Self-Assessment

I think that the grade that reflects the work that I have done in this course, and thus earned, would be an A -. I think that I was prepared for class and that I stayed focused. What hindered me was a prompt response in the blogs. My last week of blogs were a little late and I find them to be weaker than previous entries.  I was present for every class and I came with knowledge of the topic we were going to be studying.

I think my best strength in this class was my attentiveness in class. The first day I tried to record the lesson only to realize that my computer was not equipped with a microphone. Therefore, my note had to be excellent because there was no way to recall the information. I took both written and electronic notes. On days when I realized the computer (and its internet connection) was going to be a distraction, I wrote out my notes. I think this was a good plan for me because I was able to recognize when focusing was going to be difficult and I was able to prevent that disturbance. I was also able to keep my shenanigans within the allotted break. For example, I drew a picture for Courtney on some of the days but I did not allow that to take away from the class period. I was focused during the lesson and would think about other things at the appropriate time.

My next strength would be my blogs. I took them very seriously. Despite the fact the last 5 were below par (according to me and discussed about further down), I still spent a good deal of time on them. I wanted to make sure that each blog conveyed what I wanted it to. I also wanted to make sure that there was a point to my blogs. I wanted to write for the sake of substance not for quantity.

Examples of my strengths in the course all focus around the art and literature we studied. My strongest day(s) in class were the days we studied certain concepts in art and when we analyzed texts. I was particularly prepared for Dante’s Inferno because it is one of my favorite pieces from this time frame. I think that was the day that I asked the most questions and was able to use the response from the class and the professors in a blog I wrote later about my confusion with the text. I am also glad that we addressed the works that inspired the Renaissance because I think it was a nice reminder for me. I was able to recall the concepts at a quicker pace because of this foundation.

I don’t think that I was as versed in the arts as I should have been. I recall the first day not being able to name a technique for achieving balance. I know that I should have been able to do that, but I was too nervous and shy in the beginning to be outgoing. I think that is one of my weaknesses. I do not speak up in class and prefer to learn by listening. I remember Courtney using one of the things I said under my breath in one of her arguments (she did give me credit). I think my experience in the classroom would have been better for me intellectually had I spoken up and shared my thoughts instead of musing on them and not getting any clarity on my confusion.

Another weakness that presented itself was my “random thought” blogs. I did not really stay within the classroom setting in some of my blogs, and I fear that some of them are not as useful to my education as the others. These blogs include The Roman Nose and Stargazing. Although they were relative to the time period, they were not really connected to what we were studying in class. I think that I was just so excited to find things out in the world that was Perugia that I wanted to write about them despite the fact that it was an outlier topic. However, I also think this is one of my strengths. I did not limit myself to the classroom but to the outside world as well. I used the surroundings that I was so happily placed in to enhance my learning experience. Despite the fact that these blogs topics are coming from the left field, they do illustrate my learning outside of the classroom, which is of course one of the main perks about studying abroad.

My final weakness that I have thought of at this time is my inability to comprehend the music. I feel as if I understood at least three quarters of the music but I think that I should have made a better effort to confirm my thoughts on the other fourth of the equation. Honestly I thought I would be more experienced in this section because I have had 10 years of Piano lessons but it was an abrupt wake-up call when that section of the class started. I found myself just copying the melodic curves of those around me instead of trying to understand the concept for myself. That is the area of the class that I feel least prepared in and also the area that I wish I would have devoted more time in. I regret not writing a blog based solely on music because it would have been beneficial to not only my understanding of the terminology associated with this part of the class but it also would have helped prepare me for the third essay that is required.

In summation, I think that I have completed quality work for this class. I took it very seriously and I learned a lot. When I think about getting grades in a class I think about the amount I learned. I think that my knowledge should reflect the grade I earned. In this course I think that I have gained so much knowledge about the Renaissance and myself that it would be difficult to consider anything below an A- as my learning level. Again, I put the minus there because I was not always on time with my blogs. My weaknesses do not overpower my successes in the course and I feel very confident in how I carried myself in the classroom.

Synthesis

I am surprised at how my opinions became stronger as the course went along. In the beginning I really stayed true to what I knew when I was writing my blogs. They were primarily about the art and the assignments in class. Towards the last two weeks of blog posts I started to expand into things we haven't seen, like Giotto's Lamentation, or things that inspired me outside of class like my discussion of the Roman nose and how women are treated in art history. I think this is because I wanted to apply what I was learning in class to the outside world. I wanted to use what I was learning in the classroom and apply it to what i was experiencing. I think this is evident in my blog about star gazing as well as my comparison of Siena and The Prince. I wish I would have done more blogs like the one I did on the Trevi Fountain. I think that would have pressed further my understanding of techniques used by renaissance artists. I also wish that I would have done at least one blog on the music that way I would have been more prepared for the third essay that is centered on that topic. I also wish that I would have used a more direct approach to the central concepts of the Renaissance. I think I would have remembered them better had I used a word for word use of each concept and their connections with certain pieces of work.

I acknowledged in my great expectations blog that what I thought would happen would really be subpar to the experiences I was going to have. I was correct in that assumption. Everything was much better than I could have ever dreamed it to be. It is difficult to explain, unless you've had the same experiences I've had. My happy art noise was let loose on multiple occasions. I was not disappointed by any piece we saw. I cannot say the same for the first time that I saw the Mona Lisa. So I think that is a small sort of accomplishment. I was impressed with all of the churches and guides that we had. But most importantly I was impressed with my instructors. I don't think that my experience could have been any better because of the professors and the other students in the class. It wouldn't have been the same, obviously, but I strongly believe that it would not have been so wonderful had one person been different. What i was most pleasantly surprised with were the two trips we took during class to Assisi and Urbino. I had not heard of the ladder and on the plane I learned from the couple I was sitting beside that Assisi was not that interesting of a place. They were wrong. I think I learned more on those trips in just the one day than I did on the weekend trips to Florence and Rome. I am also very pleased at how I was able to get a deeper understanding of texts I have already worked with. I have read Dante's Inferno in snippets in 4 different classes before this course. However, I still learned something new. I was able to look at the piece in a way I haven't before; the punishment aspect. I am glad that I have a background in Medieval and Renaissance literature before this course because I could expand on what I already comprehended and I was able to have a deeper connection with the texts. I am disappointed that Praise of Folly was cut from the syllabus. This is actually the second time in my academic career that the text has been removed from the assignment list and I am really getting antsy to read it.

I think that re-reading my blogs after coming back to the States was very helpful to my self-understanding. Separating myself from the assignments and the location allowed me to see the difference in my writing style in the beginning of the semester to the end of it. As for my self-understanding, I can definitely see that i started to focus more on my own thoughts and views rather than just an analysis of what the piece said. I was willing to look more into how i operate rather than just an impartial discussion of the work. For example, you cannot hear my voice in my first blog about Pico. It wasn't until later that I was comfortable saying "I think" openly and often in a blog. I took me a while to realize that I cannot be wrong in my opinions. I can be incorrect, and later have why I am confused explained to me, but I can’t be punished for my thoughts. I feel like sometimes my blog did not express the amount of confidence that I wanted it to. For example, the blog about the Courtier. I would have liked to have been more forceful with my beliefs on the perfect person. However, I feel that I just circumnavigated each adjective until it had the semblance of being a thought. I feel like I did the same thing in the final blog. I was not very confident in my thoughts on the use of the senses or reason. In the beginning I did not thing that I was mentioning anything in my blogs that were profound. I kept comparing myself to the great things that were said in class, and I did not think that anything I had to say was that deep. I still don’t know how much I brought to the intellectual table, but I do know that I can tell I learned a great deal while in Italy.

Senses or Reason or Both

We were asked in class on Monday if we trust our senses more or our ability to reason. I think I am a happy medium of both. I don’t fall too easily into my emotions. In fact I would prefer if I did not have to share what I am feeling with the world. It is part of what makes me an introverted person. I don’t feel like everyone should know how I am feeling or what is going on with my life. However, I do think that I share an appropriate amount of information about myself as to not go completely insane while alone in my thoughts. I believe that I follow my head too often. I do not buy something without deep consideration as to if I really need it or not. I am not a creature to give way to my desires and wants. This is partly because of the way I have been raised. My father knows the value of a dollar and he has instilled that knowledge into me also. As for matters of the heart I am forever talking myself out of potentially good things. So I think I reason too much there. But the reason I reason (ha) is because I don’t want my emotions to get destroyed. I don’t always think that following your senses is a good thing. It can get you into a lot of trouble. For example, if you are constantly in want of a certain taste you are ignoring all of the other things that are out there and available to you. We were blessed with the ability to reason by God (thus giving us the ability to either climb the ladder into the heavenly realm or descent into the world of the brutes – thank you Pico) and I don’t take that lightly. Because I am capable of thought I want to make sure that I do everything that I think is right for me and for those around me. I do not want to be pushed around by my senses but I also don’t want to miss out on life experiences because I am too busy thinking about things. I think this trip has been a way for me to figure out what I want in the world and how I can achieve it. I thought about my money situation and converting money but if I wanted a gelato I would purchase it. (Again, bear with me if this is a bit deductive, but I’m musing about my life.) I do not really know anyone who is completely driven by their senses, although I do think I know some people who are driven by their ability to reason. I can’t imagine not having both. I think that this is another Aristotelian mean thing. You can’t be on opposite ends of the spectrum. You won’t get everything out of life that is possible. The reason we have both the senses and ability to reason is because we were meant to use both. And that is what I think.

Star Gazing

Again, this weekend in Tuscany I had a revelation. A group from the institute went outside onto the grass in front of our picturesque rooms in order to talk and look at the stars. It was absolutely amazing. However, there were some lights on in the buildings so a few of us walked down to the lake for a better view. With the nature and the tranquility that surrounded me I couldn’t help but think how different it would have been in the Renaissance and before even, to find out the information that they did not using the internet or iPod apps. I have taken an astronomy course at GWU but it was either too long ago or I have lost all that I previously knew because I was not successful in finding constellations. I had to resort to using another student’s iPhone’s GPS locator in order to get my bearings and figure out where the little dipper was. In the Galileo Museum I watched a video that stated Galileo mapped out sun spots every day using a telescope. That is something I cannot even comprehend. The technology that we have today is outstanding but I do not think that we are more intelligent or advanced than the people of the Renaissance. I think that without their discoveries, whether they were wrong or not, we would not have been able to come as far as we have as a civilization. It is argued that our generation is more advanced but I don’t really think you can compare the two. I think that it is all a building process. One curious mind leads to another inquisitive mind after the first one makes a discovery. It is all about testing and hypothesizing and improving upon what was previously thought. We are living in different times. We cannot know what that civilization would have been capable of had they had the information that we do now. However, I do think that education is slipping because of some of the technology. I do not feel that I am as smart as my grandparents who can do things without the use of a graphing calculator. My spelling is awful because I can access spellcheck any time I want (and I do so frequently). So I guess what I am trying to get at (this is a very free flowing blog) is that we cannot compare this time period to previous ones because they are different. There are different circumstances and beliefs and restrictions for both of the different ages. However, I think that it can be argued that education is slipping despite, if not a direct cause of the advances we have made.

Siena and The Prince

Siena's city square where the Horse Races are held

This past weekend the institute provided us with a trip to Tuscany. The first day we went to Siena and were able to have a guided tour throughout the city. One of the main focuses that Margarita, our tour guide, really stressed was the different sections of Siena. They are basically like little neighborhoods or burrows that have their own animal symbols and flags. It is very segregated in Siena. Each separate section has their own standards and ideals and it is very taboo to think about another section in anything else other than rivalry. We were told that once you move to Siena it is nearly impossible to move from one segment of the city to another one. Also if you marry someone from a different neighborhood than during social events you have to stay with your original home section while your significant other must stay with their original one. However, this rivalry between burrows really comes into play during the horse races. There are two a year and the whole city gathers in the center of town to watch this event. Each neighborhood has their own jockey and horse and whoever wins gets the bragging rights and also the rights to celebrate in the Duomo with the artwork of the Virgin Mary. It is a large part of Siena culture. While we were learning about this throughout the course of the day I began to consider how Machiavelli would have assessed this event. I began thinking about him when another student and I realized that all of the Italian cities were built on hills to prevent invasions from other city-states. Because of Italian history and the fact that it wasn’t a nation until 150 years ago, it is understandable that all of the cities were built on hills and had towers and medieval walls. It was for the protection of the city. I think that both of these things would have been appreciated by Machiavelli. Even though his instructions were for how the prince should act, I think that it is also applicable to the city because it is the job of the Prince to maintain the state. The different sections of Siena would have appealed to Machiavelli because they had such rigid rules. It would be against the good of the city to intermingle and lose that respect/tension between each region. I think he would have encouraged the horse races and the rewards because with that competition there was also the respect built into the winning. So despite the fact that this is not based on one person but instead a whole community, it is possible to see the Machiavellian ideals applied to the Italian city states.

The Courtier

Today in class we travelled to Urbino in order to discuss Castiglione’s text The Courtier. It was very plato-esque in its execution. The speaker is having a discussion with other intellectual types and it is an attempt to persuade the others of the characteristics that would make the perfect noble man. Some of these qualities include knowledge of the liberal arts, of military techniques and modesty in this knowledge. Ever since reading this text I have been trying to find out what qualities the perfect person would have. When asked to write down those qualifications during the class discussion it took me no time at all to write down kind, resourceful, logical, respectful and strong-willed. However the more I think about it, the more I realize the flaws in those seemingly good characteristics. Something I believe that Machiavelli noticed is that a person cannot be too kind. If so they will be trampled on. In my life this has happened over and over again. So why is kindness such a good quality? Obviously a courtier should be generous and decent but there should be a balance between selfishness and kindness. A person should not be so absorbed in their own desires that they ignore the world around them. Yet they should also not be so kind that their resolution and willpower deplete. This is where the Aristotelian mean comes into play. According to Aristotle a person should strive to meet their own personal mean between the two extremes. I think that this is what The Courtier is saying as well. The courtier is supposed to be modest but not self-degrading. They should not let compliments go to their heads nor should they recognize their own greatness – even if they recognize it to themselves. I still think the resourcefulness is a quality that the ideal person would have. There has to be the ability to go into different situations without getting flustered or distracted by the change in surroundings. I think that being resourceful also leads to an air of confidence. If a person is resourceful then there should be no reason they are to get into any trouble. I think logical is still a good quality although I think that there should also be a smidge of emotion behind that logic. I would not necessarily say that the mean between logic and emotion should be met, because I feel that emotion is seen as a lesser quality. I think that kindness and respectful go hand in hand in this section. They are both good characteristics to have but there needs to be the mean between them because of the need to stay in control. Finally I think that I countered my own argument when I put kind and strong willed in the same list. Obviously, there are not polar opposites. They are not going to cancel each other out because each has a characteristic of its own that the other one cannot null and void. However I think that a happy medium between the two can be achieved and the perfect person would have that quality. It is so easy to argue against each characteristic that it is a wonder that Castiglione was able to create a whole text describing the perfect person and putting reasons behind them as well.

Stumbling Upon a Deja-Vu Moment

Due to a missed train, Saturday I was able to explore the town Folignio while awaiting the arrival of a bus to continue my journey to the beach. While there, we stumbled upon a gorgeous church amidst a bunch of modern clothing shops. It was the Folignio cathedral that is also known as the Cathedral of San Feliciano. As we walked inside, the thing I immediately thought was that it bore a striking resemblance to St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City. There was a mosaic on the outside that mirrored that of the one that was inside the basilica in Rome. One of the things that was really parallel to that of Vatican City’s cathedral was the altar piece (or the baldachin.) It appeared to be an exact replica of the one that is above Peter’s tomb. The one in Folignio even had the bees on the posts which was symbolic of the Barberini family. It was obviously not as large as the one in Rome, but it mirrored it quite closely. Another thing I noticed about this cathedral was the use of the same sculptures as in the roman cathedral. The sculptures of the saints that acted as the pillars for the relics and dome in St. Peter’s Basilica were also a part of the architecture of the Folignio Cathedral. They were located at the top in the dome. From what I could see, which were only two of the figures; they were Saint Helena and Saint Veronica. They were not the exact replicas as the ones in Rome but I was able to tell who they were based on the items they were carrying. One was holding a piece of cloth; Saint Veronica and the other was holding a cross; Saint Helena. One of the major differences between the two churches, I think, was the dedication to Mary. This church in Folignio had a fresco on the ceiling of the last judgment. It was similar in content to the ones we saw in the Sistine Chapel and the Saint Francis Church in Assisi except for one major thing. Instead of placing Jesus or God in the center of the painting, the Virgin Mary was there. She was the central focus of this church which is an added emphasis on the belief of Mary as the essential mediator. The meaning of having her in the center shows that she does have power as the Queen of Heaven and that she has the ability to decide your fate when the day comes. The church also had a plan for a rose window. I do not know if it was lying to the side because the window was destroyed or if they are planning on installing one. The rose window is also a symbol of Mary. It was her flower. Most of the Notre Dame cathedrals in France have them because they are the churches of “Our Lady” (Mary). I find that Mary is a very important figure of the early Renaissance and later. I am surprised at the amount of art that her presence is seen. I think that, in a religious sense, that this shift of importance could be used as one of the identifiers of the Renaissance period. Michelangelo’s Pieta and Giotto’s pieces all have that hierarchy of importance based on size and Mary is the largest in most of these works. Having the representation of Mary in so many locations and in different ways is definitely representative of the faith of the time and how religion was not just focused on what the bible says but about emotional connections as well. The Christians appealed to Mary for their sins because she was Jesus’s mother so they recognized the bond between the son and mother as something that impacts everyone – even the holy.

The Roman Nose

I am reading a book that I found in my apartment on the first week in Italy. It is entitled Me and Mr. Darcy by Alexandra Potter. The incorrect grammar in the title should have been a warning against this text, but my love for Jane Austen prevailed and I started reading it. So far the book is absolutely awful to the point of being hilarious. But that is not the reason for mentioning that. The author was describing the character of Mr. Darcy and one of the top characteristics that he had was a roman nose. Reading that, I got to thinking about how that is still an ideal look for today’s culture. The male form has been ideally muscular and strong since the Greek and Roman times. The masters of the Renaissance mirrored this appreciation in their art work as well. For example, Michelangelo’s David is much more appreciated and widely known than Donatello’s David. I think this has to do with the aesthetics of the piece. The form is more appealing because it fits the standards of the ideal form. As I was thinking about how the ideal male form has stayed primarily stagnant throughout history I started to consider the ideal female form. I realized that it has going through stages of shape and color. It seems as if a woman did not have to be rail thin in the Greek and Roman time. Most of the sculptures portray women as being fit and in decent shape. Some sculptures have the women with larger hips and stomach to show that they would be ideal mothers. In the ancient civilizations, the women were revered and worshiped because they thought they had god-like powers. It is widely accepted that they considered women the higher being because they were able to bleed and not die. In the Middle Ages and later the ideal woman was pale and heavy-set. It showed that they had money because they were able to stay indoors all day and not burn their delicate skin. Heavier women were attractive because it meant that they were able to have fattening foods on their tables (again associated with social standing). Now the ideal woman is the size of a stick and is usually darker in skin tone. As I pondered this change of standards throughout history I realized why the masculine ideal never changed. It also has to deal with social standing. The man is supposed to be the protector of the town/household/etc. The fact that they are well endowed with muscles and strength shows the capabilities of that man for that duty. We are still able to appreciate these artworks because they are still the epitome of attractiveness and perfection.



Woman of Willendorf circa 23000 BCE








Venus De Milo circa 120 BCE

 
 



Titian's Venus of Urbino circa 1538



Giotto's Lamentation

If there is one Giotto piece that I am bemoaning not getting to see in person it would be his Lamentation. I am going to analyze it here from pictures on the internet and according to his previous style. This piece exudes the emotion of those who were closest to Jesus Christ after his crucifixion. The Virgin Mary is the woman that is cradling his head. Her face is looking into the eyes of her son. Mary Magdalene is at Jesus’s feet. This is symbolic of when she anointed his feet. She is also the figure with the long red hair that is unkempt and free-flowing. There are two disciples behind her who seem expressionless in this mourning scene. The disciple John is also depicted here. The characteristics of John are that he was young and had a page-boy haircut. His face and body language has the most emotion in them. The hidden meaning in this, I think, is that the female figures and John are all distraught with emotions. However, the two disciples in the background seem to have the appearance of comprehension that this mourning will only last a short time. The angels in the background rival John for the most passionate bereavement. I understand why this fresco is called the Lamentation. All of the figures are lamenting the death of Jesus. There is so much emotion in this piece that it favors Masaccio’s The Expulsion from the Garden of Eden. The difference between the two is that the grief shown in Giotto’s work is because of the loss of the man who was the salvation for all of the people in the painting. Masaccio’s woe was because of the loss of the garden from their own accord. This piece shows how Giotto has evolved from the art of the Middle Ages yet it also shows how he is in the “teenager” stage that our tour guide in Assisi suggested. There is depth suggested in the mountains in the background. The figures to the left that are inseparable are not stacked like the works of Buoninsegna or Cimabue. They are still grouped together, but unlike with the gold background, the viewer has the capacity to differentiate when one head starts and another begins in the background. I think the thing that shows the most depth and innovation in his work is the way he showed the angels coming from the heavens. He blurred the ends of the angels’ dresses for the purpose of making them look like they are sprinting through the clouds. What makes this piece not as developed as the later Renaissance works is the detail in proportion. Jesus’s body is very disfigured if you remove the other people who are in the way. The idea was to let the body hover above the earth, to symbolize how he is not a part of the earthly realm anymore. However, the legs are not as large as they are supposed to be in comparison to the torso and arms. It is the reason that Giotto is the teenager instead of the adult in the Renaissance art perspective.

The True Cross, Golgotha and Renaissance Crucifixions

In my medieval literature course we read a text called Cursor Mundi which is an account of Adam’s death. He asks his son Seth to go to the Garden of Eden and speak to the angel, Cherubim who guarded the gate. Seth was to tell the angel that Adam was ready to die (After living 900 years) and that he was curious as to if he would be receiving the “oil of mercy” that was promised to him while he was living in Paradise. Cherubim made Seth look into the gates three separate times, each time he saw a new vision of a tree growing. The final image there was a child weeping in the limbs of the tree. Cherubim told Seth that the baby was Jesus and that the tears were Adam’s promised oil of mercy. He then gave Seth three seeds from the tree and told him that Adam should put those on his tongue when he died. These three seeds fertilized in Adam’s head and from it sprang the tree from which the cross that Jesus was crucified on was made. The main reason for mentioning this story is that in Florence I noticed that a lot of the artwork of the crucifixion had skulls underneath the rocks at the base of the cross. I asked our tour guide if that is what it was a symbol of. She informed me that it was not what I thought it was. Instead the skull under the rock is symbolic of Golgotha. I had never heard of this term before so when we were back at the institute I looked up the meaning of it. Turns out I was half right. The tour guide said that I was thinking of the legend of the True Cross, which is also connected to Golgotha. There is no mention of why the place of the crucifixion is called Golgotha (place of the skull) in the Bible. However, there are three theories that I have come across. One is the one that I have previously mentioned. The other is that the shape of Calvary was that of a skull. The final theory is that Golgotha was a common place for public execution therefore it would be riddled with skulls. One source that I found cited The Complete Dictionary of Symbols by Jack Tresidder. This source says that “Tresidder notes that Christian monks used the symbol of the skull to remind them of their own mortality and to meditate upon their own death. Medieval and Renaissance artists, Tredisser states, used the skull to call ‘attention to the vanity of earthly things or the passing of time...’” This would make sense in relationship to the concepts of the Renaissance that we have been studying in class. For me, this does not counter the argument of the shift of influence to secularism. Instead it seems to me that the addition of the skull shows the recognition that because Jesus died for the sins of Adam you now have the capacity to live life morally for the sake of doing so not because it is the decree of the church. It is up to the viewer to find the meaning of this symbol and then apply it to their life. I think that it is very similar to Dante. Despite its religious focus, it is a renaissance piece because of its emphasis on the individual interpretation and application. It also shows me that there is the continuation of the use of Christian symbols in the art for educational purposes. The fact that most of the art has the blood from Jesus dripping onto the skull of Adam is a summation of the Bible. Adam sinned and Jesus was sent to null and void those sins.

http://www.suite101.com/content/christian-symbolism-human-skull-under-the-crucifix-at-golgotha-a361800

Going up the Mountain

Companionship is one of the things that I have had to deal with in my life. Being the middle child does not make it easier. I am used to being ignored and to just go with the flow when it comes to life and doing things that others want to do. One thing that really stood out to me in Petrarch’s work is that he needed the perfect companion to accompany him on his journey up the mountain. I think that I have found the similar plight while I have been in Italy. The hardest thing that I have experienced is the desire to be alone. Living in an apartment, it is difficult to find a place without another person in the room. And living in Italy, where there is no air conditioning, there is difficulty finding a room that is quiet because of the noises coming in through the window.  Now that I am more familiar with the territory I would feel some comfort in going out alone, but that is not something that we have been advised to do. Also I don’t really want to go wandering around in a foreign country alone. So picking a companion is something I am very familiar with. If I want to go somewhere and think I would pick a person different than the one I would pick to go shopping. I think the fact that Petrarch picked his brother; who became a monk, is not a coincident. His brother was able to find the correct path up the mountain without getting side tracked while searching for an easier route. If this piece was written in 1352 like some scholars suggest than this piece could show Petrarch’s belief that becoming a monk was the most successful and pure path up the mountain of enlightenment. The fact that Petrarch kept searching for another path and got lost and discouraged added to the effect of the allegory. What this means is that the pathway to heaven can be tricky. It is easy to get distracted while looking for your own way up. However, if you follow the path set in front of you than you can achieve success more rapidly. Once he reached the top he reproached himself for the journey up there and for his longings when he should be content with what he has. I think this is very applicable to this trip. I do not long to be home; in fact I want to stay in Italy forever. I am content here. I was a bit concerned before coming over that I would be terribly homesick, but that hasn’t happened yet. I think that this trip has been placed in my life at the time when I needed it most. The people I am studying with could not have been a more varied group, yet our dynamics work in ways that improve the educational experience. I am completely content with where I am in relationship to the universe. This is what Petrarch was going for. You need to be satisfied with what god has given you and not long for anything else. Use the place, people and surroundings to become a better person instead of searching for something more.

David to the Fourth Power

Donatello's first David

While in Florence the group had the opportunity to see the David; from the biblical story of David and Goliath, portrayed in four different ways by three different artists of the Renaissance. Donatello was the artist who completed two separate and varied sculptures of this biblical character. The first one that he was commissioned to do is strikingly different than the one he did later in his career. This David, which was commissioned to be put onto a Florence cathedral, was done in the early 1400s. It is fully clothed. The stance is contrapposto but it is lacking in emotion. The face of David seems unimpressed with the fact that there is the decapitated head of his foe at his feet. The overall effect of the statue is underwhelming because of the absent reaction in David’s eyes, stance, and appearance.

Donatello's later David

Donatello’s more popular portrayal of David was commissioned in the mid-1400s. It is made completely out of bronze. The size is relatively smaller than the first sculpture because of its purpose. It was a private commission for the Medici family. It was a piece that was placed in their gardens, therefore the stature did not have to be as large as the first one that was meant for the façade of a cathedral. This David is younger and less developed than the previous one. He is also completely nude with the exception of the hat that he is wearing. The face has a suspicious smile that reminds me of the Mona Lisa. It exudes confidence in the stance, the face, and the self-assured way that he is standing on Goliath’s head and holding his sword for balance. This David is also in the contrapposto stance yet his long hair and hand on the hips give it a very effeminate quality.  Our tour guide said this would have been the David that Michelangelo saw when he was beginning his artistic career. We also learned that the David became a symbol for Florence because he was a figure who, against all odds, was able to vanquish his foes. I find it hard to believe that this David was able to defeat Goliath but that is the point. It just stresses the point that no matter how weak or young you are that you have the capabilities to overcome the obstacles in your way.

Michelangelo's David

Michelangelo’s David was completed in the early 1500s. It is the largest piece of sculpture that I have ever seen; 17 feet tall. There are sensors on the back of the left leg where the tree trunk is because it is beginning to crack under the weight of the rest of the sculpture. It only took him four years to complete. Seeing it in person was astonishing. You cannot tell in the photo how large it is. We talked about the sculpture in class before going to see it. We determined that the amount of emotion in the face and the range of interpretations that you can get from it was the most captivating part. Michelangelo took the idea of the Greek and Roman sculptures that emotion should only be seen in the eyes. There is thought behind the marble. While half of the class saw confidence the other half saw a combination of regret and worry. His stance is also in contrapposto but the muscles are more detailed than the previous Davids. Michelangelo looked to the Greek ideal of the perfect form when he was sculpting this piece. He was able to make it nude because of this rebirth but also because of Donatello’s statue. He saw this and was inspired. The fact that they aren’t wearing clothes could be symbolic of the fact that in the Bible David chose not to wear armor.

Bernini's David

In Rome we saw Bernini’s David. It was a life-size figure and it is my personal favorite. The details that Bernini is known for does not disappoint in this piece. It was completed in the 1620s. The figure is in mid throw and Bernini has managed to capture the moment right before the release of the stone. David’s face is riveted in concentration and anticipation. His figure is strong but it is not as defined as Michelangelo’s sculpture. I think that he looks a little older and more defined than the biblical David. I think that the movement is more based in the Hellenistic movement than in the rebirth of the classical. This is probably because this piece was done after the Renaissance had reached its end. It is the only David that is not in the contrapposto form. Instead he is bent in preparation for the release of his rocks. The armor lays discarded at his feet. He is covered by a cloth that is loosely wrapped around his side and legs. I am guessing this is done because of the desire for censorship after the renaissance but I am not sure. The way these different Davids are shown is a way to see the evolution of art over the course of 200 years.

Assessing Assisi

First off I want to talk about how top notch our tour guide, Marco was. He was invested in interacting with us as students and he was interested in having our particular fields of study connect with his tour. It was wonderful. He did an outline of the time period of the separate work for us by classifying each floor as a particular age in life. For example the work in the lower chapel was a baby because it was crawling away from the Byzantine period. There was still evidence of the influence previous to the renaissance in the art work. The details were not there, like in the bed of the pope or in the extremities of the body (toes and feet). There is no movement in the work either. The animals painted with St. Francis look like they are stationary and incapable of taking flight (Marco called them chickens). It is a step away from the Byzantine restrictions on art because the subject matter of the frescoes expanded beyond Mary, Jesus and the saints. In the side chapels is the artwork of Cimabue and Giotto. Their art work is considered to be the teenagers breaking away from the Byzantine art according to Marco. In other classes I have learned to believe that Giotto is more of an adult artist in his technique rather than at the teen stage. The difference between Cimabue and Giotto, as I have talked about in a previous post, is all in the detail. However I think that Cimabue had something on Giotto in this Basilica. I find it to be so different than the one we saw at the Uffizi Gallery. I was a little incredulous when I saw it. The figures had so much depth to them! If I had to choose one of the artists to accredit to this work I would have been wrong. I like this piece more than I do Giotto’s “Ognissanti Madonna.” I feel like Cimabue’s is more “grown-up” so to speak than Giotto’s work. It is darker also which gives it a more somber feel.  I think what makes me appreciate this piece more than the Giotto one, or Cimabue’s piece in the Uffizi for that matter, is the lack of gold paint. The gold is overkill. I understand that it was a popular element in renaissance works because it is showing the glory and wealth of the patron but it gives no room for depth. Having the background and the halos both painted with gold makes it hard to differentiate the perspective. I like the fact that this Cimabue has depth and perspective through Mary’s throne and the placement of the angels that are surrounding it. There are no “grape-heads” in this painting. I also appreciate that it is balanced without being symmetrical. Saint Francis on the side is not symmetrical with the other figures; it appears as if he was stuck in there last minute. However, it does not seem like the side with Mary and the angels is more crowded. The wings of the angels seem dainty and almost opaque as well. They are quite realistic. Baby Jesus looks more like a real baby in comparison to Giotto’s baby Jesus. Usually in this period when Jesus is portrayed as a child he is given the face of an old man. This shows the wisdom of him. However, Cimabue’s baby, while still looking older than a child, has a more baby like quality to his face than Giotto’s does. One thing I do not like about this piece is the iridescent quality of Mary’s halo, while the other saints do not have that opaqueness. You can see the lines of the boarder in her halo while you cannot see the outlines of things behind the other halos. That is similar to the gold halos that Giotto painted. You could see nothing behind them. The placement and setup of Giotto’s throne is more realistic. Cimabue’s looks like it is rickety and that it might fall apart. It does not look real. The thing that really interested me about Cimabue was his desire to paint something accurate. He took the stories of St. Francis and compiled them to make the figure standing on the right of this painting. I think that is something to give him merit in the renaissance. He wanted everything to be correct. There was no falsity in his portrayal. I appreciate that about this piece.

Cimabue's Madonna

Giotto's Madonna

Circumnavigating Dante's Hell Circles

While reading Dante’s Inferno I am constantly looking at the people who Dante describes in the separate sections of hell and working out if they truly belong there or not. As I mentioned in class, I am a bit befuddled by the organization and deciding factors as to which circle a person ends up in. After previously reading this text I held the understanding that a person’s worst sin would be the corresponding circle that they would be forced to spend all of eternity in. However, for the first time I realized that this is not necessarily true. I thought about Aeneas and Dido and how their story is not fitting with the location that they ended up in. I believe that Aeneas should not have been located in Limbo. In his story he was led by the will of the Greek gods to fall in love with Dido so that he couldn’t continue on his journey to carry on the Trojan legacy. I think that it is a sign of weakness, not greatness. However he ended up in the first circle of hell at the crest of the Dolorous Abyss. He was surrounded by such people as Plato, Aristotle, and Hector. There really was no punishment except for the knowledge that they will never have the hope of reaching heaven. This circle is reserved for those who were born before Jesus and therefore did not believe in him. They had the misfortune of being before He washed away all of the sins. I don’t think that was Aeneas’s only sin though. I think that he was also an adulterer and a betrayer. So why is he in the ranks of such men like the ones mentioned above? And why does Dido get a lesser punishment than she deserves? She is in the 2^nd circle of hell where those who gave into their appetite instead of reason; the lustful, are doomed. I understand that she did give into her lust when she and Aeneas were trapped in the storm. However, she also committed suicide which is in Circle 7. So why is she not there? If your place in hell is determined by the severity of your sin than why are these two people not in the rightful location? Or a better question is what right do I have to decide where these people end up in hell? Furthermore, what right does Dante have? This sins he is punishing people for are not equal. I think that if hell was set up the way he describes it; in circles based on the type of sin, than there would be some sort of system so that those people who were the worst would get the most fitting punishment. Another problem I have with this is that Ugolino is still damned to be a cannibal for the rest of his after-life. I can’t imagine that being a punishment that is equal to the man whose head he is continually gnawing on. To have to eat someone for the rest of your existence or to be eaten, that is the question. I understand that Dante is creating an underworld that is meant to strike fear in the sinner’s heart and to make them realize the consequences. That is why it is so graphic. However I think that he loses some of his reverence and authority in the subject because he is not always fair with the punishments.

Influence of Technique

I am constantly amazed at how art circles around and how the influence changes throughout history. I think what is the most shocking for me is how much a student and a teacher can differ. I know that everyone develops their own style but I find it hard to believe that technique can change that much over a short period of time. For example Picasso started out being classically trained by his father but over the course of his life became more and more abstract. I realized this in the Uffizi museum. We were looking at one of Giotto’s altarpieces in the center of the room while on the left and right there were similar pieces by Giotto’s teacher, Ciambue, and the teacher of Giotto’s teacher, Duccio da Buoninsegna. The difference was outstanding. The earliest piece was very flat and reminiscent of the Byzantine time period. The saints were stacked on top of each other without any sense of depth. I think there were three or four saints on each side of the Madonna and child. The next piece had the same subject and nearly similar composition. The only think that was a bit different is the drapery was a bit more lifelike. The Giotto piece was recognizably more modern. The forms had shadow and detail. Instead of the saints that flock around Mary looking like “grape-heads” (a term for when the heads look like a bunch of grapes piled on top of each other rather than individual forms) they actually looked like they are going back into the painting. They had individual characteristics. Despite the fact that they all use gold as the background and the halo/discs on the saints and Mary, Giotto’s was the one that had form and that you could make a differentiation between the purposes of the gold. The details in the fabric were also substantially better. It looked realistic and more natural than the folds in the fabric of the two previous works. Giotto was truly the father of perspective but I also think he had an impact on three-dimensionality. His figures were not flat. They had depth and something more than just paint on a surface. It was more realistic than what had previously been done before. This would allow the influence of artists to carry on and people like Michelangelo would have seen this and used it for their own work.


Buoninsegna's "Rucellai Madonna"



Cimabue's "Santa Trinita Madonna"

Giotto's "Ognissanti Madonna"

The Trevi Fountain and how it fits into the Renaissance ideal of perfect art:

BALANCE: The window that is painted on. I do not know exactly when that was painted on there but I am going to use it anyways. Despite the fact that it was not there originally, the window was added for the uniformity of the complete fountain. That and the proportion and order of the different sculptures of the god-like figures make the fountain very balanced.

ORDER: There is symmetry in the order of the fountain’s statues. The arrangement of the sculptures could be considered in the balance category but I think that because there is also the component of the whole fountain that is not representative of a river god this belongs in the order category. There is a mixture of the natural rock sculpture, or rocks that appear to be natural and that of the sculpted figures. They are ordered in an aesthetically pleasing manner so that the viewer is under the impression that the figures are mixed in with nature. I think it also gives the statue a bit of a naturalistic allusion. The juxtaposition of the hard stone and the water works in the way that it has the flow of the water against the jagged edges of the stone. It looks like it could actually appear in nature instead of at the hands of the designer.

PROPORTION: It is proportional because of its equal amounts of sculpture on each side. There is the largest and most eye-catching figure in the center of the fountain. He is placed at the back of the fountain in a domed area that is flanked by two other statues of women. Below them in the actual fountain part are two statues on either side of the largest man. On each side there is a horse and a god-like figure controlling the horse. Then the stones cascade like a waterfall into the fountain. Neither of these figures are equal but because of the subject matter and the general location it appears to be proportional. If you folded the fountain in half it would not be symmetrical but it also wouldn’t have any outliers.

PRECISION: The precision is in the detail. The muscles of the gods are well defined and it is very idealized. There was also the consideration of how the piece would look with water filling it up and the precise way that the water should fall once the sculpture was hooked up to an aqueduct. There is a lot of consideration to go into a fountain of that size. The designer also had to consider the building behind the fountain and what would be the best way to incorporate the two. I think that the juxtaposition of smooth marble and jagged cut marble is also a precision issue. Without that detail it could get very confusing and loose its naturalistic feel.

CONTROL: I may be stretching this point but I think the control in this piece is the ability for it to be so massive yet it is contained. The water does not spray outside of the intended location.  It is contained while being expressive at the same time. The bucking horses and the jagged stone give the fountain the appearance of being like water, free flowing and gushing while in reality it is not. It is

CLARITY OF COMMUNICATION & MEANING: I don’t think that it is excessively difficult to find the meaning of this piece. I don’t know who the gods are in this, or if they are even gods to begin with. But what I receive from this piece is power. It is not a sculpture of a weakling. Whoever is in the center of that fountain is in control. He has the ability to master the flowing waters. Even the smaller people have the control over the horses that are near them. Even though this piece is over 500 years old it still has that awing affect.

Musings on Plato

Something that I have been thinking a lot about is how to reach this level of purity at the top of the world of forms. I don’t know how much of the process that I subscribe to. As a Christian I know that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ and having faith. I think that there are different paths for everyone in their walk with god. I do not see Plato’s argument that good is reached by thinking the correct ideal; the only ideal. Unlike Plato, I do not believe that there is a group ideal. There may be individual ideal. Each person is entitled to their own wants and desires and it varies based on the different personalities. The factors that attribute to the need for separate forms of perfection can be based on the separate cultural views, gender views, political views or any number of things. For example the ideal love for me would not be the same as my sister’s opinion. And my parents’ ideal child would not be the same as the ideal child from another country like China. My ideal education is the one I am receiving now but someone else might want a larger classroom or a more interdisciplinary education. Black Mountain College was formed because the professors wanted to provide a school for art students that didn’t fit into the mold of a rigid four year degree. For something to be so perfect that everyone is content would be somewhat impossible. There is the argument that God is the ideal but there are so many religions out there who do not subscribe to the same beliefs that I do that I don’t think He could be considered a GROUP ideal. One of our taxi drivers in Rome helped me realize this. He was of a Muslim faith and he correctly guessed that we were Christian. Then he said “But there is one God that fits for everyone.” We may not have the same god that our driver had, but that really doesn’t matter. His ideal god is Allah while mine is the Baptist version of God. Just because my God is different than his does not mean that we are not going in the same direction towards the Realm of the Good. I don’t see how people could be so varied through beliefs, race, gender, etc. though there exists only ONE entrance into the heavenly realm.

Ficino, Plato, and Pico Musings

Ficino was a philosopher of the renaissance who made Plato’s works more widely available to the people of Italy. He adopted and adapted some of Plato’s ideas from the world of forms and explained these ideals to the people he had correspondence with. However, I think that it is his connection to Pico that is more interesting. He states that “It was not for small things but for great that God created men, who, knowing the great, are not satisfied with small things.” This is a direct connection to Pico. He believes that man has the ability to achieve greater things because they are privy to the knowledge of the heavenly world. Plato’s belief that souls were once in a world of pure contentment and were provided for by God but they began to desire worldly things so they fell from that exalted place down into the Realm of Senses. They passed through the river Lethe which made them forget the heavenly world and what they previously knew. The soul then joined the body of a human and now had the task of remembering the heavenly truth through the shadows and memories of them that are represented in the material world. I think the difference between Plato and Ficino is that the purpose for seeking knowledge is different. For Plato, knowledge is achieved because the soul is subconsciously trying to remember being in such a place that was blessed and pure. However, Ficino’s belief is that people grow because God willed them that option to become greater than they originally were. God created humans with the ability to grow and achieve limitless possibilities despite what the constraints may appear to be. Pico also felt that this was the way to “climb the ladder.” He also believed, though, that one could fall from the ladder to the level of the brutes. Ficino’s belief is that people could ignore that ability to grow and only focus on the material world in front of them instead of the betterment of themselves. This is a connection to Plato because he states that they are nurturing their human body “a wild, cruel and dangerous animal” while they allow the soul “to starve to death.” Plato would have agreed with this if it was in pursuit of knowledge because he wanted people to strive for information so the souls could once again reach the realm of the souls. They were both under the thought that “we are spiritual beings having human experience” not human beings searching for a spiritual experience.  I think that all of the writers and postulators believed that philosophy was the correct way to achieve a return or a level of divine nature although Ficino also encourages love, poetry, mysteries and prophecy to reach the level of divine frenzy needed to reach the heavenly world.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola

“The cherub glows with the splendor of intelligence. The seraph burns with the fire of love. The throne stands by the steadfastness of judgment.” These are the things that people are supposed to immolate according to Pico. He believes that people should study and ponder life and their surroundings to reach the cherub’s level of thinking. He thinks that people should strive for the love of God to reach the seraphic level of passion for God. The thrones were those who sat close to God and were the judges. It is Pico’s belief that we should study and go back to the teaching of the ancient fathers to see how each of these types of categories responded to life. To strive to be equal to each of these types of heavenly beings the human beings will climb the ladder to a more successful, holy lifestyle. All of these things are the important qualifications to ascend to the heavens. By taking action to be more like the Cherub, Seraph and the Throne then it is a preventative action to falling down the ascent to heaven and becoming a brute.

How this connects to the Renaissance: he is a firm believer in the will power and the betterment of man. He thinks that man has the capability to reach the heavenly beings but they also have the ability to fall from grace and level themselves with the worms. It is a Renaissance ideal because he is not denying the existence of God but more supporting the creation of mankind. He obviously believes in education because he thinks that philosophers, like himself, are the humans that are closest to being heavenly beings. He thought that by studying philosophy it was possible to climb the ladder to reach the glory that the angels have. This would represent the subcategories of the Humanistic connection to the Renaissance. I think he also shows a bit of the virtuosity that is found in the Individualism category from the Renaissance. Since he listed philosophers as the closest to heaven he has high aspirations in the importance of his profession. It also evokes the idea of Secularism. Despite the fact that this has to do with God and how he gave humans the abilities to become heavenly beings; Pico states that it is up to the person themselves to climb the ladder and achieve that status. There is still the vertical ascent towards heaven instead of the horizontal embrace of the material world, but there is no interference from God and the humans are able to have choice and free-will. I am not sure it this shows historical-self-consciousness. I did not see any example of that; but it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I think that because Pico had such high hopes and trust in human kind there is a little window for the belief that he is living in a significantly important time.

Great Expectations

I don’t really know what to expect from this course. I know I expect to see some of the most amazing and influential art of this time period.  I expect to see the most popular pieces of architecture and art that I have studied in my art history text books. I am looking forward to getting to know the lesser known pieces through this class. I anticipate travelling and sight-seeing. And I am totally excited to experience the culture that is surrounding me.

As for the texts in the course I want to expand upon my English/Literature background. I think that is the best thing about this trip because it combines both my minor and major in a way that keeps me interested. I want to use what I learn here from Dr. Leininger and Dr. Adkins and how they combine the literature and pieces of art because it will be helpful for my English thesis for next semester. I am also combining literature and art, Madame Bovary and the work of Courbet and seeing how the ideology and culture of France at this time influenced both pieces. I think that this is what this course is going to be as well; a very New Historicism approach to the Renaissance. So even though I am looking at a much later time period I will be able to have an example of how to combine the two successfully. Since I will be writing my thesis next semester this is pretty much the most important thing about the class to apply for next year.

I also look forward to seeing how different texts can be dealt with outside of the classroom setting. I took a Renaissance Literature and a Medieval literature course at GWU but I want to see what else I can learn about it in the country they were written around some of the same structures that existed in that time frame. It should be an interesting comparison.

 I think the thing I fear the most is not having enough time to get to do everything that I expect to do. For example we only have a short weekend in Rome (well really it is a long weekend but the amount of time does not do the city’s history justice) and there is so much I want to see that it nearly seems impossible. I want to go to the Trevi Fountain, the Coliseum, the Pantheon, etc. But because the visit is so limited in the city, I fear I won’t be able to experience it all while I can. I also am a bit apprehensive about working with the music of the Renaissance. I can appreciate it because I am an artistic person but I don’t know how much of it I will be able to comprehend.

So I suppose I do expect a lot from the course but I am also aware of how my expectations could actually be sub-par from the actual experiences that I am going to have while in Italy.