio’s works invokes the same questions and emotions. In the S. Maria del Popolo, two of Caravaggio’s commissioned works flank a brighter depiction of the heavens and of what awaits those who are good Christians. Caravaggio’s works actually force the viewer to contemplate their life on earth and what their actions truly mean. By bringing religion into the realm of reality and choosing to depict religious imagery in a tangible context, Caravaggio changes one’s relation with life, death, and the afterlife. Religion is not purely for the goal of the afterlife, but also becomes about one’s life on earth and how they choose to live.

Melancholy of the Antique World

Flaubert wrote, “The melancholy of the antique world seems to me more profound than that of the moderns, all of whom more or less imply that beyond the dark void lies immortality. But for the ancients that ‘black hole’ is infinity itself; their dreams loom and vanish against a background of immutable ebony. No crying out, no convulsions—nothing but the fixity of the pensive gaze…

When walking through the Forum there is a sorrow for the past, for what we have lost, and a comtemplation of where we are now and what it all means. The idea that there is no permanence, that what we have today, our religion, government, house, car, and even family is only fleeting, rests upon the heart of those who witness ancient ruins. The ancient ruins of Rome stand as a permanent reminder of the past, but also a reminder that there is no permanence. The ancient ways of the past have been replaced with modern adaptations.



The haunting echo of bustling crowds, laughing children, cries of vendors hawking their wares, dogs barking, water splashing from fountains fills the air in the Forum. The inexplicable desire to witness the Forum at the height of its glory, to see the Forum in action sparks my imagination. I want to envision the Forum, breath in the scent of the Forum, see buildings and not ruins. Only through my imagination does the Forum suddenly have life and vibrancy again.

The ancient Romans strived to be remembered and revered for their actions. The buildings, statues and monuments were all erected in order to invoke their memory. The Forum is a reminder of the dreams and desires of the past. Today we walk through and discuss the building and their meaning, we talk about the arches and triumphal processions, we discuss who lived in what building, or talk about the importance of an ancient statue. The immortality of the past lies in the interest of the future, without our constant questioning of the past it will float slowly away into nothing.



Walking through the deserted streets of Pompei the same strange emptiness washed over me. I began to question, “What if this was never unearthed?” “What if we never dug down, or choose to open this site to the public?” I was filled with “What ifs?” In an instant all of Pompei was covered, the possibility of their future ended, and all was covered in black. As I slowly strolled through Pompei all that I could think about was the fact that people used to live and laugh and grow old in this city. There used to be life and vibrancy. The houses used to be filled with people, the streets full of vendors, the bars filled with people drinking and eating. Now there are simply miles of tourists, laughing and snapping photos.

Pompei invoked more questions for me than the Forum did. The idea that I was walking into the house of a family moved me more than witnessing an arch and discussing the implications behind it. The Roman Forum slowly lost its purpose and fell into disrepair, while the city of Pompei was covered in ash. Pompei could have continued on for centuries, Pompei could even be a functioning city today. What is difficult about viewing the past is that it causes one to question their current existence and the implications of their actions today. The idea that you and your life could be erased, or that what you know so well may someday fall into disrepair and be neglected for centuries is a terrifying thought. This is the melancholy of antiquity. The past causes us to question our life, the future and what will be remembered about ourselves. The antique world lives because our interest in it and we are pushed to live life to the fullest after we witness the past.

My new haircut

Today I got a haircut with Lisa from this crazy Italian hairdresser. He would stand back from the chair and then procede to attack my hair with scissors. He would pause and stop and move around and sometimes just lovingly brush my hair for awhile. It was fantastic. I have never been pampered so much, or so terrified at the same time. Finally, once he finished, one of the assistants began to fluff and blowdry and curl and hairspray my hair. She straightened parts and curled others and now I have pictures for you to see of me and my new hairdo!!!!



This is the back with the curly waves they made, quite amazing to watch them do!!!



These are the new bangish things that I now have and love.



I am standing by a graffiti that says "erotik." Lisa and I thought that was funny.

Ciao

Art History Paper

Renaissance Love of Ancient Art

“The Renaissance…which was only one of many results of a general excitement and enlightening of the human mind…the care for physical beauty, the worship of the body, the breaking down of those limits which the religious system of the middle age imposed on the heart and the imagination…”
~Walter Pater, The Renaissance

The period of the Renaissance was a rebirth of classical culture and a return to artistic ideals of ancient Greece and Rome. The Renaissance emerged out of the ashes of the Middle Ages where art and architecture was commissioned strictly for the glorification of God. Art in the Renaissance period was intended to invoke memories of ancient art and sculptures. Artists during this period focused on the technique of ancient sculptures and art and mimicked the ancient figures in their own paintings. Giorgio Vasari, in his book Lives of the Artists, explains that the “arts of antiquity provided a model of excellence which had been debased by what he referred to as the ‘barbarian’ style of the Middle Ages” (Paolett 26). Vasari thought perfection in art occurred when one could reproduce forms in a natural manner, similar to the art of ancient Greece and Rome. The return to natural depictions of humans and landscapes was at the heart of the Renaissance.
Before the Renaissance classical art was neither appreciated nor revered. Much of the ancient art we see today littered Rome, but instead of being glorified the art was considered simply ruins. The idea that some of the pieces, such as the Apollo Belvedere, Belvedere Torso and possibly the Laocoön, were above ground before they were taken by the papacy and displayed is remarkable (Barkan 1-2). What about the 16th century ignited this desire to glorify ancient art? During the Renaissance the display of ancient artwork by the papacy was a symbol of the Church’s rise over paganism as well as a symbol of the imperial nature of the papacy. The idea of using art as a tool of propaganda occurred during the Baroque period as well when the Popes incorporated ancient obelisks into their fountains and statues as a symbol of the Church overthrowing pagan values.
The Renaissance flourished in Rome because of the papacy. Popes during the Renaissance were among Italy’s largest patrons of the arts and hoarded all of the rediscovered art as well as commissioned some of the finest artists of that period. 1420, papacy of Pope Martin V, marked the beginning of Rome as a Renaissance city and of absolute papal rule. Pope Martin V was not a patron of the arts, but laid the government structure, authoritarian papal rule, that made Rome the capital of the Renaissance. After Pope Martin V came Pope Nicholas V (1447-1455) then Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) both known for their renovation of the city of Rome. Under their papal rule the medieval streets of Rome were widened and crumbling buildings restored in the Renaissance style. During the renovation, many ancient monuments were torn apart and reused as building materials (“Rome" Encyclopædia Britannica). The destruction of ancient monuments can clearly be seen when viewing the remains of the Roman Forum. At the same time that many sites were being destroyed the upheaval of the land meant that many ancient statues were unearthed. Under the papal rule Pope Julius II, a patron of the arts, many of the unearthed statues were given a home in the Vatican.
Pope Julius II was a patron of the arts before he became Pope, but as Pope he was able to use art as part of his reform platform, opposing the self-indulgent lifestyle of the previous Pope, Alexander IV. Julius II chose his papal name, Julius, to invoke memories of Julius Caesar and the Roman imperial model of rule. His first action was to focus on transforming the Vatican (Paolett). One of his first renovations was to bring together the medieval living quarters with the summerhouse, the area that merged the two is called the Cortile del Belvedere. The Cortile del Belvedere acted as a formal garden, a place to show art, as well as a space for theatrical displays. Today the Cortile del Belvedere consists of two courtyards, the Cortile dello Pigna and the Cortile delle Statue. .The Cortile delle Statue, a small octagonal courtyard, has been remodeled by Simonetti, but still fulfills its original purpose which was to display Pope Julius II’s collection of Roman and Hellenistic statues (Hersey, 97-101). Among the collection of statues are the Laocoön, Apollo Belvedere, and the Belvedere Torso. In addition to housing these statues, the Cortile delle Statue acts as an entrance to the Villa Belvedere Bramante. During his papacy, Pope Julius II, tore down the Old St. Peter’s Church and created the new St. Peter’s as well as commissioned Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel. Renaissance art flourished because of art patrons like Pope Julius II (Paolett).
During the Renaissance there was a return to the study of ancient art. The Renaissance was a response to the Medieval period of art where bodies could not be seen and the imagination was stifled. When Pope Julius II began to collect ancient art it signaled that antiquity could not only be studied, but also copied. Some of the most skilled Renaissance artists studied pieces like the Laocoön, Apollo Belvedere, and the Belvedere Torso and depictions of these sculptures appear in Renaissance art.
The Apollo Belvedere was glorified because of his incredible angelic beauty and softness. Artists, such as Michelangelo and Bernini (later on), modeled some of their sculptures and paintings after Apollo. The Apollo Belvedere is a second century AD Roman copy of a fourth century BC bronze sculpture done by the Greek sculptor Leochares. The sculpture is thought to have been found near the San Pietro in Vincoli and when Guiliano della Rovere was cardinal of that church, the Apollo Belvedere was housed in the gardens there (Brown, 236). The statue was moved to the Cortile delle Belvedere, in 1511 AD, by Pope Julius II. The Apollo Belvedere is a sculpture of the young God Apollo, nude with a chlamys hanging about his neck. His leg is resting against the trunk of a tree, which would not have been there in the original bronze, and he has a quiver of arrows on his back. In his hand is what appears to be the remains of the bow he was probably holding when he was first sculpted. His body is not muscular, there is only minimal muscle definition attributed to the time period he was replicated from (Havelock). Apollo’s face is beautiful, unlined and serene, framed by a mass of perfectly arranged curls.
The Apollo sculpture is one of the most revered antique sculptures because of the sheer beauty of the piece. Schiller describes the piece as indescribable by any mere mortal because of its “celestial mixture of accessibility and severity, benevolence and gravity, majesty and mildness” (Hersey 103). J.J. Winckelmann has a similar comment about the Apollo Belvedere “Here is the consummation of the best that nature, art and the human mind can produce” (Havelock). When this statue was moved to the Vatican it was viewed and replicated by many artists of the time. The Apollo in Raphael’s Stanza della Segnatura is modeled after the Apollo Belvedere. In Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne, Apollo is modeled after the Apollo Belvedere. The beauty of the Apollo Belvedere drew many artists to him, but the anguish of the Hellenistic period, the Laocoön era, had a great effect on many artists of the time.



The Laocoön was one of Pope Julius II’s last additions to the Cortile delle Statue, first of July 1506, but became of the most popular pieces to live there. The statue was unearthed 14 January, 1506 above the ruins of the Golden House of Nero in Rome and may have been a piece in Nero’s collection after it was brought to Rome. When the Laocoön was unearthed in 1506 artists of that time, including Michelangelo, came to watch it being unearthed The Laocoön is a Greek sculpture from the Hellenistic period that depicts the priest Laocoön and his twin sons, Antiphantes and Thembraeus, being strangled by sea serpents. Pliney the Elder attributes the Laocoön to three sculptors from Rhodes: Agesander, Athenedoros and Polydorus. The sculpture is the original piece, not a Roman copy, and dates somewhere between 42 and 20 BC, the Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic period is known for its vivid depictions of pain and suffering (Harkan 2).
The story of the tragic death of Laocoön has been debated. There are two stories to explain the death of Laocoön: either the Laocoön angered the God Apollo by breaking his oath of celibacy and while preparing to sacrifice a bull on the altar of the God Poseidon (another God he had offended), he and his sons were strangled by the sea serpents, Porces and Chariboae, sent by Apollo. The other story is that Laocoön offended Poseidon by warning the Greeks of the strategy of the Trojan horse and Poseidon punished him for speaking. The Hellenistic piece received much attention because of the expert marble work and the horrific emotions portrayed by the statue. In Virgil’s story the Aeneid he describes the death of Laocoön and his sons:

“and first each serpent enfolds in its embrace the youthful bodies of Laocoön’s twin sons and with its fangs feeds upon the hapless limbs. Then [Laocoön] himself, as he comes to their aid, weapons in hand, they seize and bind in mighty folds; and now, twice encircling his waist, twice winding their scaly backs around his throat, they tower above with head and lofty necks. He meanwhile strains his hands to burst the knots, his fillets steeped in gore and black venom as he lifts to heaven hideous cries (Hersey, 105).”

When viewing this piece, the agony described by Virgil is etched in every line of the work.
The Laocoön piece sparked much discussion because the right arms of Laocoön and one of his sons’ were missing. Pope Julius II wanted a new arm to be made in order to complete the statue. He attempted to convince Michelangelo to create the arm, but Michelangelo refused. The first known restoration of the statue was done by Giovanni Angelo Montorsoli, who chose to model the arm in a triumphal position reaching up towards the heavens (Hersey, 105-107). In 1957, the arm was found in a field and reattached (Vatican Tour Guide). The original arm was not in the position Montorsoli thought, but actually similar to that of Michelangelo’s musings: the arm positioned with the hand resting behind the head as a sign of death. During the Renaissance the idea of repairing ancient sculptures was common and the decision to “fix” or “finish” a piece occurred frequently.
The body of the Laocoön’s can be seen in the artwork of important Renaissance painters like Michelangelo and Titian. Michelangelo mimics many of the characteristics of this piece in his paintings and sculptures. He used the Laocoön in his works: Saint Matthew, the Sistine ignudi and in later works of the crucified Christ. Titian is another artist who depicts the Laocoön in his works: Crowning with Thorns, Christ is depicted as Laocoön (Hersey). The sculpture of the Laocoön sculpture appealed because of the raw emotion and horror depicted through the marble. The pain and anguish could be used in depictions of Christ and martyrdom in order to appeal more to the pathos of the viewer.
The Belvedere Torso is another piece housed in the Cortile del Statues that received a plethora of attention during the Renaissance because of the muscular sculpting of the body and the fact that the only remains of the statue is the torso. The Belvedere Torso was found in the Campo dei Fiori in the workshop of a cobbler, who is said to have been using the torso as part of his workbench. When the torso was found, it was immediately taken by Pope Julius II to the Vatican. “The Torso Belvedere, sublime in its fragmentariness, has stood as the (literal) embodiment of an art based on inward struggle” (Barkan 2). Because this piece was incomplete, it sparked the desire in some to figure out who the torso belonged to. On the Belvedere Torso’s left leg there is a fur with two paws showing. Hercules is always depicted with fur and therefore there is a general consensus that the torso belongs to Hercules. Because the fur appears to be leopard some have speculated that it might be the god Dionysus, but Dionysus was never depicted as a muscular God and therefore the theory of Hercules seems to ring true. The Belvedere Torso was appreciated because of the unanswerable questions about its past as well as a beautiful depiction of a muscular male torso.
One of the aspects of the Renaissance that is very interesting is their desire to piece together antiquities by restoring, copying and studying ancient art. Not only was art restored and copied, but verses and books were written about the pieces, discussions held, all to understand more about these works. Today I do not think that we would choose to add an arm to a work where it was missing or reattach a nose unless the original piece was present or there was a drawing of the original. By choosing to complete a piece the artist is giving new meaning to the sculpture. The idea that this was not only allowed, but encouraged by the papacy, may give one the impression that the Church wanted to push their own agenda on a sculpture. Not only could they turn an ancient piece into a symbol of the Church, the papacy could also add to the sculpture and make it their own.
During the Renaissance the appreciation and study of classical art was revived. The papacy collected and showed the classical art, their control over antiquity meant that art that was once hedonistic could be appreciated. Without the Church classical art could not have been viewed or replicated, but by using ancient art as a symbol of the power of the Church over paganism and the non-Christian past, antiquities were given a new propagandistic power.

Bibliography

Barkan, Leonard., “Unearthing the Past: Archeology and Aesthetics in the Making of Renaissance Culture”. New Haven, 1999.

Brown, Deborah. “The Apollo Belvedere and the Garden of Giuliano della Rovere at SS. Apostoli.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 49 (1986): 235- 238.

Havelock, Christine M. “Hellenistic Art: The Art of the Classical World from the Death
of Alexander the Great to the Battle of Actium.” W.W. Norton & Company. New York, 1981.

Hersey, George. “High Renaissance Art in St. Peter’s and the Vatican.” The University of
Chicago Press. Chicago, 1993.

Paolett, John T. and Radke, Gary M., “Art in Renaissance Italy.” Laurence King
Publishing. London, 1997.

"Rome." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 29 Jan. 2006
.

Tansey, Richard G., “Art through the Ages, 6th Edition.” Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
Inc. San Francisco, 1975.

Another look at "Moses" and the "Risen Christ"

This is another look at the two pieces by Michelangelo: "Moses" and the "Risen Christ"

Distortion…two pieces equally beautiful and yet at the same time distorted on different counts. The story of Moses: changed? edited? a metaphor? Christ misshapen, ungraceful and yet perfect from the left?

The “Risen Christ”- nude, chunky, bulging, imperfect and yet beautiful, graceful when viewed from the left. Questions raised, statue pushed aside as a failure, a disaster and then someone looked again and saw beauty, saw a new angle that revived the perfection of the piece. Move to the left, do not look into the face of Christ and Christ evolves, the further left the more Christ slims, becomes graceful, until…perfection. His leg wraps about the cross, the symbols of the Passion grasped in his hand, the smooth peace of his face glowing.

Questions…each piece leaves the viewer with questions, a feeling as though something has not been answered, as though one is left to search through their own mind to piece together the mystery.

Freud questions Michelangelo’s intent with “Moses.” Did Michelangelo rewrite the story with Moses saving the Tablets? Does the placement of the fingers in the beard denote Moses pausing from his rage, choosing to stop and not throw the Tablets to the ground? Is the metaphor Michelangelo and Pope Julius II’s tormented relationship? Is there more to the statue that appears at first glance? Can you really read into a statue?

Answers…Moses angry, Christ serene and yet the questions still flow, the hypotheses flower, the conclusions are drawn. But, who knows, can you really solve the puzzle of the statues? Can anyone assume that the position of the finger, or the angle of the viewer is part of the intent of the artist? Without these questions art would become obsolete, without the desire to understand and conclude from artwork one would simply have a carved piece of marble-lifeless. The questioning brings life to the statues.

Both statues lead to questions. They make you think. It is a question of intent, of motive. Christ is not an imperfect statue. Michelangelo sculpted for a different vantage point. He did not rewrite the story of Moses. Moses clutches his beard, not to steady himself, but to contain his rage. His foot poised for movement, he is not calming, but rising to action. Maybe Moses is Michelangelo’s statement that he wants to rise up and break the Tablets as well. Michelangelo’s sly way of telling off Pope Julius. These are my answers. This is what I saw. Because I questioned, because I paused to ask, the statues came to life. I was able to question the intent of the artist and come to a conclusion of my own.

The power of art comes from the study of art. An artist’s intent reveals volumes about the artist, the time period, the commissioner. Behind every beautiful painting and sculpture is a story waiting to be revealed.

Venezia

Here are some pictures of me in Venice. Mostly me standing on bridges and then the goodbye shot where I lovingly stare at another train.







Venice is incredible. I think when you here that a city is built around water you envision something like a moat. Atleast the was the conclusion Mandie and I came to. When you come to Venice however you realize that there are actually canals running through the city and that everywhere you turn you will find water. I spent about two days after the trip feeling like I was still rocking on a boat. I am glad that has finally passed.

Ciao

Two Michelangelo Sculptures

Compare and Contrast the more subtle “Risen Christ” by Michelangelo in Santa Maria Sopra Minerva to his “Moses” in San Pietro in Voncoli.

Michelangelo was a master of marble, and while each of his statues are distinctly his own, the way in which he changes the sculpture in order to reflect the desires of the commissioner as well as his own agenda is remarkable. The “Risen Christ” depicts a nude Christ, entwined with a cross, holding the elements of the Passion. Michelangelo’s “Moses” is a harsh piece that depicts an enraged Moses seated precariously on a chair. While these two pieces are both religious statues the depiction of the two religious characters is very different. Christ is long, lean and elegant while Moses is hostile, large and muscular. Both of these pieces have been given much attention, not only for their beauty, but also because there are many interpretations of Michelangelo’s intent in the two pieces.

Michelangelo’s “Risen Christ” in Santa Maria Sopra Minerva has received much attention since the day it was erected, first because Christ is nude and second because when staring into the eyes of Christ the statue is stocky and ungraceful. Christ stands nude with his left foot wrapping around the cross he clutches in his hands. He is holding the symbols of the passion: a bamboo pole, sponge and coil of rope. His left foot appears to be lifting off the ground; the heel of his foot has already left, as though he is springing up to the sky. When viewed from the left the statue is slim, the marks of crucifixion can be seen on his hands and feet, and the sweet serenity of his face is more prevelant. The sculpture of Christ is beautiful and depicts Christ as he is ascends from this earthly plane.

When first looking at the “Risen Christ” one approaches looking into the face of Christ. From this angle Christ is disproportionate, dwarfing his cross, and the only beauty is depicted in his face. Only when one walks to the left side does Christ suddenly become graceful, the cross melds with his body and the beauty of the statue is truly apparent. Wallace argues that when the “Risen Christ” was first commissioned he was meant to rest in a niche in the chapel, this would have meant that one could not walk around the whole statue and the best viewing would have been from the left side. Wallace also argues that to view Christ by staring directly in his eyes would have never been expected and that the viewer was never meant to directly look into the eyes of Christ. The argument Wallace makes is trying to disprove the assertions by other scholars that the “Risen Christ” is one of Michelangelo’s worst works because of the disproportion of the piece. Wallace states that not only did the commissioners ask for a nude Christ, they also loved the piece when it arrived. The interpretation by Wallace seems valid because the moment one moves to the left of Christ, Christ is the embodiment of perfection and innocence.

Michelangelo’s “Moses” in San Pietro in Vincoli is a statue of a brooding, angry Moses who is either in the act of calming himself or rising to action. The body of this piece is muscular and well defined, the veins in the hands bulge and there is tenseness is every muscle. His hands are clenched, one around his beard and the other clutching at his stomach. His robes are disheveled, one half pulled above his knee, as though he has been fidgeting with the cloth. There is a sense of movement in this piece. Moses’ left foot is pushing off the ground while the other remains flat against the floor. His gaze is off to the left and his face is stern. When one views this piece there is an immediate sense that Moses is displeased, not simply angry, but enraged.

The details in Michelangelo’s “Moses” are stunning. The muscles in the arms and the protruding veins in his hands all give a sense of strain. The flowing beard is tangled in his grip as though he is holding it simply to keep himself at bay. The Tablets rest next to his right arm and at the same time there is a sense he is clutching them close to himself. When Freud describes this piece he concludes that Michelangelo has changed the story of Moses and that this work is actually of Moses after his fit of rage choosing not to break the Tablets. Freud’s conclusion could be plausible, but there is a sense of movement and action in this piece that does not appear to denote a calming, but more the possibility of action.
The statue of the “Risen Christ” and of “Moses” are immediately recognized as Michelangelo’s pieces although the works are sculpted differently. The “Risen Christ” is a softer, more subtle piece of work. Christ is slim and graceful, his limbs are elegant and while his muscles are defined there is no sense of tenseness or anger. Moses is larger and stockier, his arms and legs tense and the veins protrude from his hands. Michelangelo has depicted Moses in a rage, every part of his body tense, his face glaring off into the distance. The interpretation of these two pieces is also different. Wallace argues that the “Risen Christ” is not one of Michelangelo’s worst works, but that is has been viewed for centuries incorrectly. Freud argues that “Moses” is actually Michelangelo changing the story of Moses, as well as a piece about his relationship with Julius II. The interpretation of the “Risen Christ” is much subtler than the assertion by Freud that Michelangelo has reinterpreted the story of Moses. These two statues differ greatly not only because of their form, but also because of the interpretation of these two pieces.