Michelangelo Buonarroti's David
I choose to write on the topic of the emergence of learning renaissance art. What is meant by the term “Renaissance man” and how does the art reflect the learning ideology?
I support the idea that the Renaissance was a time of rebirth, and was plainly named as such by the European community after its surfacing from the Middle Ages as humanist scholars sought to extend themselves further than worldly theology. They then rediscovered the classic literature and art of Greece and Rome.
I think that for many Europeans, that in the Renaissance period they wanted to (and did) express themselves through art. They expressed their outward feelings, attitudes, inner feelings, and thoughts through their art (without the use of words). I strongly believe that the artists of the Renaissance period looked back at art from the past and recreated it into what they perceived what they wanted to tell a story about but in their own way while drawing inspiration from earlier works of art.They called the period that they were living in the Renaissance period (meaning literally the rebirth) because they were looking back at art work from the past and recreated it (gave it a rebirth), Their art work was inspired by artwork from the past they just gave it new life you could say put a new spin on it. A wonderful example of this is the marble sculpture called David by Michelangelo Buonarroti (1501-1504. He made a sculpture of David the biblical hero that gave the most powerful expression to the idea of David as a hero. The marble sculpture depicts David as the Greeks did by positioning David’s weight of his body on one foot. But Michelangelo Buonarroti gave his sculpture of David a spin/ different take by the positioning of the hands and tense frown indicating anxiety and readiness for a fight. Michelangelo Buonarroti gave David more humanized characteristics than the classical style of the Greek athlete that the Greeks depicted in their art work/sculptures. It took Michelangelo Buonarroti three years to make the sculpture of David but it was well worth it because most of the citizens of Florence were filled with admiration for his work. He was known after that as the greatest sculptor since the Greeks. So the term “Renaissance man” would fit Michelangelo Buonarroti very well. Do you think so as well?
Sadly to say though women were not regarded as good artists like men were. In chapter 16 on page 289 it discusses that in the Renaissance period “the idea was simply to produce women who could write poetry, dance, sing, paint, and excel in the art of conversation so that they would make good companions for artistic men.” Some women did become good at art but were denied access to the training necessary for professional careers. I believe that the term “Renaissance man” is very one sided. There were plenty of good women artists such as Sofonisba Auguissola, Artemisian Gentileschi, Marietta Robusti, and Rosa Bonheur. It very unfair and women should have been treated just as men were. There were probably women that were just as good or better that the men that became famous in that arts. Maybe our history would have been altered/changed if women would have been given the opportunity (the right) to peruse their dreams of doing art!
Written by: Gutter Chic of Gutter Chic Inc. 2010
Sources: Preble's Artforms
Source Type: Text book