This is a battleground site. For battles, we think of geographic battle fields. Yet, the topic here is Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel, an intellectual, religious matter. His intent in incorporating anomalies in the frescoes that stop many people in their tracks. How does that qualify as a battle field. Yet, it is.
Here in the Sistine Chapel is a battle for minds.
The Sistine Chapel, the Vatican, the Renaissance, see what the communications were, mind to mind in the wind, when the Reformation was already barking at the established church's institutional heels.
That climate blowing in the wind, and other ideas are said to be at work in Michelangelo's conception and execution of ideas at the Sistine. See for example, ://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/books/la-bk-owchar11-2008may11,0,6132963.story.
See also Hello, Fodder: Metacomet's Lament, Ridgeline Development.
The post is not misplaced. Battles for hearts and minds can be more significant than some wars for limited arbitrary acreage: where arrows, or cannon, rained and reigned.
Look at history's wars: in the times of Shakespeare, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Rabelais, Durer, Holbein, Macchiavelli, Thomas More, Titian, Chaucer, Henry VII. Read about them all at the overview of history's mark-makers at ://www.cumulo-nimbus.ca/ch2.htm
This whirlpool of conflicting and expanding thought had to affect the Sistine Chapel. And it did. This historic enclave of the Roman Catholic Papacy. The Sistine Chapel. Is this an unlikely battleground for anything? Yes. But on its walls and ceilings are reflected some of the most wrenching battles of our culture. Some kinds of warfare are subtle, resisting rather than confronting,. Sometimes, actors' acts and omissions carry meaning only to those who look for it, knowing what to look for.
This thumbnail of a portion of the Sistine Chapel, near the Altar end, is fair use from the larger at ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Creation_of_stars_and_planets.jpg. What do you see in this authoritarian environment. Are there elements of resistance to something going on, just above the heads of those below. Does any resistance effort have to work this indirect way, or risk obliteration. What was Michelangelo thinking, doing. Good heavens!
Michelangelo had been influenced since youth by the philosophies and criticisms of the Humanists against the Church. He seems to express views inconsistent with dogma and the church's rigid compartmentalizing of theological interpretation, and especially sexuality, for example. Look closely, here at the Sistine Chapel.
As an overview, we see Michelangelo ignoring established texts and dogma, in favor of his own artistic interpretation. See issues at Martin Luther's Stove, Michelangelo and the Sistine, Foggy Texts.
- Favoring the Jewish tradition. He at the outset refused to paint the contracted for 12 Apostles, and engaged in paintings about the Old Testament instead - he favored the Jewish tradition over the Christ-ian. The Ceiling is all Old Testament, with no dogma, no trinity, no all the doctrinal bits that the Church used to impose its views.
- Taking more personal potshots at the Papal authorities. He painted God at Creation literally mooning the altar where the Popes and clergy would be most often - see the painting of the Creation of the Moon and Stars. Read about the stories circulating at the time (see below) about Pope Julius' warfare and crudities, text corruption in scripture, self-interest and enrichment. Remember that the Reformation was about then - Martin Luther was born in 1483, the year the Sistine was completed (ceiling repainted later by Michelangelo) and died in 1546. These conflicts in religion were in the wind.
Surely these stories made their way around in local lore - and here we are at the Creation painting, views of the painter aimed at those in power, by using a timeless gesture.
Specifically, look at the paintings yourself. Take this idea slowly.
See if you agree that there are changes to scripture that are focused on personal interpretation and preference -- thus Humanistic (personal views are ok, no other authority-intermediaries required) and undermining of authority that would provide one interpretation. Go to //www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/0-Tour.html, and click on each painting to see. Or do an Images search, and enlarge.
- The serpent in the Creation painting is shown as a woman, when the literal Bible account refers to the snake as "he"; so Eve here was tempted by another woman - an unusual twist, and, if the snake is the "fallen angel," then that fallen angel also was a woman. Try to make sense of the complications there. Was Michelangelo oriented to his own sex, //socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/was-michelangelo-homosexual.html; and, if so, does that make a difference here?
- Eve is shown as being banished, when the literal Biblical account says "the man" was banished (this is fun to look up). See Martin Luther's Stove, Genesis and the Potter Examined (a short read-aloud play); also note as you read Genesis that clothing was provided by God before the banishing, but the two are shown nude here. Still.
- God is shown reaching out a finger to give life to the man. But the man is clearly alive already. And reaching back. Where did that finger touch idea come from? And there is a gap there - who knows if the fingers ever met, if the gap was bridged. Judging from history, whatever God intended to pass on, could well have never made it - such as compassion, for example. The finger is ambivalent - does it ever reach and touch, or not - there is a gap that remains. The Biblical account refers to God's breath breathed into the man, not a finger outstretched anywhere. We like the the idea that God tried to pass some compassion into the guy, and never made it. Obviously. Overall, it ain't there. Greed aplenty, me-firstness, but not reciprocity. God's error.
- Jesus is shown judging at the Final Judgment painting (replacing, we understand, a painting of the assumption) ultimately done by Michelangelo, at the behest of another Pope, and at the altar wall but some 23 years after Michelangelo had completed the ceiling; But this is a distortion of scripture. Jesus disfavored Judging and said, "Judge not," etc. It may be coming - says he, warning everybody to shape up - and probably is, says the church - but where is Jesus going to do the judging? See the timing of this Wall painting, and begin to see it as Michelangelo's support for the reformation (ceiling portions) and then protest against the violence of the counter-reformation, then in full swing. See both ideas at Martin Luther's Stove: Michelangelo and the Sistine.
- God is shown exposing his back parts as part of the Creation painting; where that actual act was prescribed by God in Exodus 33:23 - where God tells Moses that Moses could not look on the face of God, lest he die, but Moses shall see God's back parts but God's face shall not be seen. See your own King James Version (by the time of the Revised Standard Version in 1952, this had been edited out to read that God said that Moses "shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen." See full discussion at Joy of Equivocating, Propaganda by Translation, Sistine. *
A conflict had been brewing between Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine; vs. a Religious Humanism that surged during the 15th Century Renaissance. Michelangelo, the Italian sculptor and painter, had studied Humanism extensively, see the Content section at p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel_ceiling#cite_note-Gold-3.
Conflict. The Roman Catholic Church taught that humanity was sinful, flawed, and had access to the deity only through fixed institutional intermediaries. Humanism, however, taught that humanity was potentially noble, mutually responsive and responsible, and had available direct access to the deity, no intermediaries needed.
About the Sistine Chapel: It was finished in 1483, with many artists contributing to the wall paintings and other areas. See FN 2 for a broad overview.
Michelangelo's commission: The Ceiling and the context of the commission.
In 1508, another pope, Pope Julius II commissioned Michelangelo Buonarotti to repaint the ceiling. Pope Julius is known as "The Warrior Pope" - military-minded, more interested in politics than theology, and nephew of Pope Sixtus IV. He solidified the Papal States, and fended off French encroachments, and used Swiss Troops for another battle (origin of the Swiss Guards, the Beefeaters at the Vatican??). See ://historymedren.about.com/library/who/blwwjulius2.htm.
There is a particular quote identified as from Julius at this essay, and with footnotes so you can check it out, at://touritaly.org/magazine/people01/jul01.htm. The quote, if so, underscores his competitiveness, as he compares anatomy parts to that end. Noting his charging into battle on horseback and in armor.
Humanism intervening. What the Pope wanted was not what he got. The theme for the ceiling was to be the Twelve Apostles.
However, Michelangelo did not do that. See ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel_ceiling.Here is where Humanism and Michelangelo's mindset may have intersected.
- Erasmus influence. A prominent humanist and critic of the Church living at the time, the scholar and writer Desiderius Erasmus, had little regard for Pope Julius, see ://www.studyworld.com/desiderius_erasmus.htm. Look up his essay, re "The Praise of Folly" - monks are beggars, Pope no way like Apostles, etc. Yet he is described as tolerant and a pacifist, so his criticisms were quiet. See Erasmus and thoughts on using spiritual interpretations of the ancients to make moral ideas pertinent, at www.britannica.com/eb/article-59230/Desiderius-Erasmus#239702.hook.
- Savonarola influence. A monk, Savonarola was known for his fiery preaching against the corruption of the Church. Savonarola and his writings and sermons were also familiar to Michelangelo. See Savonarola at ://www.webpak.net/~westgoth/Paul5.html
- Other Religious Humanist Influences. See documents and discussion of the variances in texts and interpretations at ://www.loc.gov/exhibits/vatican/humanism.html; and the irreconcilable differences at ://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/c-humanism/Hum_theology.html
The Altar Wall area - The Last Judgment, painted some 23 years later - in the midst of the counter-Reformation.
Here, it looks like the Pope got more than he bargained for. The extremes of pain and suffering and threats of loss of eternal life show how the Church was warring the Reform-minded - so extreme as to be a criticism of the tactics.
1535- Pope Paul III Farnese commissioned Michelangelo to paint the "Last Judgment" over the altar. Note this was not entirely voluntary - Michelangelo was not allowed to refuse to do it. This is some 23 years after he finished the ceiling. The Counter-Reformation was in play, and the Church interested in ensuring no believer went astray. See ://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/The_Damned_Michelangelo.html.
This Last Judgment, however, at the altar wall, is the very scene being mooned, by the painting of the Creation of Moon and Stars. Paint what you have to, but think what you like, Michelangelo? Will we ever know.
.......................................................................
FN 1 Plan. At this Sistine Chapel site, ://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/0-Tour.html, click on each different section to see the paintings, and in detail or overview. There also is a basic map. We are focusing on the ceiling here, but you may want to see it all.
FN 2 Chapel Chronology: 1475-1483 - The Sistine Chapel had been built by Pope Sixtus IV, and it was special because it conformed to measurements of King Solomon's Temple.
Other Wall paintings: J's life (some events) and New Testament and Old Testament themes. By a variety of artists; Subjects include as to J: baptism, temptation, leper miracle, calling apostles, sermon on mount, giving keys to St. Peter, last supper, resurrection; popes included in the wall of the life of J, and the wall of the life of Moses.
Lunettes and spandrels - ancestors of J.
Ceiling edges - prophets and sybils (pagan prophetesses, see ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibyl.See there the Libyan and Delphic Sybils at the Sistine)
..................................................................................................
* Biblical sexuality. Does inserting the mooning at Creation even suggest that this is a bona fide act of intimacy, as was later offered to Moses as a substitute for seeing God's face. The only change is that Michelangelo shows it as instituted long before Moses, as part of Creation itself. Is homosexuality perhaps in Michelangelo's view - and even in the view of the Church that has condoned it for a millenium apparently, not scripturally forbidden universally, in all contexts. Go back to the traditionally cited portions that say God doesn't like homosexuality, and see if there isn't a context to it each time. We need to look at each context, because we see here that even God sealed relationship in that kind of way. Researchers, your turn.
0 comments:
Post a Comment