Sir Anthony Blunt on Leonardo and Michelangelo - Discussion 4

 

Sir Anthony Blunt wrote extensively on the artist methods of both Leonardo and Michelangelo. What his analysis boils down to is that Leonardo is a master artist concerned with scientific procedure and accurateness, where as Michelangelo was a master artist concerned with pure aesthetics, at times bending the truth to please the eye. 

Leonardo is described as meticulously astute to the scientific nature of perspective and anatomy. He used these sciences to lend accuracy and beauty to his artworks, and according to Blunt maintained that even the media of painting was more noble and scientific than that of his fellow Michelangelo's sculpture. Painting is able to utilize color, aerial perspective, and depict luminescence better than sculpture can. Leonardo also greatly emphasized drawing from life, due to his belief that if one were to draw from a previous sketch it will become more and more "unnatural and mannered." Copying the work of another painter could also lead to this horrible fate, in Leonardo's eyes. 

  

While Leonardo was most opposed to mannered nature in artworks, it was not a concept that Michelangelo was opposed to. He, like Leonardo, dissected bodies to gain an intimate knowledge of anatomy, but did not fret over tweaking the bodily composition to further please the eye. At times he fiddles with figures, mostly those of women, to gain ideal musculature. In subject manner Michelangelo most always utilized biblical figures, and explored his own faith through them. His process was also significant spiritually, since he felt that one did not carve a sculpture, they simply unveiled what God had left inside to be discovered. 

To compare the two artists it to compare two kinds of fruit. Both are of the most talented to have ever lived, but neither are concerned with the same methodology or purpose. On one hand there is Leonardo, concerned with all things academic and the scientific nature of painting; on the other is Michelangelo, concerned with the will of God, and how best to please him and fulfill his spiritual life.  

Titian's Venus of Urbino - Discussion 4

                     Titian, Venus of Urbino, 1538.

Painted for duke of Camerino, Titian's Venus of Urbino is his iconic master piece. In the article by Rona Goffen, the composition, inspirational predecessors, and its sexual content is analyzed. To begin with, Titian of course sought out inspiration for the composition from one of its namesakes. the Venus Pudica, or the 'modest Venus'.

 

                                             Venus Pedica

It is highly emphasized that while this Venus is modest, and Titian has used it as an inspiration, his is not modest, but supporting herself with her arm rather than covering herself. Perhaps a more obvious source of inspiration was that of one his contemporaries, Giorgione's  Sleeping Venus. 

                 Giorgione, Sleeping Venus.

While Titian and Giorgione's Venus's are strikingly similar in posture and body type, there are two very important difference, which almost completely change the meaning and context of Titian's version. Giorgione has his Venus set in the outdoors, which is a typical and traditional setting for a classical subject. Generally if the woman is classicised, it is deemed ok for nudity to be present. However, it is noticed that Titian's Venus of Urbino is set indoors, on a tousled bed, with maid servants either retrieving of putting away some of her clothes. Goffen even points out that some of the furniture would have been recognizable to contemporaries as marriage furniture, signifying that she is indeed in a bedroom, which immediately sexualizes the context. The other major difference between Sleeping Venus and Venus of Urbino is eye contact. While Sleeping Venus obviously can not make eye contact, Venus of Urbino is looking directly and boldly into the viewer's eyes, in a relaxed sort of way. This implies that either the viewer is is being invited closer. This is highly unusual, generally classical Venus's avert their eyes and stare dreamily away, or in fact have them closed. The fact that Titian's Venus is making eye contact creates a much more intimate experience. 

Despite these bold choices, Goffen also wanted to convey that this would generally not have been considered as pornographic for the time, and was still high art. There were in fact a series of pornographic engravings in circulation, as well as books that followed those same lines. Compared to these explicit examples, Titian gives his Venus a presence other than objectifying her physically. She is a figure of beauty, with a personality, and a sense of sexuality- not over sexualization.