Assisi

When we visited Assisi we had, quite possibly, the most fantastic guide in the entire world.  The tour was intriguing, enlightening and very entertaining.  The thing that stuck in my mind most was the transition and incredible development between the frescos of middle church and upper church within the Basilica Papale di San Francesco Assisi.  As our tour guide described it the unknown artist who painted the walls of the middle church was “like a baby crawling from the Byzantine.”  Although the images were hinting towards three dimensions and perspective, they were still slightly iconic lacking detail, human likeness and movement.  One fresco he liked to describe as “Saint Francis and the Chickens;” it was actually this unknown artist’s depiction of Saint Francis’ sermon to the birds.

It stands in stark contrast to the upper church fresco of the same scene.

This fresco is thought to have been painted by Giotto and, unlike its downstairs counterpart incorporates detail, three dimensional elements like shading and perspective, human likeness and movement.  The birds are flying, the trees have leaves, the clothing has movement and hangs as if being worn, and it is realistic.

As our fantastic guide pointed out, this growth and dramatic change occurred over a period of just 35 years.  This is what the Renaissance was about:  A great leap towards humanism including the desire to expand and appreciate the human capacity for knowledge, wisdom, learning, creativity and art, in addition to the pre-existing dedication to the church and papacy.  These two frescos are an appropriate portrayal of the major shift that occurred during the Renaissance.

Assisi made me think:  How does a group of people grow and further themselves that quickly?  Are we living in the new Renaissance?  Do we have historical self-consciousness?  Or are we headed to a 21^st century dark age?

On a separate note, I think that the symbolic shift of the three levels of the Basilica was ingenious.  The lowest level – dark and bleak, containing the grave of Saint Francis, representing death.  The middle level – lighter yet still muted and darker toned with higher ceilings, representing the human life.  The upper level – brightest, vibrant and light colors with lofty ceilings, representing the eternal heavenly life.  It was nifty.

Looking into the Face of Michelangelo’s David

In class we participated in an exercise where we first looked at the body of David and, as a class, explained what we saw.  It was pretty synonymous: we saw a considerably well built man standing in a relatively masculine, comfortable and natural human stance.  Overall, the body language spoke of strength, firm control and power.  However, when we looked at the face of David we were given about 30 seconds to silently determine for ourselves what we saw.  These are the words that I wrote down: disgusted, pensive, possibly offended, and sad.  When each member of the class shared what they had written down we were all surprised to hear that we had differing opinions.  Some people thought that the ferocity of his physical stance was also present in his face; others thought he looked like he smelled something rancid.

I can see where some of my classmates are coming from, but my interpretation of David differs.  I don’t see the young David that just conquered the giant Goliath, or the David that Florence chooses to be face of their powerful city.  No.  I see the David that has just heard God’s disappointed message from the mouth of the Prophet Nathan after David committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband discretely killed on the battle field.  I see a David who is disgusted with himself for what he has done.  A David that realizes he has not only let God down, but himself as well.  He has negatively affected the lives of the people around him – those who look to him as their leader, those who are dependent on him to be their good example – in a way that he can never undo.  This is the depiction of David that I see.  His body is fierce, upright and strong – outwardly he is still standing tall as the reliable strong leader, but his face gives way to his true feelings – painfully disappointed, disgusted and deep in thought.

Firenze

The last day we were in Florence we visited the Museo Galileo.  The two things that commanded my attention were the astronomical clock and the armillary sphere.  The armillary sphere was created by Antonio Santucci in Florence between March 4, 1588 and May 6, 1593 at the request of Ferdinand I de’ Medici (there’s a familiar name).

                                                          

The armillary sphere perplexed most of us.  Dr. Leininger and Matthew stood looking at it and theorizing the possible meanings of its many rings.  Well, instead of standing around theorizing the possible meaning, I decided to look up the real meaning later.  According to the museum’s virtual walkthrough “The sphere represents the "universal machine" of the world according to the concepts developed by Aristotle and perfected by Ptolemy.  The terrestrial globe is placed at the center.  Surprisingly, it even displays territories that were still relatively little known at the time.  [However, after being] Restored in the nineteenth century by Ferdinando Meucci, the device is now incomplete and some of its parts are mismatched.”  Also according to the museum website “[Santucci was a] Reader in Mathematics at the University of Pisa, 1599-1612, Antonio Santucci was an astronomer and cosmographer … An attentive observer of comets, most notably that of 1582, he published in 1611 the first edition of Tratto delle comete, in which he argued that – contrary to the prevailing scientific opinion – comets were not atmospheric phenomena.  … His monumental armillary spheres are famous”. 

According to Encyclopedia Britannica an armillary sphere “is a model of objects in the sky … consisting of a spherical framework of rings, centered on Earth, that represents lines of celestial longitude and latitude of other astronomically important features… As such, it differs from the celestial globe, which is a smooth sphere whose principal is to map the constellations.”

One ring (equinoctial A) is divided into 360 degrees and into 24 hours to show the sun’s ascension in time.

Another (Ecliptic B) is divided into the 12 signs and each of those signs into 30 degrees to show the exact position of the sun according to every day of the year.

There are series of rings that show the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, and the Arctic and Antarctic Circles perspectively.

One ring for Aries and Libra, another for Cancer and Capricorn each showing the location of the sun and stars.

And many more screws, knobs, wires, and rings that each represent something else.

“And so, by this construction, the machine is equally fitted to show either the real motion of the earth, or the apparent motion of the heaven.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/35363/armillary-sphere

On another note:  I’m really glad that we visited the museum.  Although our class focuses on the Theology, Philosophy and Arts of the Italian Renaissance, one of the key factors of the Renaissance was the Human Enlightenment and Humanism including the rise in scholarship.  Science, and the contributions that Galileo made, would definitely fall into this category.  I don’t think our trip to Florence would have been complete without the visit to the museum  (also, I’m a science nerd and was tickled to death to see all the instruments and inventions of early science).

Matthew and I also traveled to Basilica di Santa Croce where Michelangelo, Galileo and many other famous people are buried.  We had the pleasure of attending mass at the cathedral and it was an irreplaceable experience beyond value that I will never forget.

Bernini

Although Bernini wasn’t a part of the Renaissance, his work was a part of our experience in Rome.  The Bernini Sculptures could be found throughout Rome: Borghese, as fountains on the streets and in St. Peters.  I’m going to talk about my 3 favorite.

Upon entering the Borghese, one of the first rooms you enter and one of the very first marble sculptures you see is The Rape of Persephone.  Apart from losing your ability to breathe, you also can’t take your eyes off of the sculpture.  The petrifying fear, anguish, helplessness and impending undoing that you can clearly see upon her face are in direct contrast to the brutality, pride and conquering delight that you can see upon the face of Hades.  You can feel her terror.  You can – with absolute disgust – feel the fulfillment of his desire and excitement.  Each detail in its intricacy is perfect and completely astounding.

 

The canopy that is found above the altar in St. Peters is casted bronze in the form of flowing fabric.  Let me say that again:  A hard, dense metal is casted in a way that successfully imitates the flow of a light, gravity-dependant cloth.  It is amazing.  Just as in The Rape of Persephone each intricate detail was astounding.  In the same way that Hades’ fingers grasped the flesh of Persephone depicted ferocity and control, each leaf, bee and wrinkle that could be found on the pillars and canopy above the altar was delicate and graceful.

This piece was overwhelming because of its size.  In the picture you can see a doorway, that door is about 15 feet tall; that will help you gain the correct perception of the mass of this sculpture.  It can be found under one of the supporting pillars of St. Peter’s Cathedral.  It is a mixture of marble and bronze and is a Tribute to Alexander VII.  Below a cascading rush of marble “fabric” you can find Bernini’s bronze casted depiction of Death.  Death’s hand is extended holding out an hour glass as an eerie reminder that this life that we so expectantly live is going to end.

Bernini was a Hellenistic sculptor; his work was beyond the Renaissance.  But, the works he created – and all of the works of the Hellenistic period – would have not been possible in their beauty and sophistication without the success, growth and splendor of the Renaissance.

Lorenzo Ghiberti and the Baptistery Doors

I’ve always been a sucker for “the other guys” in life.  Let me explain: in class we spoke about the great competitions between Ghiberti and Brunelleschi for first the bronze reliefs for the doors of the Baptistery of San Giovanni in Florence and then for the dome of the Duomo in Florence.  In both scenarios the artists tied and were contracted to do the work together.  The first time Brunelleschi got angry and went off to Rome while Ghiberti was left on his lonesome to complete the Baptismal doors.  During the second competition Brunelleschi played sick during the stressful times at work and eventually Ghiberti was dismissed.  Our reading actually says “Luckily Ghiberti was dismissed” however, when I read that I was sad and thought: well shucks, the person we are supposed to be admiring was a dirty player and a sore loser.  So, our first night in Florence I visited the replica baptistery doors and was absolutely mesmerized by the sight of them.  Yes, the Duomo is more than amazing and Brunelleschi should be more than commended at his fantastic work and his fantastic idea of how to make the dome work, but he should have been a team player.

Ghiberti’s reliefs for the baptistery doors are beyond phenomenal.  The three-dimensional work, intricacy and beauty of each relief are astounding.  They are a true picture of Renaissance art.  Before the Renaissance, 3D art was not allowed to be associated with the church for the fear that it would be considered an idol.  The only art in churches were frescoes and icons.  At this time, when artists were commissioned for a 3D piece for the church by the church, the church and art were moving forward hand in hand.  This is a very Renaissance idea; the idea that we as humans can expand ourselves not only upward (celebrating and working towards our eternally lives) but also outward (celebrating humanity and our current lives on earth).  This great expression of skill is also celebrating the human capability and accepting the Neoplutonic  idea that the arts are a pure reflection of the forms, as opposed to being an imitation of an imitation of the forms (Plutonic view).  In my opinion, the baptistery doors are an expression of “ideal art” as we learned about in class.  The doors have fantastic balance, no one panel surpasses another and each panel is balanced with order and proportion.  The panels are precise and the perspective is correct and aesthetically pleasing; just as the School of Athens by Raphael in the Vatican has columns, arches and lines that are symmetrical and visually appealing, so are the Ghiberti doors.  Each panel tells a story and the meaning is clearly communicated.  The Ghiberti doors are a fantastic representation of Renaissance art, how the art grew with the artists, how the church and the people expanded their minds as well as their abilities.

Anamorphic Art & Plato

When we visited Rome, Professor Atkins really wanted the class to experience one of her favorite pieces.  In fact, this piece is the largest piece of anamorphic art created to this day/in its time.  Unfortunately, we weren’t able to see the piece as it is conveniently placed within a building that is currently unopened to the public.  This was a large disappointment as anamorphic art, in my opinion, was a large part of the Renaissance.  Anamorphic art is believed to have made its debut circa 1485 with Leonardo da Vinci’s Leonardo’s Eye, smack dab in the middle of our Renaissance.  It continued with Hans Holbein’s The Ambassadors painted in 1533. This famous painting of two men with an odd floating shape in front of them, from a down and rightward angle looking up is revealed to be a skull.

 

The influences of anamorphic art surfaced throughout our trip to Rome.  For example: the church of Sant’Ignazio.

Although it was created by Andrea Pozzo sometime in the early 1680′s (post-Renaissance) the ceiling is absolutely spectacular.  The ceiling is mostly flat however, the painting makes it seem like the ceiling is extending further and further into the heavens with these bodies arduously struggling to ascend.  This ceiling is a fantastic example of the types of ceiling frescoes that we saw throughout all of Rome.  Almost every ceiling was adorned with decorative frescoes and a good deal of them gave the allusion of shape where it did not exist.  This type of ceiling anamorphosis can also be found in the Sistine Chapel, on the ceilings of the Vatican Museum and the Borghese.

Anamorphoses have continued to influence art.  Current anamorphic artist Istvan Orosz, born in 1951 with examples of mirror anamorphoses:

And Julian Beever, a current anamorphic sidewalk chalk artist:

All of this anamorphic art reminded me of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” from The Republic.  In this theoretical situation people were placed in a cave for their entire lives and fettered so that the only things they could see were the shadows cast in front of them and nothing of the real world.  Because puppeteers behind them gave the shadows voices or sound effects, the people of the cave associated those sounds with the shadows and believed the shadows were reality.  Then, one of the cave people were dragged out of the cave into the real world and made to see and understand the true nature of things.  Just as a person stares at Holbein’s The Ambassadors perplexed as to what that mysterious shape could be, possibly assuming a belief about the shape – it’s a rug – only to find out, no it is an anamorphic image and when you look from the appropriate perspective you can see its true nature as a skull.  Talk about coming out of the cave!  And, just as the man who understands that the shadows of the cave are not the truest form, the man who knows that the shape is a skull can never see the rug again.  This made me think: Just as the cave people rejected their old friend after he had been enlightened (Ha, that’s punny.  Enlightened – he saw the sun… It’s funny, just laugh.), can it be the same with anamorphic art?  Can groups of artists disagree about the anamorphphosis, refusing to see the hidden image?

Roma

My favorite thing about Rome was probably the overall architecture.  It seemed like every building in the heart of Rome had its own distinct character, yet they all complimented each other creating a melodious whole.  One of the most fantastic of these architectural feats was St. Peter’s Basilica; I couldn’t help but marvel at the grandiosity.  The large marble columns, the Basilisk, St. Peter’s Cathedral, each piece came together to create the whole which was absolutely astonishing.  The other most fantastic thing in Rome were the ruins.  …The RUINS!!  From inside the Coliseum looking out you could see ruins, ruins of a great city, the houses of the wealthy and the places where the people once gathered.  These ruins were almost as beautiful as St. Peters.  We had the enormous pleasure of exploring these ruins; I got to see Nero’s house and other awesome ancient places.  From the top of the hill you could look out and see the Coliseum, to the right was another less destroyed group of ruins.  This view alone was worth the amount of Euro we spent to get in.

Although the Sistine Chapel was amazing and it took your breath away, the artwork was also congested; there wasn’t quite enough white space so the frescoes bled together and were difficult to appreciate on their own.  There were also hundreds of ignorant, rude, loud people in a small space and guards shushing at them constantly.  This wasn’t exactly the ideal space to admire some of the most famous art ever created.  And, though we saw spectacular art which I appreciated greatly, the greatest thing to me was the architecture.  It is amazing to think that these voluminous pieces of marble were quarried, transported, carved and formed into the structures we saw.  These vast monstrous creations were created by human hands and simple machines that ran off of man power, not hot moving metal powered by diesel.  No, the ancient Romans achieved these great feats with their wisdom, cunning, manpower and a great amount of time (and patience).  All of these things together offer a lot to think about in the way of how easy we have it.  Is that really a good thing, or are we just ignorant of the ease of our lives; are we ungrateful?  How long will it be until our empire falls just like the Romans?

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola

I have found, with the aid of this class, that as I am reading the works of Philosophers and Theologians I often find myself saying “I agree… Oh, I disagree… Or maybe I do agree… Maybe it’s some of both?”  I become quickly confused as to how I can be so conflicted with just one person’s words and the many ways you can choose to interpret them.  Unlike in conversation where you can ask a person exactly what they mean, reading someone’s written work and interpreting it can be tricky.  As a psychology major I’m used to asking many related questions in order to correlate an answer, whereas a religion major would be very familiar with these types of conflicting feelings.  **side note: this is one of the amazing things about taking an interdisciplinary class like this, giving all of the students the opportunity to see with the perspective of a student different from themselves.  For example: I am not a religion major, nor do I ever plan to be, and although I have taken the New and Old Testament Survey classes I have not had an opportunity to read raw texts like these before and have not had the pleasure of encountering other students who are well acquainted with these texts and others like them.  Being in an interdisciplinary class like this class has really encouraged me to think outside the box, grow and think for myself more than I had before.  This is not only beneficial for me as a person, but it will also give me insight in my major classes to offer a perspective that, perhaps, no one else has. End side note**

According to my understanding and interpretation of this text, Pico purports that through the use of intelligence, love and contemplation you can grow closer to God.  He states that through the use of theology and pure contemplation you can become one with God, I agree to some of these ideas.  I believe that by learning more about God through His Word, more about His creation through study and more about His Will for a person’s life through prayer (expanding one’s intelligence in these ways) a person can grow closer to God.  I also agree that through love for God and acceptance of His love for them, a person can grow closer to God.  I also believe that through the contemplation of this love and using the knowledge and intelligence gained through study, a person can decide for themselves what they believe thus becoming closer to God.  However, I don’t agree that man can achieve oneness with the divine.  I believe that the main goal of a person’s life should be to follow God and to know Him in accordance with His will, but not to become one with Him.  In my opinion oneness is more of a Mystic idea than Christian; I would argue that God even in the afterlife man is not one with God, but in a state of eternal worship and praise of Him.

Pico also states that men have unlimited free will and unlimited responsibilities (or possibilities for life choices).  While I agree that men have free will and that each man has a nearly infinite number of options for their life (general life choices such as occupation, marriage, children, family, education, religion, etc) and can achieve most of those things with the right amount of commitment and effort, I would also argue that the ultimate goal should be to serve God in whatever you do and not to become one with God in what you do.  As I mentioned before, words and meanings can be misconstrued.  Pico could have meant exactly what I am saying, we might actually be agreeing.  He might have meant “oneness” as accordance with God’s will, or he could have meant what I have interpreted.

On the topic of misinterpretations, in class Cedric pointed out a possible flaw to Pico’s argument.  The text reads “Beasts as soon as they are born… bring with them all they will ever possess.  Spiritual beings, either from the beginning or soon thereafter, become what they are to be for ever and ever.” (Faith and Reason p.72).  Cedric argued a flaw might exist because, according to scripture, heavenly beings (such as angels) do have a certain extent of freewill.  For example: Biblically, Lucifer and one-third of the angels chose to become demonic and be self-serving.  I would argue that Pico covered this with his line “or soon thereafter” implying that yes, the angels did have freewill, but now they are locked into place.

Overall this text from Pico correlates very well with the ideas of the Renaissance.  A large idea that was prevalent during the Renaissance was the power and capability of men.  This idea goes hand in hand with Pico’s opinions of the three worlds and free will that humans are allowed, unlimited responsibilities and possibility of oneness with the divine.  Pico provides a fine example of the thinking that was present during the Renaissance.