Leah's "Critique Me" Thread =D

[LeahT]

Hey, I just had a stab at answering a short answer question from my text book. If anyone could have a look and critique it for me, it woudl be much appreciated

How did Neoplatonic ideas affect the works of Botticelli and Michelangelo?

Botticelli was an Early Renaissance artist who is well known for his use of symbolism to create meaning in his works. He was an artist who was perfectly capable of painting anatomically correct figures, but chose to distort proportions at times to achieve other, more meaningful effects. In his painting The Birth of Venus Botticelli is said to have been influenced Neoplatonic philosophies. A popular interpretation of this piece suggests that he is depicting Platonic Love (the idea that there are three types of love – sensual, spiritual and divine) with the pictures of the Three Graces to the left of a pregnant Venus. Michelangelo was a High Renaissance artist who is best known for his statue David and his painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Rome. Whilst some see David as a pagan work, glorifying man instead of God, it is more likely to be a celebration of what Michelangelo believed to be God’s greatest creation. Within David are many symbols and ideas from Neoplatonism, such as that of the right side of the body being solar (and in this sense curved and defensive), and the left being lunar (open, vulnerable and creative). In his paintings in the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo demonstrates the Neoplatonic union of classical and Christian ideas by surrounding the panels of Biblical scenes with naked male youths, and alternating five Old Testament Prophets with five pagan Roman sibyls. The beliefs of these two artists obviously had a large effect on their works, as they incorporate the ideas of Neoplatonism (which is a combination of the ideas of Plato and the values of Christianity) into their art. Whilst they were bound in some cases by their patrons to depict certain scenes, they were able to amalgamate into their works their ideologies.

[Menang]

Hey, sorry this reply is totally late. I was thrown by the question itself - haven't come across this question before! I think you've done a pretty good job on it, plenty of evidence, so it looks good. I'll have a look at that chapter in Robert Hole (I recognise the question from that textbook!) and give you more detailed feedback tonight.

[Russ]

I liked it but one thing I would mention (more overtly) is that despite neoplatonism influencing the subject matter of the painting, there were generally Christian overtures or conciliatory justifications - nobody wanted to piss off the Church. You covered it with the David/God's creation and describing the union but a definitive statement on it would have been useful.

My favourite example is Botticelli's primavera, where the male figure to the left (hermes? I forget) is pointing at the sky above.

And the desperate argument that all art is homage to the beauty of God...

nb, you also need to go and read The Botticelli Secret, it's a great and hilarious book

[LeahT]

Awesome, thank you both. Russ, do you know the author of that book? I'll take a look in the library today

[Russ]

Marina Fiorato

[LeahT]

Oh gosh! I just looked up the Primavera, and realised that I had misread the section of the textbook that spoke of The Birth of Venus and the Primavera in quick succession, and my discussion of the Birth of Venus is actually based around Primavera xD Thank God I didn't do that in a SAC...

[Russ]

haha yeah i was confused by that. I recognised the description of the painting as the primavera and then googled "birth of venus" and went :S

[LeahT]

Just a question - my teacher's been telling our class that we don't have to learn the Italian words for things - we just have to know 'The 16', not 'gonfalonieri', etc. Is this true?

[Russ]

You don't have to, but their presence will improve your essay

[Menang]

I would learn the Italian ones, just to impress the examiners and get them on your side.

Also, learning just "the 16" might actually be even more confusing - you'll just have a bunch of numbers! At least with the Italian you'll have stuff to associate the different consultative institutions with to help memory.

[LeahT]

Hey guys, I wrote this essay in class the other day. Any suggestions for improvement would really help

‘Republican Florence was destroyed by Medicean rule during the fifteenth century.” Discuss.

Between 1434 and 1494, the Florentine power base was controlled by the Medici family, who unofficially ruled the city by subtly manipulating their pseudo-republic system of government. Leonardo Bruni, a contemporary Florentine historian, said that Florence has a “government of the republic,” that ensures that “equal liberty exists for all.” However, during the majority of the 15th century, the Medici family, a family made wealthy by the extensive wool trade and who established a powerful bank that spread throughout Europe, unofficially controlled the city of Florence.

The Florentine Republic was created upon the Principles of the Ordinances of Justice, which were created in 1293 to ensure that the magnates or a single ruler could not hold power over the city. The system involved a series of governments, which included the Signoria (made up of the Gonfalonier of Justice and 8 priors, 2 from each city quarter), the 12 Good Men, the 16 Standard Bearers, as well as a series of legislative bodies and administration committees. This system resulted in a rise in power of the merchant class, a decrease in factional fighting between the Guelphs and Ghibellines, as well as a movement away from feudalism to capitalism. This system allowed for the creation of a Balia, an administrative body called for by the people of Florence which took over the government in times of need. It was this body that resulted in the extensive adaptability of the system, and assisted the Medicean rise to power. The family’s rise to power came about through the work of the first Cosimo de’ Medici, who took a gamble on the pirate Cossa, who ended up becoming Pope John XXIII (1410-1415). This resulted in the family becoming the Papal bankers, and quickly led to their economic boom as they began to control the economy of Florence.

Cosimo de’ Medici’s ability to control the politics of Florence was founded in a wide range of both formal and informal methods of control. The most important thing he did in his lifetime was create the accopiatori, a group of men who selected the names of the priors who would form government, giving the Medici family control and ensuring that only supporters of their family could hold office.  He also called a Balia in 1458 to establish the Council of the Hundred, another council of Medici supporters who elected the accopiatori and dealt with matters of state. However, his major influence and power came informally. “If Cosimo were to rule successfully, he must appear scarcely to rule at all” (Hibbert). Cosimo was very careful not to attract attention, and not to seem wealthy or powerful, so that no-one could raise any objection to him. Vespanio da Bisticci noted that “whenever he wished to achieve something, he saw to it … that the initiative appeared to come from others and not from him.” Machiavelli said that he “appeared nothing but a simple citizen.”

He was a major supporter of humanism, which justified the spending of wealth on public patronism, allowing him to demonstrate his wealth through the commissioning of public artworks and architecture, such as Brunelleschi’s duomo. Hibbert wrote that “Cosimo also followed his father’s example in lavishing money upon the adornment of Florence,” in the hope that he would be seen as selfless and charitable, and be identified strongly with the best interests of Florence.  In fact, his grandson said that between 1434 and 1471, Cosimo spend “The incredible sum of 663,755 florins” on “buildings, charities and taxes.” He also had an extensive network of supporters, which he cultivated by giving loans, elevating social positions, paying dowries or organizing marriage connections. It was this large network which allowed him to gain control of the government system, as he had enough supporters to ensure that all of his suggestions passed through parliament. His appearance of modesty, his very public charitable acts, and his quiet, unassuming political life ensured that the people of Florence could not directly see his power, and therefore could not doubt or envy him. “Envy, Cosimo used often to say, was a weed that should not be watered” (Hibbert).

However, it was apparent that the rule of Florence was indeed held, though unofficially, by the Medici family. Whilst the system of government remained outwardly republic, with regular elections and the changing of powerful positions between people and family, it was quietly controlled behind the scenes by the members of the Medici family. Hibbert wrote that “if changes in the political structure were to be made, they must be calculated to arouse the least offence,” and this is how the Medici family ruled. When Cosimo created the accopiatori and the Centro (Council of the Hundred), both were created after a Parlamento was called, and the creation of a Balia publicly agreed on by the people. His grandson, Lorenzo de’ Medici acted similarly as well, calling Parlamentos to create a council of 70, and introduce a Balia in 1490 to introduce reforms in elections, taxation and the Monte. Their strong networks allowed them to control the Parlamentos, and ensure that their plans came into action, without seeming to be the autocratic rulers of the city. It was said that “the Medici party was so strongly rooted … and so firmly identified with the interests of Florence as a whole that (they) had no need to suppress the voices of opposition” (Hibbert). Pope Pius II called Cosimo the “Master of the Country,” and noticed that “Political questions (were) settled at his house. The man he chooses holds office … He it is who decides peace and war and controls the laws … He is King in everything but name.” A similar thing was said of Lorenzo – “Under him the city was not free (however) it would be impossible to find a better and more acceptable tyrant” (Guicciardini).  It seemed as though many people knew of the family’s immense power and some even viewed him as a tyrant (a person who runs a city in a cruel and oppressive way), yet the Medic were so careful of their public image that they did not allow that side of their control to be seen. It seemed that Florence was in a “state of perfect peace” (Guicciardini), as the people believed the city was run as a republic, with liberty and freedom for all citizens. The Medici family gained wealth, power and prestige as the people of Florence trusted in the freedom of their government.

It seems that whilst under the quiet rule of the Medici, Florence retained all outward appearances of being a republic. To say that the city was destroyed by Medicean rule is not accurate; in fact many people who lived there agreed that the city flourished peacefully during that time, as the Medici bank provided great economic stability and even wealth to the city. However, it would be true to say that the integrity of their republican system was lost through the underhanded control of the Medici family.