Da Vinci and Michelangelo in the Art of the 16th Century in Italy and Europe - Assignment Example

Contrasting Three Works of da Vinci with Three of Michelangelo: Illustrating How the Two Artists Influenced the Art of the 16th Century in Italy and Europe [Full names] [Course code] [Course name] [Professor’s name] [Date of submission] Outline Introduction Contrasting Drawings: Motivation Contrasting Paintings: Color Use Contrasting Carvings on Sexuality: Marked Preference for Feminine and Masculine Figures Conclusion References Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci Introduction Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci represent two of the most popular artists of the High Renaissance era, as witnessed in some of their work with a reputable standing in art history. Seen by many as influential figures in the making artistic expression touching on various contemporary issues, these two figures took the Renaissance influence to an all high level due to impressive detail to their work. The unique contribution by the artists made Renaissance era achieve its famous artistic reality, making a massive shift from earlier forms of art. As such, modern art supported by various detail-adding enhancements must pay tribute to their creativity and liberal approach that facilitated their elevation as pinnacles of Renaissance art motivations. Perhaps what the two artists contributed to art from different perspectives provoked the birth of Western art movement that built on their unique approaches in creativity (Hegarty, 2006). However, the striking differences that stand out from the two artists’ expression make their diversity capture the aesthetic essence of art than any pair of artists would have managed. As illustrated in the discussion below, comparison of different works by the artists during a similar period could facilitate enumeration of how different the two artists contributed to High Renaissance age. The choice of related categories of works assists in the development of the argument that the two artists had contrasting approaches in different concepts as discussed. Drawings, paintings and carvings done by the two formulate the basis of contrasting their works, to make the illustration of their liberal approach in expression. The two artists depict stark contrasts in their motivation, color usage and marked preferred sexuality in expression of their ideas. Contrasting Drawings: Motivation The drawings of choice for contrasting between the Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci include the Kneeling Man and the Anatomical Studies of the Shoulder respectively. The analysis of the chosen pieces of work demonstrate different appeal to detail in drawing, perhaps due to the advancement in motivational influence on art in drawing expression. Michelangelo made the drawing of the Kneeling Man at around 1494 and 1496 using a pen and brown ink and the original piece can be found in the Graphische Sammlung Albertina in Vienna (Kren and Marx, n.d.)1. Leonardo’s Anatomical Studies of the Shoulder emerged a decade and a half later, in 1510-1511, made on paper using a combination of black chalk, pen and ink. The original piece of the Anatomical Studies of the Shoulder could be viewed at the Royal Library in Windsor (Kren and Marx, n.d.)2. The Anatomical Studies of the Shoulder represent a different art concept and an academic depiction of Leonardo’s life. Building from the two drawings, the two artist’s detail with regard to background life and development enables a reflection of the huge difference in their motivations to take up art. From the biographic account of the two artists, it emerges that Michelangelo did not portray his academic prowess in his work, probably further backing premise that he did not quite love school when at a young age. Taking up art as a talent motivation could have propelled Michelangelo to the heights of building an impressive art profile. On the other hand, an account of Leonardo’s academic orientation supports the biological perspective employed to give detail witnessed in his drawing of the human shoulder. Such an intense expression of his interaction with studies creates a huge contrast in the motivation between the two artists. Despite having contributing at around the same period, it appears that the Renaissance movement of fine illustration obtained a strong backing from great art concentration and creativity (Hegarty, 2006). The Anatomical drawing by Leonardo illustrates the inspiration that his rich education background must have made in his motivation to draw as well as make expressions using art. His biographic accounts reckon that he was a specialist in a number of fields, including architecture, cartography, theory and music among many more. Modern medicine could not have made the tremendous steps during those early ages if anatomical detail as pioneered by Leonardo would not support such a sensitive field. Michelangelo’s simple approach in the Kneeling Man could present sticking to the conservative use of art to present worship attributes of his community, whereas Leonardo’s academic view of art depicts his liberal approach to trigger changes in cultural perceptions. The contrast between the two artists therefore illustrates the differences in origin of motivation and inspiration, with Michelangelo possessing deep talent and Leonardo having an impressive academic background. However, as illustrated in the color-use concept below, the two artists take different positions in such approach regarding embracing newer trends in use of art to influence audience perceptions. The role of origin of artistic ideas by the two artists illustrate the in this analysis is therefore a classical depiction of a diverse and unique perception to life of the two artists, which generates a lasting impression on originality of ideas as the key to creativity. Figure 1: Kneeling Man Figure 2: Anatomical Studies of the Shoulder Contrasting Paintings: Color Use The paintings of choice for analysis are Michelangelo’s Holy Family with the Infant St. John the Baptist (Doni Tondo) as well as Leonardo’s Mona Lisa. Perhaps one of the most outstanding attributes of a transitory era is the overlapping of ideas of the old and new paradigms. This implies that the events in the later middle ages leading to transitions into different cultural eras influenced artistic expression in a huge way. As agents of the expression of newer and transition attributes in the cultural development through art, Michelangelo and Leonardo present a classic example of such transitions in Renaissance and High Renaissance concepts. To illustrate the difference in expression of overlapping perspectives, color use as a Renaissance theme was enhanced in the High Renaissance movement and the difference in detail achieved can be witnessed in the two paintings chosen. Leonardo’s Mona Lisa is predicted to have been made by 1503 whereas the Holy Family with the Infant St. John the Baptist was painted three years later. The contrast in the use of color in the two paintings is a reference point of possible transition from old feint color effect to the magical bright, many and lighting impact generated by Michelangelo (Hegarty, 2006). In the Mona Lisa’s portrait, color range applied falls below the standards of color use on the Holy Family with the Infant St. John the Baptist. Mona Lisa’s piece by Leonardo da Vinci could be viewed at the Musée du Louvre in Paris (Kren and Marx, n.d.)3. Mona Lisa’s use of black and brown toning gives the overall portrait’s features, with the obvious color impact on the sky conspicuously missing. However, it could be that the painting of the lady would have taken place in the evening when the color range reduces and the lighting effect is equally affected. This premise could hold true considering that the color usage witnessed on the Holy Family with the Infant St. John the Baptist happened shortly after the painting of the Mona Lisa. Assumptions of possible transition impacts between Renaissance and Mannerism with enhanced detail and color detail appearing later enumerate possible explanation of the stark difference in the use of color in the two paintings done three years apart. Whereas three years difference would be sufficient to capture transition in the use of wide color range in expression of detail, perhaps choice of sticking with different ideologies in artistic expression could have facilitated Michelangelo’s different and rich color usage (Fishburne, 2012). In the painting of the Holy Family with the Infant St. John the Baptist, a wide range of colors and toning appears to motivate the artistic expression of the event. The Doni Tondo could be viewed at the Galleria degli Uffizi in Florence (Kren and Marx, n.d.)4. Bright colors positioned at the foreground facilitate the depiction of the holiness of the family, as the theme of attire scheme captures the imaginary motivation of the artist. Slightly behind the holy family is the infant John the Baptist, donning less bright attire, with the body partially projecting from the elevated stage on which the Holy Family sits. Further behind are nude bodies of pagan past, which further reduces the color impact in the transition of the Christian salvation story, with the transition concept emerging in brightness progression. The skies in the horizon capture color usage with a perfect choice of color resembling real painting experience, as Renaissance achieved. Using color to generate such detail elevates Michelangelo as the undoubted master of recreation of Christian history in major church art monuments. The presentation of muscular body shapes facilitates projection of Michelangelo characteristic philosophy of masculine and feminine characters in his work, perhaps better than many artists would have managed at that time. In contrast, Mona Lisa uses a dark scheme and choice of color, with little detail on extra art creations, perhaps due to the fact that the main idea was recreation of the lady’s portrait requiring little enhancement. However, Leonardo achieves the artistic milestone of the presentation of the woman’s smiling beauty, making it arguably the most convincing portraits of ancient art. Assuming that it was possible for the Mona Lisa to apply richer and brighter color usage, perhaps Leonardo would provide extra detail of the beauty and add flair through colorful background and sky presentation. Alternatively, balancing the use of color use for the two paintings would dispel thoughts of a massive difference in the transition ideologies held by the two artists as the main cause of varied image presentation. Figure 3: Holy Family Figure 4: Mona Lisa Contrasting Carvings on Sexuality: Marked Preference for Feminine and Masculine Figures The pieces of choice include David and Bust of Flora, to construct the artists’ deliberate choice of a particular gender for human figures to express artistic beauty. Whereas David was created in 1504, about six years ahead of Bust of Flora, the two artists achieve different levels of the presentation of human beauty by use of a form that they thought could leave a mark about their ideas. David was created out of marble and the relatively intact piece is available for view in the Galleria dell’Academia in Florence (Kren and Marx, n.d.)5. In the image of the sculpture, it is possible to decipher Michelangelo’s obsession with expression of human beauty by giving details of the muscular body of the male figure at an astounding proportionality and accuracy. In many of his other pieces, the nude male figure is dominant in depiction of perfect proportionality of the male muscular twists of formation. Aware of possible criticism of indecent portrayal and exposure of the male genitals, Michelangelo ignores such fears and utilizes the opportunity to bring out the male figure in a clear way than many other artists of his time. Those artists who did not have a preferred choice of gender would perhaps miss on important detail for failure to specialize in the morphological beauty of the male figure as Michelangelo does. Dominant conceptualization of masculinity in the Renaissance coincided with Michelangelo’s choice of human figure to give details of muscular perfection of the male body. With an accurate sensualization of the aesthetic touch that his work achieved, Michelangelo relied on David and other carvings such as Bacchus to elicit the erotic and romantic feelings of the male body (Leonard-Amodeo and Shaikh, 2005). To support this argument, Michelangelo’s romantic poetry using the male body in expression of his artistic work depicts marked preference of masculine concepts. He has been accused of possessing homoerotic tendencies, raising the obsession with the masculine body to an emotional level of his own feelings with the male figure (Michelangelo-Gallery, 2012). On the other hand, Leonardo da Vinci’s choice of female figures in the carvings such as the Bust of Flora depicts a different orientation in expressing human beauty (Broude and Gerrard, 1992). In nearly all of his works, as a contrast to the work by Michelangelo, Leonardo chooses to work with the female figure for different illustrations of her beauty. As seen in the Bust of Flora, the sculpture made from wax depicts the goddess of spring season and flowers revealing, her bare chest and gives details of her neatly made hair. Due to material deterioration over the years, the original piece viewed at Staatliche Muséen in Berlin has lost some parts but still shows the artistic account of the female figure (Kren and Marx, n.d.)6. Although the female figure lacks expression detail in terms of muscles as the male figures created by Michelangelo show, it is not short of curvaceous detail that only keen artists would capture in their work. At a time when the role of the females in the society had receded due to a highly patriarchal and male dominated society, art highlighting the importance of the female figure facilitated the debate in terms the gender attributes constructed by the society over the ages (Brown, 2001). Figure 5: David Figure 6: Bust of Flora Contributions made by the two artists to modern art go beyond portrayal of the transitions of events in civilization development history but accord artists a rare chance of appreciation of nature from different angles. In terms of specific contributions that these artists made, the famous paintings, drawings, sculptures and engineering concepts that they pioneered provide an important artistic contribution to the church in Italy and other galleries around Europe. Such a tradition ensures that art remains a living industry where individuals from experiences interact with the modern generations to appreciate the marvels of nature and human beauty. Abstraction pieces coined by the two individuals expand inventive frontiers that artists in the future would find important to explore and maintain aesthetic tradition of art in different perspectives. In terms of their elevation of art as a global player in socioeconomic interactions, the two artists have brought dignity and respect to the industry, which attracts massive attention from cultures and businesspersons alike. Religious scenes captured by various works of these individuals enable art to interact with spiritual aspects of the human society in a significant way than any other secular oriented industry other than music. Medical interpretation and conceptualization of internal organs got a boost from art, thereby directly assisting in one of the most sensitive sectors of human civilization. Conclusion In conclusion, the importance of diversified perceptions to art emerges in the unique contributions made by Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci in terms of different motivations, color usage and preferred gender for gender expression. Different pieces of art work such as drawings, paintings and carvings provide a wide array of analysis to demonstrate the beauty of art among artists. As illustrated in the discourse above, different origins for art ideas expand the mix of art products that artists provide to the art industry. For instance, a mix of talent and training must continue to surprise the audience, in order to retain the unpredictability value of art, which leaves a lasting impression to the industry. Color usage in different development stages of artistic expression shows different impacts to art details, creating a reference point for the identification of differences in artist attributes. Use of different bod forms and gender preferences also assist in communication of specific information across the audiences. These reasons make Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci some of the unique and innovative contributors to art, making it possible for their pieces to retain their aesthetic value irrespective of age gaps. References Broude, N., & Garrard, D. M. (1992) The Expanding Discourse: Feminism and Art History, New York, NY: IconEditions, Brown, D. A. (2001). Virtue & Beauty: Leonardos Ginevra De Benci and Renaissance Portraits of Women, Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art Fishburne, J. (2012). “Michelangelo: A Life on Paper.” Comitatues: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 43:157-158 Hegarty, M. (2008). “Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and the Renaissance in Florence.” Renaissance Quarterly, 59(2):506-508 Kren, E. & Marx, D. (n.d.). “Michelangelo Buonarroti.” Retrieved from http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/m/michelan/4drawing/index.html Leonard-Amodeo, J., & Shaikh, S. (2005). “The Deviating Eyes of Michelangelo’s David.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98(2):75-76 Michelangelo-Gallery. (2012). “Michelangelo Buonarroti Bibliography.” Retrieved from www.michelangelo-gallery.org/biography.html Read More