The first thing that was mentioned in the class was the bias that was present in Vasari’s words. This biased view became a springboard into a whole conversation on how names generalize an entire period, for example, the Middle Ages and Gothic. Compared to the negative connotation that those two words have, Vasari’s “Renaissance” has a purely positive connotation and already places the works produced during that time on a pedestal. It was also arrogant to be calling it the Renaissance or a revival of art because Vasari is basically acting as if art hadn’t existed before that point. It was definitely interesting to learn about this bias of his and put it in relation to what progress really is. This is because, as discussed today, progress in art is hard to define because progress would mean that something is getting better over time but art is not such a linear process. Rather it is a process in which everything is good but things are simply changing because you cannot judge history based on the context we have now. It has to be put into the perspective of their time. I feel as if this will be an important point to keep in mind, that we cannot simply judge these pieces based on the knowledge we have of present day art but rather try to place ourselves in that time where art was more practical than it was for aesthetic reasons.
Page 31 of 33
I noticed a couple things at the museum. First, the lighting. The rooms were dark, except for the paintings, which had lights casted on them. This created a feeling of importance: the art in the room was the primary center of focus. Furthermore, the level of noise took me aback. In a usually loud campus (lots of construction), the rooms were eerily silent. I thought back to the discussion of art’s initial purpose as works of religion, and I quickly felt as if I was in church. As someone who does not have much experience with art or museums, both of these feelings were noteworthy in my visit.
What mostly stuck out to me during todays class was the discussion of what progress means in terms of the art in the Renaissance vs. modern day. In a typical history class, “progress” is used to describe innovation, new and better ideas and the overall betterment of society. For the first time ever, todays class challenged that idea of what it means to progress. Who is to say the Renaissance period was not as good as modern day when it comes to art. As discussed in previous class, the idea of “period of the eye” and looking at the art of the time period through the lens of the people during that era. In whole, change does not always mean betterment, it is just movement through time and transformation.
I also noted the rise of humanism in relation to more individualized thought. In the book it wrote about how an artist was more of a skilled work, which makes sense because art was seen more as equipment or functionality over aesthetics. Altarpieces were very common art pieces and provided a foundation for the concept of “Art” as said by Johnson. Specifically, drawings were used to explain religious text and statues in public were used to glorify the power of Church and state.
One thing I should note is the idea of Humanism and its correlation to individualism and how these provoke new ideas and thoughts translated into the art of the Renaissance.
Today, we discussed teleological and how it is a poor way to view art history. Teleological thinking essentially believes that society is moving linearly where our actions are done with a clear purpose in mind centered around progress. However, in art, progress does not exist. Indeed, art changes, but art does not progress. If we looked at art through a teleological scope, we would believe that the development of art concluded post-Renaissance. This type of thinking is not beneficial, as people begin to compare different historical societies using the context of present day. We must remain neutral when comparing art of different time periods, and understand the context in which the pieces arose.
In my trip to the museum, I noticed several commonalities in the way all of the art was displayed. Beginning with the atmosphere, there was a profound silence that permeated the galleries. Even though there were several other guests and staff members there, they all observed in silence, creating a peaceful and tranquil atmosphere in which to appreciate the art. Next I took note of the lighting. The lighting was soft and subtle, aside from the spotlights, which shone directly on each work of art. This helped to highlight them, and draw the observer’s eyes to the works themselves.
Additionally, I noticed that paintings were displayed on blank white or gray walls, devoid of any other decoration. This also seemed to be in an effort to draw the observer’s eyes directly to the art. Statues and carvings were displayed on podiums to a similar effect.
Lastly, next to each work was a plaque stating the artist’s name, the year of production, the medium of production, the work’s title, and the donor. This is something that sets museums apart from private collections, as it helps guests to understand the context of the painting.
After visiting the art museum, I resonated with our previous discussion about how museums are similar to holy places. The atmosphere was calming and quiet, reminding me heavily of visiting synagogue with my father on Saturday mornings. In terms of the organization, I found that the majority of the pieces were organized by location, date created, and classification. For example, I looked at Greek and Italian dating back to 2between the 4th and 6th Century. Amazingly, the characteristics of this art were very similar in terms of the craftsmanship of the handles and overall structure. I was especially impressed with the sculptures from 14-16th century Italy. After reading last night’s text, I was intrigued by the detail in such work, especially, due to the lack of technology used in creating such fine work.
What struck me as especially interesting is that today we see Florence as the center of Renaissance Art perhaps only because Giorgio Vasari was the first one to write what we call today Art history. Logically, he might have hyperbolized the grandeur of Florentine artists in comparison to their contemporaries. It got me thinking whether similar process as “Renaissance” in Italy has occurred somewhere else at the similar time or even earlier, but we have little to no knowledge of it because the movement was never formalized nor officially named. Finally, as big parts of Roman culture were appropriation of the Ancient Greek one, could that be considered renaissance in its purest form? Reviving the presumably death culture and its values, accepting them as modern and one’s own, with just some adaptation in order to seem more similar to revival rather than bringing out already mummified remains.
We might discuss this in the future in our course, but the first few pages intrigued me to find out how did Northern Renaissance differ from the Italian one, was it influenced by it (due to its objective value or arbitrary importance), or did it just occur somewhat independently as Northern artists reached similar conclusions as their Italian counterparts.
The focus of the first class mainly concerned defining the period and differences in the ways art was perceived at the time. The Renaissance, as a rebirth of what had “died” or been lost, is often condensed into specific areas and time periods. In reality, it developed and expanded both in Italy and around Europe, with some places experiencing it at vastly different times than others. This was interesting to discuss, as it means we must consider the intricate ways in which Renaissance art in different areas and times are connected. Goethe’s description of the museum as feeling like a “House of God” recalls both the atmosphere of modern museums and the often religious and functional original purposes of Renaissance art. Utilizing a “period eye” is therefore essential, as we view art differently than people would have when it was created. This seems like it will take constant attention and practice, as we are used to simply viewing art as solely art and not functional objects.
When I first walked into the museum, I ran into the Bob Thompson exhibit. Thompson was a prominent artist in the 50s and 60s. They were presented with introduction cards to give context for each piece, and although it was grouped by artist, the works were still thematically organized; Thompson’s works mostly captured themes about the experience of Black Americans. The exhibit had multiple types of media, with many paintings on linen, oil paintings on wood, and a projector showing the work of the filmmaker Dorothy Levitt Basking showing his work in the studio. Next to the Thompson exhibit, was the works of Mary Cassatt, which contained a short bio detailing her life, and once again, there were consistent themes she explored about her work. Downstairs, the Sam L. Cohen gallery demonstrated how art is grouped more thematically. The Multiple Modernism exhibit demonstrated cultural trade-offs between American artists who were inspired by European artists and aspects of their American experience. Although many of the pieces are nearly photorealistic, the addition of photography as a medium led to the development of pieces like Music Hall (Stuart Davis), and to a greater degree, Space Motion (Dorothy Morang) demonstrates how these artists also learned to use abstract qualities. Although there are cohesive themes throughout the downstairs gallery, the different techniques and approaches to the abstractness of each artist still can be identified. Even in the section devoted to Modern and Contemporary art exhibits, many of the pieces were grouped by themes. With our original discussion on museums and the changing context of art, I found the works that were not grouped by artist to be a more interesting choice of organization, because they relied on the perception of modern art historians to be grouped into collections.
The first day of Renaissance Art was definitely interesting and gave me a good first impression as its my first art class at Colby. That’s all to say, I really enjoyed the way Goethe likened his experience with the art to being in a “House of God”. I think those experiences, both being in a holy location and in the museum, are so visceral and unique that it underscores, for me, the longevity and variety of impacts that art can have on the body. Having the originally purposed location be a holy altar makes me see the connection so much clearer.
What also struck me was the conversation on Renaissance and specifically the mentioning of the requisite death to now understand the ushering of new birth. It makes for fertile ground, in my opinion, to ponder on which other historical gravesites were transformed through the emergence of newly birthed items of relevance to deem the point in time one of a “renaissance’. After the first class I’m definitely excited to dive into to more of the art and ask some more questions about Renaissance art and how it was translated over time.