Presentation of Siena
Tantale
Presentation :
Hal
>
That was so much fun I went looking for more. Here is the Web Gallery
of Art section with Ambrogio Lorenzetti's 'Effects of Government',
Sienna c.1340. The first detail from 'bad government' is great. He puts
real people doing their normal activities in a real countryside.
Welcome to the Renaissance. (Sorry, I know this is off topic for a
medieval group:-)
http://keptar.demasz.hu/arthp/html/l/lorenzet/ambrogio/index.htm
Hal
Tantale
> (Sorry, I know this is off topic for a
> medieval group:-)
Just after the middle age I think, The beginning of the Renaissance.
For example Duccio di Buoninsegna was born in 1280.
:-)
--
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jmrw/
J'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui
est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.
Pascal (Pensées)
"Hal" <Spam...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1103747703.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
afro...@yahoo.com
> Hal wrote :
> > (Sorry, I know this is off topic for a
> > medieval group:-)
>
> Just after the middle age I think, The beginning of the Renaissance.
> For example Duccio di Buoninsegna was born in 1280.
>
> :-)
beginning of the Renaissance is or even if the Renaissance is such a
distinct period from the Middle Ages. This groups considers the Middle
Ages to span from 500 to 1500, so Sienese painting from this time is
well within the boundaries of the SHM.
>From an art historical perspective, Sienese art was less dependent on
classical sources, the pursuit of naturalism and the illusionistic
depiction that one would find in Florence. The Sienese had a greater
interest in flat pattern and the beauty of the materials. One might
say this is a more "Medieval" attitude towards art, though this is
still a generalization on many counts.
JMHO,
Eve
Hal
much less debate, at least art historically, about what that means than
there is about 'the Renaissance' in general or elsewhere, and I would
be surprised if there was any debate at all in Sienna.
The fresco I pointed to, 'The Effects of Government', is considered a
breakthrough that serves as one of the defining points of the Italian
Art Renaissance. Along with painting the 'real' people of Giotto and
the real buildings of the town (both cutting-edge concepts in painting
at the time), Lorenzetti painted the real countryside around it. Here
the landscape was 'reborn'. This is the first realistic landscape in
Italian art in hundreds of years (since before the middle ages :)
Hal
afro...@yahoo.com
be argued endlessly. How do you define Renaissance? If you list
certain characteristics as being uniquely Renaissance one often
discovers many of them had actually been tried in earlier periods.
Naturalism, classical influence, etc. was not limited to the
traditional period referred to as Renaissance or the Italian
Renaissance, but can at times be seen in time periods that might
clearly be defined as the Middle Ages. Would you consider N. Pisano,
Medieval, Renaissance, or Proto Renaissance? What of Cimabue or
Duccio? How about Cavallini? One scholar might give reasons for
referring to them as late Medieval, another early Renaissance. What
about the very naturalistic sculptures of the Gothic period? What
would you consider the reactionary art produced as a result of the
plague? Is "realism" (or "naturalism" which IMHO is a much better term
for what was going on) uniquely Renaissance or just a continued
development of the Middle Ages?
In the beginning the Renaissance began in its own day as a
self-concious labeling. It developed into a virtual industry used by
scholars to make their reputation through the creation of elaborate
definitions, chartings, and subdivisions. IMHO discussing Italian art
as part of the Trecento, Quattrocento, etc. is a far more useful frame
of reference.
When I first began studying art history Siena was considered a marked
contrast to forward thinking Florence. Florence was then heralded as
the beginning of the Renaissance, Siena looked back to Medieval times.
Personally, I think that was nonsense. They were both doing
interesting and unique things. But there was a notion of *progress* in
art and a *progress* that took a very specific path. And a strong
Florentine bias. Blame it all on Vasari.
Today there is a more interest in the art of Italy as a whole, which
IMHO is a very good thing. But it also blurs a lot of the labeling and
in an effort to make things more manageable one has to find new
examples to justify their inclusion. But whether you pick out *this*
as being Renaissance or *that* being Renaissance really doesn't matter.
This time period in Italy has some wonderful art, and it has
sensibilities that were derived not only from classical influence, but
from the art of Byzantium, the International Gothic, as well as other
sources.
In any case, this newsgroup uses dates as our limitation rather than a
check set of classifications (although that rarely stops anyone from
discussing every and all things). The Middle Ages here are 500 to 1500.
Sure this can be argued, but one has to have some guidelines. There
are some good arguments for setting the date thus, but of course there
are equally good arguments for other dates that would be equally
convincing. Nevertheless, we have chosen 500 to 1500. And though most
people here tend to discuss European history, particularly England,
France, Germany and Scandanavia, occasionally Italy is discussed, as is
Japan, Russia and in fact any place within that 1000 year period would
be considered acceptably on topic. By this definition a good chunk of
what is considered the traditional Italian Renaissance is in the Middle
Ages. And you know, as far as I'm concerned, a good chunk of the
Renaissance deserves to be there. Just a personal opinion. I don't
find the seperation between the Middle Ages and Renaissance that cut
and dry, even in art and even in Italy.
Of course, you might note, most of the conversation on SHM, alas, deals
with current affairs and other events of more recent periods. I think
the art of Siena would be considered on topic by most as well as most
welcome! Actually, I have a nice new art book on Siena that I've been
putting off reading for a while. I think this thread has inspired me
to get to it sooner than I planned!
Of course, I'm not looking for argument. It's JMHO,
Eve
Chris Dickinson
>In the beginning the Renaissance began in its own day as a
>self-concious labeling. It developed into a virtual industry used by
>scholars to make their reputation through the creation of elaborate
>definitions, chartings, and subdivisions. IMHO discussing Italian art
>as part of the Trecento, Quattrocento, etc. is a far more useful frame
>of reference.
Just to clarify. The term 'Renaissance' is a much later invention. Petrarch
and others talked in term of a revival of classical models and people were
aware of being in a 'new age'; but the art classification is nineteenth
century.
The 'Early Renaissance' (with which Siena is mainly identified) is clearly
within the time period that historians call 'Medieval' and the
'High Renaissance' within the period that historians call 'Early Modern'.
The confusion in this thread probably arises in the
difference between 'medieval' and 'Medieval'. The latter is a
periodisation used with other similar terms like 'Early Modern'.
When art scholars talk about the contrast between the Renaissance and the
medieval, they don't mean (or shouldn't mean) Medieval. It's not a
periodisation that is appropriate to Art History. Instead of 'Medieval', use
terms like 'Gothic' or 'Romanesque'; or, as Eve suggests, use the Italian
centos (though this can lead to further confusion!).
The situation gets a bit more complicated if you start bandying about the
term 'Renaissance' as a concept beyond the arts - again the small 'r'? Or
simply use the term 'Early Modern'?
Chris
Hal
No argument Eve, thanks for taking the time to write as you did.
When I first studied art history, I too had to memorize lists of
classification systems for various periods, styles, places etc. I never
let that stuff get in the way of looking at the art though. The profs I
had covered the usual range of capabilities for art historians, with
one exception, and he taught Renaissance. I believe the difference
between him and the others was a result of his spending a couple of
years in the late 60s working on saving art damaged in terrible
flooding in Florence. The 'hands on' experience and intimacy with the
actual pieces of art came across in his teaching.
The Renaissance to him was not some term to define and debate, but a
time that included great people making great art in ways that had not
been done for some time, or were entirely novel. He did not suggest
that all of the developments of those times came into being as
spontaneous fully formed ideas from nowhere, but he did show the genius
needed to make the leaps we see happening. His interest was in the
individuals and what they brought to art. I don't recall him ever
dwelling on comparisons between city styles. He would have considered
that an academic exercise that used up valuable teaching time. He had a
significant impact on how I look at art.
I do not define the 'beginning' of the Renaissance with a particular
date. If you look back to my previous post, you will see I refer to
Lorenzetti's 'Governments' fresco as "one of the defining points of the
Italian Art Renaissance". It was one of many 'points' spread out over a
couple of centuries. Its importance has little or nothing to do with
where it was painted, but in its content. This guy reintroduced the
landscape to art after an absence of hundreds of years. That was a
major accomplishment.
Looking at some of the earlier of those 'points' (Giotto being one of
the most commonly cited) can give a rough idea of when that flow of
ideas became important enough to affect the world of art, and to
require a label for the sake of discussion. The label may have fuzzy
edges, but it is none the less both valid and useful. Tantale and I had
no difficulties in understanding each other when we used the term
'Renaissance', even though (I suspect) he/she and I come from
different cultures.
Thanks again for your thought provoking post. It has brought back
memories of people I hadn't thought of in some time, entirely
appropriate to this Christmas eve morning.
I would like to wish you, and any other readers a Merry Christmas,
Happy Holiday, or have a great day, whichever works best for you.
Hal
afro...@yahoo.com
teacher.
I think most people do understand what you mean by "Renaissance". It's
come to mean something very specific to our culture, but perhaps there
is a need for some reexamination in how we use the term? There were a
lot of accomplishments that took place in the Middle Ages that people
assume were Renaissance because they fit into the preconceptions of
what the Renaissance was and because they fly in the face of our
prejudices about the Middle Ages. Perhaps even the idea that because
something is a great advance or more worldly in thinking it is
therefore "Renaissance".
Perhaps some of the rest of the group (if anyone is reading this!) have
some thoughts on this? Do people here find a profound difference
between what is traditionally considered the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance, and if so, what is that difference? What would they
consider the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the
Renaissance, if indeed there is a beginning or any end? And why do
they think this?
BTW, I noticed that in the recent book on Sienese art I just started
reading, the author avoids the term "Renaissance" (at least so far!)
except when quoting others.
Seasons Greetings (I think that covers all bets! ;-))
Eve
Chris Dickinson
>Perhaps some of the rest of the group (if anyone is reading this!) have
>some thoughts on this? Do people here find a profound difference
>between what is traditionally considered the Middle Ages and the
>Renaissance, and if so, what is that difference? What would they
>consider the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the
>Renaissance, if indeed there is a beginning or any end? And why do
>they think this?
As I have a while before meeting the relatives ....
In the 1970s a couple of American economic historians declared that there
was no Industrial Revolution. This flew in the face of common sense but they
had the statistics to prove it - and for 20 years a whole school of economic
historians followed sheepishly. Of course, the statistics eventually turned
out to be invalid.
The moral of the story is - don't throw away a good concept just because
it's been around for two hundred years :-)
As I (more or less) said in another post, I see the Renaissance as an
art/cultural history term, not a more general historical label. It's a
'rebirth' - if you extend it beyond the Arts, what is it a rebirth of? So a
contrast with the Middle Ages doesn't make much sense. However, as people so
often do make such a contrast, your question does make sense!
One can look at 1350 and at 1550 and say 'Yes, there's a world of difference
between the two'. Progress is there (I'm an unashamed Whig), but is it any
greater that that, say, between 1150 and 1350?
Can one define a break point? Sea-changes take at least 50 years to work
their way through society - so at moments of historical discontinuity you
have a couple of generations of very strong contrasts.
I suppose one can view historical change like a seesaw. The seesaw flips
because of push at one end and weight at the other - and I shall muse on
that thought during my Christmas celebrations.
And a very merry whatever to all ...
Chris
afro...@yahoo.com
It's interesting that the original work sparking this conversation was
a Sienese painting by the Lorenzetti Brothers which was considered
early Renaissance because it was a portrait of an actual place and
peopled by somewhat naturalistic figures. Yet look at the "Tres Riches
Heures", a later work from about a hundred years later. It would
probably be classified by most people here as belonging in the Middle
Ages (though some sticklers would no doubt say, "no, this is Northern
Renaissance"). The "Tres Riches Heures" likewise portrays many
identifiable places and somewhat naturalistic figures.
Apparently Pol Limbourg had visited Siena and was probably familiar
with the Lorenzetti painting. This makes it a good possiblity that he
was influenced by the Lorenzetti in painting the "Tres Riches Heures".
Yet why would most people think of his work as characterizing the
Middle Ages and not the Lorenzetti? Is it the courtly subject matter
(though there are Italian court works which are firmly considered
Renaissance), or the elegance of style (though one could point to
someone like Botticelli who have an equal elegance of style and would
probably be identified as Renaissance)? I don't think one being a
public work and the other one private would be the reason. Nor that
one is on a larger scale than the other. Any ideas?
Eve