The relationship of art and science during the renaissance has become an obvious motif in our discussions about Leonardo. However the relationship of art and science became obviously crucial in the life of a renaissance when reading about Michelangelo.
Understanding human anatomy, natural observation and physical experimentation is required of any artist, past and present, but the approach of the renaissance artist was just as much about understanding the subject physical properties and processes as it was creatively interpreting the image.
However their approach in their artwork shifted when it came to actually rendering the piece of art. Leonardo was more interested in physical representation rather then discovering internal beauty. "...the theory of Decorum. The gestures in which a figure makes must not only show his feelings but be appropriete with his age rank and feelings." (35Blunt) Lists, and categorization were all highly important when observing a subject, one could compare Leonardo to a modern sociologist or an anthropologist. On the flip side Michelangelo was interested in interpreting a subjects beauty and an almost abstract approach, especially in sculpture, resulted. rondanini pieta
the "unfinished" work expressed what Michelangelo experienced, not the physical representation but the reflection of emotion. In this way, the piece of art is complete when embracing the unfinished surface.
Interesting observation on Leo as a sociologist. But although the reference to Mich's Ronadini Pieta is apt, the essay is weak on Mich; implies he is always an "abstract" artist
ReplyDeleteLea was always very into the idea that art was in fact, science, and that all true science had to be rooted in hard experimentation. Otherwise it was all crap.
ReplyDelete