In today’s lecture, we focused on the 15th-century Italian Renaissance and made a distinction between the early renaissance and high renaissance period. One of the distinctive features of this period is the emergence of studia humanitatis, the study of human works encompassing rhetoric, literature, history, moral philosophy, and art. This study was what eventually led to the spread of knowledge.
I found the discussion on velum very interesting. I had assumed animal hide would only be used for insulation purposes in clothing and was captivated by the process of preparing the hide for paintings. I look forward to the Professor showing us a piece of it. As a Muslim, I found it heartwarming to hear the role of Muslims in introducing paper into Spain. I was very surprised when I heard it was the expensive price tag of paper which prevented it from being used for paintings. It made more sense when we were told it was made from fabric at that time and not wood pulp.
We also discussed how Florence, a vibrant city-state in the heart of the Italian peninsula, emerged as a beacon of Renaissance culture. As a republic, Florence prided itself on affirming its lineage as the heirs of ancient Romans, with bankers and merchants wielding significant influence over its economy. The city’s guilds, such as the Arte di Calimala and the Arte della Lana, played a pivotal role in shaping its artistic and economic landscape.
We delved into two works that focus on the competitive nature of artists of that period: “The Sacrifice of Isaac” and the Dome of Santa Maria del Fiore. The former, a competition between Filippo Brunelleschi and Lorenzo Ghiberti, showcased the tension between tradition and innovation in Renaissance art. Ghiberti’s winning depiction, with its masterful composition and narrative complexity, heralded a new era of artistic expression, while Brunelleschi’s architectural vision transformed Florence’s skyline with the majestic dome of Santa Maria del Fiore. I found the class discussion on why Ghiberti could have won very interesting. The idea that certain details like emotional depiction and the thought provocation as a consequence of it, was being valued makes me wonder of there were other values that were taken for granted in Brunelleschi’s work. Critique on art is very subjective and I find it strange how subjective expressions are given “ratings” or “scores.”
As I ponder today’s lecture, I find myself fascinated by how Renaissance art dances between tradition and innovation. The push and pull between classical norms and modern ambitions breathe life into these artworks is definitely something I’d like to see in person someday.