Category: Leonardo da Vinci

Introduction

Very few paintings have elicited as much controversy, discussions and dissection as the Leonardo Da Vinci Last Supper painting. This master piece has been subject to a whole new discussion following the [popularity of Dan Brown’s book, The Da Vinci Code. People have analyzed the painting a fresh by looking at whether it truly depicted a true picture of Jesus Christ and his disciples. There have been opposing sides to this debate; however, it would be almost impossible to tell whether the painting had any hidden messages.

In 1495, the Duke of Milan commissioned the Last Supper’s painting. He had employed Da Vinci to begin working on the painting. Da Vinci had been employed by the Duke for a period of 18 years and he did the painting during his last few years under the Duke’s employ. Da Vinci was a well-known procrastinator and it was no surprise when the painting took approximately four years to complete. Many believed that he extended the painting period so as to continue his employ under the Duke for longer.

Size used and space used for the paintings

The size of the original painting was believed to be approximately fifteen by twenty nine feet. It was mounted on a wall at the Convent of Santa Maria Delle Grazie in Milan Italy. This is unlike the Ajanta paintings. The space available to the Ajanta painter was not limited; it was rather comparatively extensive.

The Ajanta artist usually had a full wall to themselves. They extended their artistic work on to the adjoining wall. Da Vinci’s version of the Last Supper has proven to be the best version. The Guernica painting on the other hand was 3.5 meters tall and 7.8 meters wide.

Style used in the paintings

The painting of the last supper draws the attention of any admirer to the center of the work, which is Jesus Christ’s head. This painting can be categorized as a single focal point painting. Even those who possess very little knowledge of art find themselves drawn to the focal point of the painting.

Da Vinci’s version of the painting is the first ever version that shows Jesus Christ and His disciples as ordinary people who shared meals together. He was also the first to depict any emotion on the disciples’ faces. The last supper was made using experimental pigments on dry plaster. The style that was used to make the painting was mural and not fresco.

The Ajanta painting uses a concentration of surface patterning and local color (Geertz 1997). This means that the plain color of an object remains so without any modulations to light, reflection or shade. This style is characterized by the local color being defined by an outline. This is depicted clearly in Indian, Tibet and Japanese art.

An analysis of Ajanta paintings begs the question as to whether the paintings are truly fresco. Fresco means that the colors were specifically applied on lime plaster that was wet.

This is in contrast to other Indian and Asian murals that were painted on dry walls. In Ajanta paintings, the rough surface of the wall is covered with layers of cow-dung or mud. This is in turn mixed with animal hair which acts as a binding medium. Afterwards, the surface would be evened out and layered with gypsum or lime plaster. The painting was then done on this surface.

The artist worked out a variety of arrangements. The most favored were horizontal bands. Furthermore, they were able to create a differentiation which came to the fore with wavy lines. It is further observed that the movement of themes moves from left to right and vice versa. On the other hand, an observer may see the paintings as being too overwhelming due to their close proximity to one another (O’Riley 2006).

A close analysis of the eyes of Ajanta Fresco depicts them as unique. The artist made the eyes look like they depicted a certain look of grace and kindness. This effect was achieved by creatively drawing the eyes of the princess, kings and spiritual gods with a weavy eyelid of meditative nature.

The Guernica painting by Pablo Picasso on the other hand, used the cubism style of art which is a key component of the message in the painting. This is a style of art that is characterized by many geometric shapes incorporated into abstract designs (Arnheim 1973). The lines in Picasso’s work can be compared to that of a Grecian temple. The two basic geometric shapes of the Greek temple façade have been fused to form the oblong pyramidal scheme of the painting.

Critics have however criticized this point of view. They argue that the cubism way of art has been completely looked at in the wrong way. The Greeks used many geometric shapes and utilized much detail into creating their robust images of gods and goddesses. On the other hand, the geometric figures in the Guernica lack any specific detail and only serve to create chaos and terrors as depicted in the painting.

The cubist style of art, mainly the abstractism has been efficiently used to display panic and the continuous argument against senseless war. The dismembered limbs of livestock are represented by chaotic shapes. The painting portrays the passion and feelings that Picasso has towards war.

Themes and symbols used in the paintings

The three paintings are all claimed to have hidden meanings and utilize the use of symbolism. For instance, The Last supper painting has a lot of controversy. For instance some experts believe that the painting shows events of the evening before Christ was betrayed. It also believed to be a likely depiction of the Eucharist.

All speculation about the painting comes after this agreement. Some people believe that indeed Christ was surrounded by His disciples but disagree on whom exactly the disciples were. Most works of history agree that the person on Christ’s right hand is John. However, after Dan Brown released his book, many people now believe that it was Mary Magdalene.

Information Technologist, Slavisa Pesci, claimed to unlock hidden secrets in the painting by creating a visual effect. He managed to achieve this by overlaying a semi-transparent mirrored version of the painting on top of the original Last Supper Painting. Da Vinci was a well-known mathematician and had a penchant for backward ‘mirror writing’.

Pesci believed that the secrets in the painting were unveiled using his visual effect technique and that the theory of John being absent during the last supper was indeed true. He also supports the dagger theory. Many experts have however disputed this theory.

Many people believe that in the painting there is a ghostly hand, Peter’s hand, holding a dagger. Others see it as just a knife considering the setting of the painting that is depicted is a meal. The ghostly hand is believed to belong to Peter. The painting has been under constant repair because Da Vinci had been experimenting with dry plaster. He could have instead utilized the use of tempera on wet plaster. Many sketches show that Da Vinci had been trying out different positions where he would place of Peter’s hand properly holding the knife.

Other theories believe that the painting is a depiction of the Passover meal. However this has been disputed as the bread in the painting appears to be leavened which would not have been served during the Passover. Passover took place at night while in the painting it is depicted as being during the day. Other people believe that in the painting there is a hidden baby in a chalice.

The Guernica shows the tragedies of war that took place in the Basque town. The painting is a representation of the suffering the war inflicted upon individuals, more so the innocent civilians. It represents an anti-war symbol and an embodiment of peace. Displaying the Guernica on a world tour once it was completed resulted in its fame and is widely celebrated (Barton 2004).

There have been endless debates about what this particular painting represents since it was unveiled back in 1937. Controversy about the painting comes from the fact that the painting doesn’t show the actual bombing of the Basque town. However, some experts disagree with this notion. They argue that the scenes in the painting are made clear by the title and leave no room for any sort of discrepancies.

The nature and position of the elements in the painting are crucial elements that should not be ignored. He draws attention to the relationship between the bull and the horse. Many analysts have attempted to analyze the symbolic meaning of the two animals. Some say that the male represents the male principle while the horse represents the female (Hensbergen 2004). These conclusions are drawn from his previous work, Minotauromachy, which was done before Guernica.

It is observed that in this Minotauromachy painting, the bull and the horse are also featured. Many would say that the horse represents the massacred civilian population of Basque town while the bull symbolizes the Western European governments who stood by and did nothing. The location of the bull in the painting is on the western end and has its head turned away from the event (Richardson 2007).

The bull symbolizes different meanings to different authors. It therefore becomes impossible to draw a conclusion as to which opinion is correct. However, the most evident thing in the painting is that the bull remains the only character that is not a victim. It is seen as standing outside observing the chaos and doing nothing about it. When the two paintings, Guernica and Minotauromachy, are compared it becomes clear that the bull is the aggressor while the horse remains the victim (Held and Alex 1988).

This painting is a representation of the pop culture and seeks to make a political statement. It is a constant reminder of the war and destruction that happened. Picasso conveys his anti-war messages to his audiences and ensures that it remains relevant through-out history by using the cubist style and obfuscatory symbolism. While it is clear that all the aspects of his painting may not be effectively understood by everyone, his intentions remain clear (Brunner 2001).

The Ajanta paintings on the other hand depict scenes from the Jataka tales and the life of Lord Buddha. The paintings inform whoever is observing, the teachings and of the Buddha and life through successive re-births. Other themes present in the Ajanta paintings include love, the joy of feasting singing, and dancing together with all the splendor of the royal courts. They display a meaning the unity of life through the panorama of all forms of life.

Conclusion

Da Vinci’s painting appears to be what it is to different people. People see what they want to see in the painting. It is however important to note that the painting doesn’t reveal any keys or hidden divine secrets. The Guernica and Ajanta paintings also carry the same weight when it comes to interpreting what the artist actually wanted to portray when he/she painted them. The paintings are but a depiction of the artist’s own opinion.

Bibliography

Arnheim, Rudolf. The Genesis of a Painting: Picasso’s Guernica. London: University of California Press, 1973. Print

Barton, Simon. A History of Spain. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Print

Brunner, Kathleen. Guernica: The Apocalypse of Representation.” The Burlington Journal, 2001. Print

Geertz, Hildred . Images of Power: Balinese Paintings Made for Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead. University of Hawaii Press, 1997. Print

Held, Jutta, and Alex Potts. How Do the Political Effects of Pictures Come About? the Case of Picasso’s ‘Guernica. Oxford Art Journal,1988. Print.

Hensbergen, Gijs van. Guernica: The Biography of a Twentieth-Century Icon. London: Bloomsbury, 2004. Print

O’Riley, Michael Kampen .Art Beyond the West. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2006. Print

Richardson, John . A Life of Picasso: The Cubist Rebel, 1907-1916. New York: Knopf, 2007. Print

Leonardo Da Vinci

Leonardo was a famous European artist due to the popularity of his artworks. However, Monalisa remains the most popular work among his paintings. In this image, the woman is portrayed as a pyramid.

Her head forms the sharp tip of the pyramid while her closed arms represent the base. The folded arms imply that she is a composed woman. The smile on the woman’s face is used to portray her beauty and openness (Byrne 1).

The first character that captures the attention of the viewer is the lady’s smile which is sandwiched by her dark clothing and long hair. Leonardo used the technique of sfumato (shadow and light) to add glossy texture on her hair.

The same technique was applied to hutch the smile on the lady’s face by focusing on the edges of her mouth and eyes.

Monalissa by Leonardo da Vinci

The landscape in the background seems to be in a consistent state. There are many characters in the background such as a river, valleys and vegetation.

The light is flowing from a raised source because it only highlights on the area above the lady’s arms. The same light is used to tell us more about the environment The extreme end of the image which represent the distance between the lady and the landscape is lighter (Meshberger and Rich 1).

The colors used in the image are of low intensity and they are partially integrated in the background. Shadows and light have been combined to create texture on the clothing of the lady.

The image is balanced because of the space occupied by the lady. Additionally, the image can be seen from two perspectives: the top and front views. The position between her head and the arms represent her height while her forehead unveils her thickness.

Michelangelo Buonarroti

The creation of Adam is among the popular paintings by Michelangelo. In this painting, there is a nude man who is laying on a rock. On the other side, there is another living being that is similar to man on the ground.

This other being is clothed, looks stronger and mightier, and is surrounded by young people (Kemp A 9). The nude man looks lonely and judging by the look on his face, he is asking for some help from the other being. The image presents a symbolism of religion and its importance.

Lines have been used to put emphasis on the masculinity of the male character. Adequate light has been distributed in the entire work to show the sort of resemblance that exists between the different characters (Kemp M 1).

The two entities are in different worlds and thus, can only communicate through their hands. The divine being and the aides are housed by a structure that resembles the human heart which means that the reality between the two is not something that can be seen or touched.

The creation of Adam by Michelangelo Buonarroti

The texture of the image is smooth because there are no hard surfaces or materials. The colors used are of low value and they play the role of adding a lively tone to the painting.

The blue color has been used to create distance between the nude man and the landscape. The green vegetation is created by making incomplete brush strokes but all the same, it creates the desired impression.

There is more space that is yet to be utilized and from the appearance, the nude man was the first image to be drafted. Similarly, the divine being might have been brought into the picture for filling the vacuum.

Works Cited

Byrne David. A History of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel. 23 Aug 2006. Web.

Meshberger Lynn and Tony Rich. Explaining the Hidden Meaning of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam. n.d. Web.

Kemp, Amelia. “Smile, Please.” The Guardian. 19 Oct. 2004. Web.

Kemp, Martin. Leonardo da Vinci: The Marvelous Works of Nature and Man. New York: Oxford University Press, Print. 2006.

Leonardo Da Vinci is a renaissance era painter. He learnt the art of painting from Verrocchio of Florentine. The portrait of Leonardo Da Vinci depicts the head of a very old man painted with a red color.

The old man has long hair while his big beard extends from his wide shoulders up to his chest. His eyes are oblique behind the eye brows staring at the person looking at it. The folds of his long face show that the person lacks teeth.

Documentation of the renaissance era does not show any other artists who had such long hair or beard. Hence, the person’s long hair gives the portrait a very unique feature.

It is simple for a viewer to notice that the portrait looks far ahead and not at the person looking at it. Art should be a media of communication in informing an audience the ideas that the artist thought of when creating such a master piece.

Artists make use of paintings as a medium through which they communicate their ideas to the rest of us. They make use of color to inform the community.

In this regard, painting is a medium of communication between a painter and the society. Hence, it is very easy for a person looking at the Da Vinci portrait to understand its inert meaning.

The painting has raised too much controversy. Some people are of the view that the person in the portrait is too old to be Da Vinci. He died aged 67 but the picture shows a much older person who fails to match him. In fact, other people have suggested that it is Da Vinci’s dad.

There is great disparity between the age that Da Vinci died of and the age of the person on the portrait. This has offered critics a platform with which to suggest that Da Vinci could have painted this portrait after he had quit his career.

Essentially, the portrait is of a stressed man who for his age should not have such an old face. This is indicative of the fact that life must have been difficult for him then. (Livingstone 1264). He appears to be thinking of days to come. This could signify a foresight of art in coming generations.

The art of painting has to be passed from one generation to the other. Hence, for the picture to gaze ahead in such fashion, one can conclude that the painter had a desire to pass the power of art to the on coming generations.

Leonardo was a highly respected artist of the renaissance period. To ensure that he did not die with the richness of art, he indeed left the world immense history which still lives.

From the tributes of portraits like Mona Lisa’s and his own portrait, painters of the modern world are informed of the path that art has gone through from the renaissance period. Da Vinci envisioned that painting would further develop in the generations to come.

This gave him the tenacity to survive through difficult circumstances. Such zeal pushes modern day artists to develop their painting skills so that when they are faced with the chance to pass over to the next generation, they do it as gracefully as Da Vinci.

Painting is indeed a piece of art that shows life of a certain generation. In this case, Da Vinci’s portrait tells us about how creative and imaginative artists were in the renaissance period.

The use of such nice color in the picture shows how artists did their paintings many years ago. They developed paintings which lived on after their demise. This was a good legacy for an artist and the principles he believed in.

Da Vinci is still regarded as the one who painted the best portraits ever in history. Nevertheless, experts have not been able to identify how he looked like when he was young since he certainly left no portraits of his youthful years.

The only portrait that is the case for this essay is the one depicting his elderly years. A point to note is that the person in the portrait has a Greek nose. He also has long hair and an extensive beard.

These elements have made artists argue whether the picture is Da Vinci. Da Vinci was an Italian. Why then did he paint a portrait of himself having a Greek nose? Such kinds of faces were only related to apostles.

This gives a differing viewpoint concerning the veracity of the portrait. There are some artists who claim that the self portrait could have been Da Vinci’s effort in painting Thomas the apostle but not himself.

Thomas had a doubting mind according to the bible. Da Vinci is also said to have been a person who loved asking so many questions and would not easily conform to what he was told by others.

It is for this reason that he could have been related to the biblical doubting Thomas.

Works Cited

Livingstone, Margaret. “Was Rembrandt stereoblind?” New England Journal of Medicine. (2004) 351:1264-1265

The last supper is an artwork done by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15^th century. The masterpiece is found in Italy at a convent in Dominica. The wall painting entails Jesus Christ sanctifying the last meal, that is, bread and wine with Judas standing in a corner away from the other apostles. It symbolizes the incident of the last supper during the last days of Jesus when he declared that one of his disciples would inform him. The painting specifically depicts the reaction given by the disciples when Jesus Christ said that one of them would inform him. It portrays how the disciples reacted to the message with varying levels of anger and astonishment (Preble & Frank, 2005).

The artist did the masterpiece in an attempt to produce his version of the Last supper. He used the available documents, which explained the meal. Leonardo da Vinci, as shown in the painting was trying to put across an impression and message by organizing what had been said concerning this significant event (Zani, 2001).

David is a statue carved by Michelangelo, an Italian artist. The marble sculpture of an upright naked man represents David, a brave man according to the Bible. Michelangelo’s work is located in Florence and is a Renaissance version of a common primordial Greek theme. The statue stands in a manner that one leg supports its weight while the other appears relaxed. This classic posture makes the sculpture’s hips and shoulders rest at different bearings. This acts as a symbol of strength and human splendor that is associated with youthfulness. The artwork excelled all primordial sculptures that had existed before due to its colossal size. The fact that the statue’s head appears big and the hands are large could be associated with the fact that it was originally projected to be located on the roofline of the cathedral (Falletti, 2004).

References

Falletti, F. (2004). Michelangelo’s David: a masterpiece restored. Giunti: Firenze Musei.

Preble, D., & Frank, P. (2005). Preble’ Artforms: An Introduction to the Visual Arts. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Publishers.

Zani, V. (2001). Leonardo da Vinci: the last supper. New York: Rizzoli.

Introduction

Separating the phenomena of daily routine from art and aesthetics, Clement Greenberg used the terms avant-garde and kitsch for contrasting high art and low-quality commercial works. Taking into account Greenberg’s model and aesthetic criteria for evaluating the works of art, Marcel Duchamp’s reproduction of Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa can be defined as a clear representation of kitsch.

Main Body

Analysis of the aesthetic value of Duchamp’s reproduction of the world-known Mona Lisa requires taking into consideration the artist’s objectives in creating this painting. As opposed to Greenberg’s definition of high art as “pure poetry”, this work is meant to captivate public attention and consequently achieve certain economic goals. Incorporating mustache and a brief note which was meant to sound like a French pun, the author of the famous reproduction pursued the goal of entertaining the public and affecting their consumer behavior. On the one hand, inserting a mustache unavoidably spoils the world-known masterpiece and decreases its aesthetic value significantly.

On the other hand, it demonstrates the level of public literacy and expectations. Moustache, as a generally accepted cliché for caricatures, is characteristic of schoolchildren and ill-literate people being incorporated into the world’s masterpiece looks weird but was effective for not only attracting but also maintaining the public attention. Implementing low-quality marketing strategies for achieving certain commercial goals, Ducamp made his reproduction which did not meet the objective of art for the art’s sake mere kitsch in terms of Greenberg’s aesthetic model.

The questionable artistic merits of Duchamp’s work illustrate Greenberg’s model even though represent kitsch as its negative implication. Supporting Greenberg’s main arguments, the reproduction under consideration proves that historical and social contexts play an important role in perceiving the work of art by the target audience.

In contrast to high art which neglects the environment as well as possible appreciation or depreciation, Duchamp as a creator of kitsch took into account the following reaction of the audience and the level of the viewers’ literacy, trying to come up to their expectations and amuse them. “’ Art for art’s sake’ and ‘pure poetry’ appear, and subject matter or content becomes something to be avoided like a plague” (Greenberg 190).

Taking into account that the majority of the audience is not ready to rate Da Vinci’s masterpiece at its true value, the author was induced to incorporate certain elements which would be understandable to the spectators into the reproduction, transforming it into a caricature but invoking more emotions in particular segments of the audience at the same time. Notwithstanding even the author’s commercial intentions for creating this reproduction, the aesthetic value of caricature itself is rather low. Both mustache and French pun are aimed at demoralizing the woman in the picture and Da Vinci’s idea in general.

Not corresponding to Greenberg’s definition of high art, Duchamp’s reproduction still fits the theoretician’s aesthetic model as a clear representation of kitsch, an artistic phenomenon aimed at achieving certain commercial goals by considering the level of the audience’s literacy and aesthetic expectations.

Conclusion

Summing up Duchamp’s main objectives for creating his reproduction, the lack of aesthetic values of the postcard and low quality of work in general corresponding to the level of audience’s expectations and literacy make Duchamp’s Mona Lisa an example of kitsch in terms of Greenberg’s aesthetic model. Contradicting the main principles of high art, this reproduction of the Mona Lisa represents kitsch as the reverse side of avant-garde, demonstrating a negative impact of commercialization upon aesthetic taste.

Works Cited

Greenberg, Clement. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”. Post-Impressionism to World War II. Ed. Lewer, Debbie. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Print.

Introduction: What lurks in the background

When it comes to defining the key people in the Renaissance Era, one must mention Leonardo Da Vinci. His unbelievable genius, as well as his ability of being constantly ahead of time, makes the present day humankind stand in awe in front of him and his artworks.

Speaking of which, though Da Vinci created hundreds of them, only a few are mentioned as often as The Last Supper, which can be considered his crowning achievement. Though The Last Supper is often considered a work that stands on its own in the Renaissance Epoch, it, in fact, shares a range of similarities with the artworks of Andrea del Castagno and Domenico Ghirlandaio.

Composition: when the perspective defines the focus of the picture

The Last Supper features one-point perspective (Part 4: Application in Art para. 2–3) – the structure that may seem primitive nowadays, yet was a gust of fresh wind in the art of the Renaissance. It should be noted, though, that a range of artists were using one-point perspective at the time apart from Da Vinci. For example, one might draw parallels between Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper and the creation of the same title by del Castagno.

Both, in fact, feature the same one point perspective as the basis for each masterpiece to have been created on. It is not quite fair to compare the two works as fully equal pieces of art – after all, the materials, which Da Vinci used, were quite different than those that del Castagno; therefore.

The approach towards structuring the scene had to be different – the specifics of the material pretty much defined the strategy used by the artists. Nevertheless, both the fresco designed and created by del Castagno and the mural by Da Vinci featured the so-called one-point perspective with a single trailing point.

It is quite remarkable, though, that one of Da Vinci’s contemporaries dared venture even further and created his artwork in a three-point perspective. By adding the third component, depth, to the picture, Ghirlandaio managed to expand the idea suggested by Da Vinci (Albury and Weizs 4); nevertheless, it would be a mistake to consider any of the works more significant than the other.

Both Da Vinci’s and Ghirlandaio’s interpretations of the Last Supper deserve to be honored as doubtlessly great; however, whereas Ghirlandaio’s work was innovative, Da Vinci’s creation was clearly groundbreaking in its composition and the use of one-point perspective.

Stylistics: the new aesthetics start taking its shape

Defining the stylistic specifics of the mural, one must give credit to the staples of the era, which definitely shine through in Da Vinci’s The Last Supper. First and foremost, the mathematical perspective must be mentioned. The fact that Da Vinci used a one-point perspective has been stated above; however, the fact that the mathematical perspective added to the overall style of the picture should also be brought up.

Apart from serving its actual purpose of creating the illusion of width, the one-dimension perspective also set the premises for the mural to represent an illusion of space. Indeed, taking a closer look at the picture, one must admit that it does not create the effect of cluttered space, like a range of murals of the era did. Instead, it helped the audience realize that the “empty” spaces in a panting also bear specific meaning and may even render important messages.

The Last Supper, for instance, renders the anguish soaring in the air with the help of its spacious elements; compared to the thought provoking empty elements of the picture, the vapid lack of space in the artworks of Da Vinci’s contemporaries seems shallow and annoying.

Much like with perspective, the stylistics of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper was dubbed by a range of artists, and del Castagno was one of them. Del Castagno clearly attempted at creating a similar impression; however, due to the principle of simplicity chosen by the latter, his representation of the last Supper looks less impressive than Da Vinci’s.

Speaking of the stylistics of the mural, one must mention that it also calls for a comparison between the style that Da Vinci used to follow before creating the mural and the one that he was developing when designing The Last Supper. For example, this mural was obviously the first one, in which the artist created a sequence of moments to represent a historic event. Indeed, none of the characters in the mural are static – each of them is in a motion, and each has a specific message to convey.

The emotions on the faces of each of the Apostles are depicted flawlessly (Adams 305). Similar attempts have been undertaken by Ghirlandaio, with a less impressive effect, though – the emotions are less poignant in his representation of the event, and the interactions between the characters are shifted into the shadow, while the artistry of Ghirlandaio’s work appears in the limelight.

Religious and other kinds of symbolisms: a Renaissance mystery

As it has been stressed above, it was not that Da Vinci was the first artist to come up with the idea of visualizing the events of the Last Supper – quite on the contrary, there were a number of other artists, whose works also included their own interpretation of the landmark event in the history of Christianity. However, very few artists managed to work into their creations as many symbols as Da Vinci did.

One of the most controversial symbolic elements of the picture, the portrayal of the person on the right of Jesus has clearly warranted a solid discussion. Historically, the character in question is supposed to be the representation of Apostle John. However, the absence of the traditional masculine features and the obvious feminine ones in the face of this character hint at the possibility that Da Vinci actually depicted Mary Magdalene.

Such a way of deciphering the symbols of the mural is quite legitimate, since Mary Magdalene has played a major role in Jesus’ life. More to the point, the fact that there is no Holy Grail depicted in the mural may signify that Mary Magdalene is, in fact, the symbol of the Holy Grail. Some researchers state that she continued Jesus’ bloodline and gave birth to His children. However, these assumptions are hanging by a very thin thread (Adams 306).

Unfortunately, very few artists captured the symbolism of the Last Supper as well as Da Vinci did. Unlike his fresco, the one by del Castagno only features the traditional Christian symbols, without going into further details about the possible relations between the characters.

The imagery in the background, though, can be seen as the representation of the emotions that the characters, particularly, Judas and Jesus, were going through. Likewise, the mural created by Ghirlandaio features a rage of symbols, which relate to the events rather than the characters, though For instance, the trees in the background may possibly symbolize redemption.

Conclusion: reconsidering the impact

There is no need to prove that Leonardo Da Vinci was a Renaissance genius – his works featured innovative mathematical approach and structural specifics that were alien to most of the schools at the time. However, Da Vinci’s artworks, especially the ones that touched upon a range of religious subjects, had a range of stylistic, symbolic and compositional elements in common.

Even though a number of points of contact have been found in the course of the analysis of The Last Supper created by Leonardo Da Vinci, Andrea del Castagno and Domenico Ghirlandaio, the works of the former were still a few steps ahead of his most talented contemporaries.

By incorporating an entirely new approach towards the perspective, the overall stylistics and the symbolism of the mural, Da Vinci managed to create a masterpiece that would delight both art connoisseurs and general audience from the renaissance Era to the Post Postmodernist epoch.

Annotated Bibliography

Adams, Laurie Schneider. Italian Renaissance Art. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 2013. Print.

Devoted to a range of issues regarding the Renaissance culture Adams’s book provided a very brief overview of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper. Nevertheless, it served its purpose well by outlining the course of the further research by mentioning the key points of interest. According to Adams, the focus of discussion of Da Vinci’s Last Supper should be on its stylistic specifics, as well as the artistry. The key strength of the source concerns its ability to deliver the necessary data in a very concise yet informative manner.

The book also has its flaws, though. The key one is the lack of analysis of the works in the context of the epoch. Instead, Schneider focuses on the artists and a general description of the period pieces. While Adams does mention the religious context, the overall interpretation seems very vague. Nevertheless, the veracity of the information does not leave any room for doubt. Thus, the source was very useful as the starting point of the research.

Albury, William R. and George M. Weizs. “Depicting the Bread of the Last Supper: Religious Representation in Italian Renaissance Society.” Journal of Religion and Society 11.1 (2009), 1–17. Web.

Albury and Weizs’s article allows for taking a closer look at the symbolism in The Last Supper interpretations. The article shows the links between the era and the messages in The Last Super frescos. Albury and Weizs point at the obvious symbols, as well as help discover entirely new ones. Thus, the links between the three artworks are clarified.

The stylistic choices are also explained. According to the authors, the one-point perspective was predetermined by the necessity to focus on the Christ. The source can be considered very credible. It comes from a peer-reviewed journal and has been published recently. The source was used in comparing the three artworks. Albury and Weizs have shed some light on the symbols in the frescos.

Part 4: Application in Art. The Brown University. Web.

Though this source is most likely to be overlooked, it provides a plethora of useful information. Offering a very short yet all-embracive overview of the era, it points at the stylistics of the Renaissance Epoch art. The site lists the works that have become the staple of the Renaissance, including The Last Supper, Saint Jerome in His Study, etc. More importantly, it pays a special attention to The Last Supper. The detailed the description of the fresco, as well as the technique, which it was created with, makes this source very valuable.

The credibility of the source is obvious – being stored on an educational site, it must belong to a solid establishment. Indeed, the data is provided by the Brown University. The source was crucial to the literature review. It helped outline the major stylistic specifics of The last Supper. Moreover, it helped compare the work with a range of Renaissance pieces of art.

Introduction

In art, inspiration refers to an uncontrollable burst of creativity that prompts a person to generate new ideas and make them a reality. Though inspiration is often seen as an unconscious person, it would be wrong to say that it is never triggered by external stimuli. Throughout centuries, artists built on artistic traditions established long before and used others’ creative pieces as an inspiration for their own. Today, many paintings, sculptures, and buildings incorporate elements from and contain references to different styles and movements. In this paper, I describe Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa as a source of inspiration for my original work and explain the connection between the two.

Inspiration Piece

Mona Lisa portrays Lisa del Giocondo, an Italian noblewoman and member of the Gherardini family of Florence and Tuscany. The viewer sees a young woman with an upright posture sitting in an armchair. Her arms are folded beneath her chest, her pose is quiet and reserved, and her facial expression is nearly unreadable: at first, it appears almost blank, but later it comes off as pensive and mysterious. Mona Lisa is gazing at the viewer with a slight smile that has become iconic and unreplicable in the centuries to come. The painting displays some of the defining characteristics of Renaissance art, such as showing a woman modest and demure just like the Virgin Mary, the contemporary ideal of womanhood (Kemp & Pallanti, 2017). Mona Lisa is outstanding due to Da Vinci’s revolutionary technique of painting air perspective that makes the painting come alive.

My Art Piece

My piece Instafamous done in charcoal pencil is inspired by Mona Lisa’s popularity that does not ebb. Paris’s Louvre is the most famous and popular museum in the world, visited by 102 million people each year (Willsher, 2019). Statistically, 80% of visitors at the Louvre are there to see Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa (Willsher, 2019). They line up and wait for hours to see the masterpiece with their own eyes. I wanted to depict the Mona Lisa surrounded by visitors, each of them wanting to take the best picture for their Instagram feed. As seen in the drawing, most people see the painting only through their phone’s screen. To them, it is more important to create a memory and share it on social media than to be in the moment and “connect” with Mona Lisa.

Connection

In both Mona Lisa and Instafamous, Lisa del Gioconda is at the center of the composition. However, in Mona Lisa, it is Da Vinci’s gaze that determines how she is depicted and perceived, while in Instafamous, the woman is observed by hundreds of eyes. Besides, my original artwork shows Da Vinci’s painting in a modern setting and with modern artifacts, such as smartphones and selfie sticks. The two works are created using different media: Mona Lisa is an oil painting, and Instafamous is a charcoal pencil drawing. The different media dictate the basic elements of the art pieces. Mona Lisa is colorful, while Instafamous is black-and-white. The lines, shapes, and the use of space in Da Vinci’s work convey the atmosphere of peace and quietness. In contrast, my work is more of a quick sketch: it captures a moment in time and shows the crowdedness of the Louvre.

References

Kemp, M. & Pallanti, G. (2017). Mona Lisa: The people and the painting. Oxford University.

Willsher, K. (2019). Mona Lisa fans decry brief encounter with their idol in Paris. The Guardian, Web.

Introduction

Leonardo Da Vinci is a genius! His imagination was amazing and the output he produced—from the arts, engineering, flight, architecture, and machines among others. After Aristotle, Da Vinci is considered as the “Renaissance Man” with a well-rounded personality and who can deal with multiple subjects and competencies simultaneously. He is a polymath, an inventor, a mathematician, an anatomist, a painter, an engineer, a scientist and even a writer (Priwer & Philips 25). The list of his achievements is very very long! Since his time, nobody else was able to duplicate his successes or at the very least, approximate the number of his expertise.

This essay looks at the life of Leonardo Da Vinci and will explore several areas of his expertise. In so doing, the lessons that can be drawn fro his life will be highlighted. Moreover, the main themes and issues in his life as a genius will be explored. Such an undertaking will greatly enhance the understanding of this author about the life of Da Vinci and his major contributions, not only to the Renaissance of Italy, but to all of humanity.

Da Vinci is a genius that helped shape the arts, science, and literature of the Western world. His genius is evident up to this time and the world still looks up to him as a genius and as a literary with important contributions to the world.

Da Vinci’s Life

Da Vinci’s life seems like a television soap opera. He was the illegitimate son of Messer Piero to a peasant girl. He was born at Anchiano in the town of Vinci, which is within the the region of Florence. His full name was Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci. Little is known of the childhood of Da Vinci but he became the apprentice of the Italian painter Verrochio at an early age. Among his peers who became the apprentice of Verrochio were Boticelli, Perugino, and di Credi. Some of the works created by Verrochio may actually have been done by some of his students, including Leonardo. The painting: The Baptism of Christ is said to have been the work of the master and the apprentice Leonardo (Bortolon 35).

Through his training under Verrochio, Leonardo learned a number of trades and skills in chemistry, drafting, leather working, carpentry, as well as in drawing, sculpting and modeling among others. This period of apprenticeship is also important in the development of Da Vinci’s genius (Bortolon 40).

In his old, Da Vinci went to Rome at Belvedere at the Vatican. At this time, both Michaelangelo and Raphael were staying in Rome. He was granted a house by King Francois I of France after working for the peace talks between Vatican and France. This is where Da Vinci spent his last days until he died (Bortolon 114).

Painting and the Arts

Of the works of Leonardo Da Vinci, perhaps the two most popular ones are the Last Supper and Mona Lisa. The Last Supper even became the motif of the novel written by Dan Brown. In addition to these two paintings, there are also a number of excellent paintings that he created. Some of them, however, are being disputed as there are some accounts that belie such claim.

The techniques that Da Vinci used in his paintings showed his careful studies in anatomy, lighting, and in the juxtaposition of elements in a painting. Based on the paintings that will be surveyed in this section, it can be seen that Da Vinci had the perfectionism of an artist and the care and concern he puts into his every work. He is an innovator at heart. He takes what is known and what is being practiced in the field of arts during his time and makes them his own. The expressions used by the humans in his paintings are remarkable and his techniques spearheaded the directions of modern Western Art.

Leonardo’s Contributions to Science

Leonardo did not attend a university yet his keen observation and the way that he recorded his observations helped him gain insight in the workings of nature and of the human body. Most of the time, it was only his eyes that he had and his hand that clasped a pencil or a pen. Although the mainstream scientists and mathematicians ignored most of his scientific investigations, he wrote his observations in his journals on a daily basis. His journals contained his observations as well as the blueprints of some of his plans for future paintings and scientific endeavors. Surprisingly, he did not write in the usual script of his time. Rather, they were written backwards in mirror script (Richter 15).

This backward mirror script that Da Vinci used has been the subject of many speculations about him and his supposed connections with secret organizations. If his journals were investigated further, however, the reason behind this secrecy on the part of Da Vinci is his reluctance to share his ideas and his writings with other people who might steal these ideas away. In the first place, his journals were very rich and contained many information. If his journals fell into the hands of his contemporaries, they might be stolen and developed away from his tutelage (Richter 20).

Because it is difficult nowadays to truly understand the intention of Da Vinci for using this backward mirror script, apart from the conjecture that it was for the sake of secrecy and unwillingness to share with his contemporaries his findings, creative writers and even biographers have come up with theories in explaining this away. His apparent involvement with secret societies has been explored in literature but little evidence can be put forward to support this hypothesis.

In addition to this, little is known in his childhood and youth and so there are authors who tried to recreate these crucial stages in the life of Da Vinci in order to promote their own view of his life, although, their views are but thinly supported by facts and historical accounts. Although such views are enjoyable to read and raise curious possibilities, the lack of historically accurate accounts render such views as simply historical fictions built around the mysterious life of the legend that is Leonardo Da Vinci.

In an effort to improve his grasp of the human anatomy, he studied the proportion of the human body and along the process; he dissected a total of thirty corpses. This made him a physiologist as well as an artist. He is the first one to draw the fetus as it looks like in the womb. His descriptions of internal organs are superb and have been verified by modern medical science. Even at this period, he managed to complete the first robot design in history, although it was only rediscovered in the 1950s.

Da Vinci also dabbled with mechanics and designed a lot of mechanical projects such as a flying machine, a machine that can be used for grinding lenses, machines that make use of hydraulics, and even war machines. Whether these designs were to be implemented and built is now relegated into the realm of the unknowable.

Suffice it to say that Leonardo Da Vinci’s ideas and designs were very much in advance of his own time and the Western society during that period were not yet prepared to accept everything that Da Vinci had to offer. If he lived at this modern times, the reaches of his talents would have known no bounds.

Conclusion

Leonardo Da Vinci has had a great number of paintings, inventions, and books to his credit. These paintings, designs and contributions to science support the idea that he is indeed a genius. The mystery surrounding his early life has fostered speculations in a lot of authors and has captured the imagination of the reading public.

The way that he kept his journals secret through backward mirror scripts is remarkable. However, the true intentions that he may have had for doing this, apart from the interests of secrecy and intellectual pride, is now the area of speculators and fictionists.

Whether in the area of the arts, of the sciences and any other kinds of pursuit, Da Vinci has shown his talents and skills in almost every field of endeavors in the world. He also contributed extensively in the fields of science, invention, and mechanical design. Even if some mysteries may never be solved as to the personality of Leonardo Da Vinci, his contributions to humanity cannot be discounted. If additional information about his life will turn up, then this will surely clear up some of the confusions.

Works Cited

Bortolon, Liana. The Life and Times of Leonardo. London: Paul Hamlyn, 1967.

Hart, Frederich A. A History of Italian Renaissance Art. New York: Thomes and Hudson, 1970.

Marani, P. C. Leonardo Da Vinci: The Complete Paintings. New York: Henry Abrams, 2003.

Priwer, Shana & Cynthia Phillips. The Everything Da Vinci Book: Explore the Life and Times of the Ultimate Renaissance Man. New York: Adams Media, 2006.

Richter, Jean Paul. (1970). The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci. New York: Dover, 1970.

Wasserman, Jack. Leonardo Da Vinci. New York: Abrams, 1975.

Whether one ever gets the chance to visit the stupendous Louvre Museum in Paris, it is comforting to know that the museum offers the ability for would-be visitors to view the collection virtually. With more than 35,000 works of art displayed in an area exceeding 60,000 square meters and a constant flow of tourists, visiting the museum does not necessarily guarantee that one will have the chance to see every work of art in the collection.

While the website cannot possibly provide the same depth of experience as visiting a work in person, it does enable visitors to take their time in viewing a work, see the work without the interference of other patrons and browse the collection more complete. One of the more famous pieces of artwork hanging in the Louvre is the Italian Leonardo da Vinci’s Renaissance-era painting “Mona Lisa” probably created between 1503 and 1506.

The painting is essentially a portrait, believed to be that of a wife of a Florentine cloth merchant according to the Louvre. The woman in the scene is shown from approximately her waist up, the first time such a pose had been used in such close-up, in such a way that she dominates much of the available space. Behind her is a fantastic landscape seen as if in the distance, through a window. It remains unclear who Leonardo’s patron was for this work as it was one of only two that Leonardo kept with him until the day he died.

The soft environmental effects Leonardo used in painting the background have served as a superior example of his mastery of the art of sfumato, or atmospheric painting, which is a technique he developed during this period of tremendous artistic growth that continues to characterize the Renaissance period. The painting is strongly influenced by the techniques developed throughout this period in its focus on realistic modeling and the creation of an illusion of three-dimensional space.

The Mona Lisa was painted on poplar wood using traditional oil paints (“Mona Lisa”, 2006). Its size is quite small, measuring only 31 by 21 inches, reportedly making it difficult to be seen in person behind the crowds and protective measures. However, viewing the image of the painting online enables one to explore the painting more completely. Leonardo uses atmospheric perspective and proportion to establish the feeling of three-dimensionality and incredible depth in the painting. Although the woman takes up a majority of the frame, the landscape behind her depicts an entire countryside including agricultural fields and roads as well as wilderness areas and riverfronts.

The composition is based upon the pyramid of the woman’s body, giving the painting a great deal of stability, as well as the organic curvilinear forms of the feminine. As is pointed out by the Louvre, the composition of the background about the woman is constructed to illustrate Leonardo’s conception of woman. At the level of her heart, men are permitted to move about, but at the level of her head, thoughts remain untamed.

As a part of his superior modeling, Leonardo presents a rich and varied implied texture. The clothing draping the woman’s figure looks as if it could be touched, pulled out, and tested between the fingers. The gauzy weave of the dress presents a slightly ribbed or ruffed appearance while the scarf around her shoulders is gathered from a much wider strip of fabric. The heavier fabric of her overdress retains the suggestion of tapestry work around the neckline and the sleeves.

Subtle shading in the skin tones suggests a youthfully soft texture. This is contrasted with the somewhat undefined nature of the landscape behind her. Although it cannot be clearly defined, this background nevertheless makes clear distinctions between lands occupied by humans, with roadways and fields, and those areas that remain wild and untamed, darkly green and blue where the river flows. This impression of texture is brought about by a masterful combination of Leonardo’s use of light, color, and use of the medium.

The muted colors of the painting are in keeping with the traditional colors of the period but this does not create oppression. Lighting playing across the background scenery warms the area around the woman’s heart while light glancing off the pale skin of her exposed upper chest and lower face also function to keep the eye centered in the frame. There is an overall warm tone to the painting that suggests happiness and comfort while the tight brush strokes, nearly invisible on the surface, tend to eliminate any sense of separation between the viewer and the subject.

The Louvre is so full of amazing artworks such as this one that it is impossible to determine a favorite. However, if I could choose just one piece of art from within the museum, without having to consider price, space requirements, security, or any other factors, I believe I would request The Titeux Dancer.

This is a small statuette of a dancer. I would choose this piece because I admire the graceful flowing lines of the stone ‘fabric’ as it flows around a graceful female figure. The level of artistry is amazing and the lines continue to be interesting no matter how long I look at it. The website of the Louvre Museum is equally amazing, providing the opportunity for not just hours, but days of learning, exploring, and admiring the artworks of the world. The user interface is incredibly easy to understand and the site even provides several features in which the viewer can enjoy randomly selected artworks in continuous succession.

Introduction

Sometimes, one stops to ponder where we would be today if some outstanding figures in history had never had the chance to play their role on this stage we call life. For the arts, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo are two very central figures who have had a huge impact on art, as we know it today.

Mannerism; a style, a period or a movement

The high renaissance was a peak in artistic genius with a concentration of the old masters Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael. It was like the epicenter of the earthquake which once it subsided, leaves emptiness in the aftermath. The dilemma of the artists at the time was what were they to do that could exceed the high renaissance. They had the empty feeling that all that could be done in art had been done. Then came mannerism (Stoksad, 2005).

Mannerism, at least in the context of art, is a brief period that lasted only half a century roughly between 1520 and 1580 in Italy at the time of the high renaissance. However, mannerism existed in the rest of Europe until the seventeenth century (MCC, 1990). Mannerism as explained by Murray (1967) is derived from the Italian word ‘maniera’ that means ‘style’ or ‘manner’. The two implications of these is that mannerisms was used to refer to the actual style of the artist, or to acknowledge that the artist had a unique approach that was beautiful in its own right and did not need qualification.

Mannerism was initiated by the celebrated artists Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael and Michelangelo in his earlier works (Murray, 1967).

The mannerism period put the painter at greater liberty to experiment on canvas, because as long as his work could be approved as aesthetically appealing he had the freedom to try out new ideas without restricting himself to the classical requirements of painting (Murray, 1967).

Since ‘mannerism’ has been used rather vaguely, there is contention between historians whether it refers to the style, period or a movement. The consensus is that it can be used in regards to the European art of the late 16^th century, after the renaissance, but before the baroque period (MCC, 1990).

The impact Michelangelo had on high renaissance art is one that cannot be downplayed. El Greco, who is considered an old master almost of the same class as Michelangelo, did not hold the latter in high regard as an artist. Yet El Greco’s works show that his style was influenced by Michelangelo’s mannerism (Goldscheider & Greco, 1938).

Michelangelo’s contribution to mannerism

Michelangelo’s work was the benchmark by which succeeding artists of the high renaissance set their standards. He was an artist who was always pushing himself to excel in portraying the human form as it was in the flesh. Michelangelo is famed for his twisting, turning figures done in the nude, which called for the greatest application of his skill. He was fascinated with the male body and believed it to be the finest form in which human emotion could be expressed. He practically worshipped the male body, so much so that his sexuality was questioned and he has been at times labeled homoerotic (Stoksad, 2005).

Michelangelo, regarding his sculptures believed that within every inanimate block of stone or marble, there lived a form begging to be released. Unlike his rival and equal, Leonardo Da Vinci, he saw nature as a trap that constrained. Concisely put, Michelangelo’s contribution to mannerism was the nude (Muntz, Buonarroti & Borges, 2006).

The space and composition and treatment of the figures in Michelangelo’s judgment to mannerism

With time though, Michelangelo drifted away from mannerism as he experimented with other plays of light and perspective. Michelangelo’s painting ‘the last judgment’ caused great controversy and it was almost destroyed. Unlike the tradition of mannerism painting, this work did not have the standard infusion of morbidity. Again, the violent clash of colors that was associated with mannerism is completely lacking. It was an indication of how Michelangelo had gradually broken away from mannerism over the years (Buonarroti & Salinger, 1955).

Space and composition in mannerism as contrasted to that of the renaissance painting, sculpture, and architecture

It appears as though the mannerism painters were out to contradict what high renaissance art had been. Where high renaissance had been harmonious, with a keen sense of balance and naturalism, mannerism was marked with a decided unnatural elongation of body parts and the subjects projecting violent or tortured expressions, clashing chaotic color, and the themes were usually a peculiar combination of mythology and Christianity. Renaissance art had made use of perspective and light to present objects as they appeared in real life, mannerism adopted using strange angular viewpoints that contorted the general perspective making for an indeterminate foreground, middle ground or background (MCC, 1990).

The nude form of the human body that had made a reappearance since the early renaissance was now featured in grotesque postures that bordered on the vulgar. The depicted scenes were marked by having hazy indefinite backgrounds that were littered with mystical beings or the ruins of what might have been ancient buildings. While high renaissance scenery had been sparse, those of mannerism were clustered, as though the artist had to us very inch of available space (MCC, 1990).

Geometric figures favored over the renaissance versus those of mannerism

The renaissance period, as is shown by the word used to describe the two hundred years roughly between the late 14^th centuries to the early 16^th century, was one of resurrection. Artists searched in the past to rediscover what their predecessors had done before them. For painters, this meant that they were drawn to the realistic representation of man in the natural state. Renaissance painting had religious overtones influence by Judaism, paintings were heavily filled with saints and figures from the bible. Maybe this was for the most part because the church often commissioned painters to do murals and frescos for her. Another distinct characteristic of renaissance art was the application of linear perspective to create the illusion of depth and distance on a flat surface by varying the size of the objects in the painting. There was also the use of light and dark, known as chiaroscuro, to create the illusion of fullness that made the figures more real. The figures that were often the focus of the painting were arranged in unusual geometric patterns, with a hazy background depicting an outdoor scene (Stoksad, 2005).

Michelangelo’s disciples: Pontormo, Bronzino, Rosso and El Greco

There were fine painters who were caught in the spirit of mannerism, among them being pontormo Bronzino, Rosso and El Greco. These artists’ work was marked with the standard mannerist twisting of perspective, the elongation of limbs on the human form and in Christian paintings, the mixing up of Christian biblical scenes with those of mythical legends (Stoksad, 2005).

Pontormo who was prominent for his ovular compositions and the attention he paid to the clothes worn by the subjects he was painting, along with Rosso Fiorentino had been a student of the illustrious André de Sarto. Pontormo,s work share the mannerism as those of Rosso and Parmigianino. His compositions have been referred to as cohesive. For example, the figures in his masterpiece‘the deposition’ are complementary and the removal of one would create a collapse of the whole edifice (Murray 1997).

El Greco was a painter of the Spanish renaissance who was influenced by mannerism and the Venetian renaissance. His style was very dramatic and expressionistic and he is nowadays thought of as the father of expressionism and cubism. His work also exhibited the elongated figures; that was common to mannerism coupled with novel and curious interpretations of Christian religious subject matter when he was commissioned to do them. Other elements of mannerism that featured in his work were violent perspectives, vanishing points or strange attitudes struck by the figures. He tried to resist being influenced by Michelangelo because he did not hold him in high regard as a painter. His technique and style centered on the primacy of imagination and insight over the subjective character of creation (Goldscheider L & Greco, 1938).

Parmagiano was a mannerist painter under Medici patronage who lived in Florence around the same time as Bronzino. He was a student of the Florentine school. However he gradually abandoned the perspective regularity that was distinctive of the Florentine renaissance. He adapted the mannerist use of twining and twisted poses coupled with an ambiguous perspective. His paintings often depicted suspended figures that were in no definite setting and had the standard elongated limbs with sad, tragic filled expressions (Stoksad, 2005)

Bronzino was Pontormo’s student and his work was greatly influenced by his teacher. He Lived in Florence and received Medici patronage in 1539. His paintings were considered to be very allegorical and had the features of mannerism (CCM, 1990).

The school of fontaibleau was founded in the late renaissance period. The first school was from around 1531 and was founded by Rosso Fiorentino, a mannerist painter. It is therefore natural that the students from the school were mannerists too. The work produced by this school was characterized by the artists’ use of stucco and frescos. Their paintings had elements of the allegorical, the mythical the grotesque and the standard mannerism putti and nudist eroticism. The work shows that they were influenced by the mannerism of the masters Michelangelo, Raphael, Parmigianino (Murray 1997).

Essay two

Leonardo and his landscapes

In Michael Gleb’s book, ‘How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Everyday’, the author paints a vivid picture of Leonardo the man beneath the painter. It is not only his art that marks him out as outstanding, but even the basic human being that he was. It can be said that Leonardo without his art would have been just as great (Gleb, 2000).

By outlining the principles that this iconic painter lived by, Gleb identifies the characteristic that contributed to his success as an artist. Gelb gives what he terms to be the seven da Vincian principles; having an insatiable amount of curiosity, one testing their knowledge through experience, a continuing refinement of one’s senses, being open minded and willing to consider the abstract, inculcating in oneself the practice of being physically fit and grace, and to cap it off, having the understanding that all things are inter-related (Gleb, 2000).

Leonardo da Vinci was brilliant and this brilliance comes out with overwhelming clarity in his painting. He was keen not to overlook any form of detail. He would ensure he knew his subject inside and out before, he committed brush onto canvas. His landscapes and other paintings are rendered eerily realistic that over half a millennia later, we can breathe in the air of Florence, feel the tenderness and love emanating from the Madonna to the boy Jesus on her knee. Genius is immortal; hence, Leonardo’s immortality is assured because he strove to achieve perfection (Frere & da Vinci, 2002).

Comparison of Leonardo’s use of landscape in paintings like ‘the Madonna of the rocks’ with paintings from the song dynasties to the Ming dynasty

Leonardo had an interest in nature, more so geology, not only as an artist but as a scientist as well. Before he did his painting, he would make a critical study of his subject. His deep interest in rocks led to the creation of his work ‘The Virgin of the Rocks’. His inspiration for this painting might have been a series of caves in Monte ceceri. Clark (2007) Points out that by the time Leonardo was doing this painting, his interest in the sciences had not deepened (Clark, 2007). Why Leonardo’s art is so outstanding is because he had a profound understanding of his subject, which was reflected in the art he did, more so for his landscapes. Leonardo also loved to invest in the imagination (Stoksad, 2005).

Late tang dynasty landscape painting had become a genre wide and specialized enough to be classified on its own. Landscape painting was an expression of the sophisticated, civilized for a chance to commune wholly with nature. This form of painting was at times used to express definite social, philosophical or political inclinations of the painter or the commissioner of the painter. With the gradual collapse of the dynasty, the focus of escaping into a natural uncorrupted world became more intense, for not only painters but poets as well (Stoksad, 2005) (Clark & Kemp, 1993).

By the time of the early song dynasty, a balanced man was considered to have an astute regard and connectivity with nature. The element of retreating to commune with nature was venerated, and it was believed that this communion was a way of self-rejuvenation. The scholar officials who practiced withdrawing into nature identified themselves as an elite literal class through their writing of poetry, calligraphy and a novel painting style that made use of calligraphic brushwork. Their signature was in the monochromatic, almost flat quality of forms in the outdoors such as trees, rocks, hills and logs (Cahill, 1960).

A quality of Chinese landscape painting that remained constant through the several dynasties is that they were not mere representations of the physical world as observed by the physical eye. Rather, they were permeated with symbolism of what the artist had in is mind and his heart (paintings of the Song dynasty, 2008). Chinese landscape painters attempted to capture the ‘spiritual’ essence of the physical objects they worked with. That is why they were so keen on giving as close a version of the real as was possible. There was great emphasis put on precision (Stoksad, 2005). Chinese landscape painting is intense but very somber, making use of dull muted colors. The theme of the painting was to capture, not only what the artist could see, but his personality as well (Casey, 2002).

Both Leonardo’s landscapes and Chinese landscapes had a deep appreciation for untamed nature. However, while Chinese landscapes was focused on the spiritual, Leonardo viewed the landscape as a scientist, with a keen interest in dissecting and understanding all that he came across. This can be seen by a comparative study of Leonardo’s ‘ Madonna of the Rocks’ and Fan Kuan’s ‘Travelers Among Mountains and Stream’(Clark & Kemp, 1993).

Conclusion

Art in principle is all about beauty as the artist sees it, and making out its interpretation in a medium of his choice. Great artists are the ones who are able to portray beauty, be it the tempestuous passion of human nature, the overwhelming abundance of untamed nature, or the singular intense beauty of a flower in full bloom, in its finest and purest form.

The age of the renaissance was one that shaped art as we know it today. The old masters, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael among others granted to humanity a gift beyond measure.

Art is immortal, a legacy that is passed down from generation to generation with admiration, keeping alive the history of the human race, along with the spirit of those mighty men, the artists, who shall never truly die.

Bibliography

1. Buonarroti M, Salinger M, 1955, Michelangelo (1475-1564): The Last Judgment. New York: H.N Abrams
2. Cahill James, 1960, Chinese painting, Skira Publishing
3. Cahill James, 1976, Hills beyond River: Chinese Painting of the Yuan dynasty, 1279-1368, New York: Weather hill Publishers.
4. Casey E S,2002, Representing Place: Landscape Painting and Maps. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press
5. Clark K, Kemp M., 1993, Leonardo Da Vinci, Albany: Penguin Books
6. Clark Kenneth, 2007, landscape into art, Read Books
7. Frère J & da Vinci L, 2002, Leonardo: Painter, Inventor, Visionary, Mathematician, Philosopher, Engineer, New York : Konecky and Konecky
8. Gelb M, 2000, How to Think like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Everyday. Houston: Dell publishing
9. Goldscheider L, El Greco, 1938, El Greco, NSW: Allen & Unwin
10. Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 1990. The High Renaissance: Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael. Titian. WA: Marshall Cavendish
11. McCurdy E & Da Vinci L, 1954, The Notebooks of Leornado Da Vinci. Plain Label Books.
12. Murray L, 1967, The High Renaissance, F.A. Praeger
13. Muntz E, Buonarroti M, Borges A, 2006, Michelangelo, New Line Books
14. Paintings of the Song Dynasty, 2008. Arts.
15. Stokstad Marilyn, 2005, Art History. New York: Prentice Hall