The Birth of Venus, together with the Primavera was believed to be commissioned by Lorenzo de Medici and given to his cousin Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco as a wedding present. Based on the stylistic quality of the work, art historians have determined that it was painted using tempura on canvas sometime between 1485 and 1487. The painting uses non-naturalism to add to the mythic look of the work. For one, the elegance of Venuss voluptuous body is supplemented by the fact that she has an elongated neck and torso. Such proportions are impossible for the average human being. She stands in a classical contrapposto position, on the edge of a shell but with no fear of the shell tipping over. These aspects of the painting combined with the backgrounds lack of naturalistic perspective and the fact that no shadows are casts demonstrate the purely mythological nature of the painting.
There are a number of different interpretations of the Birth of Venus. One such interpretation is that the painting was inspired by the literary icon Angelo Poliziano. In his Stanze we see a description of the doors of the temple of Venus as they are being built by the Vulcans. In such a description Poliziano is utilizing a common literary form in the Renaissance, known as ekphrasis, where one artistic form emulates another artistic form. This exerpt from Stanze makes Polizianos influence on Botticelli seems almost obvious
In the stormy Aegean, the genital member is seen to be received in the lap of Tethys, to drift across the waves, wrapped in white foam, beneath the various turnings of the planets and within, both with lovely and happy gestures, a young woman with nonhuman countenance, is carried on a conch shell, wafted to shore by playful zephyrs and it seems that heaven rejoices in her birth.
Both Poliziano and Botticelli were working under the influence of the Medici court in Florence, so the similarities between the two are anything but coincidental. Renaissance artists of many different mediums often drew from other mediums in order to elevate their status on the hierarchy of artistic expression. Renaissance painters attempted to distance themselves from the base manual arts as much as they could and in doing so often took to poetry as their inspiration. This relationships between painting and poetry is described in a famous dictum of Horace in Ars Poetica as ut pictura poesis, or literally As painting so is poetry.So not only was Poliziano mirroring painting through his use of ekphrasis, but Botticelli was also mirroring poetry in order to elevate his own art form.
Another way artists of the Renaissance attempted to elevate their own status as artists was to model themselves after the great classical figures of antiquity. One such figure was Plato. Platos Academy was a site of learning and intellectual stimulation. Cosimo de Medici in particular took inspiration from Platos Academy and established his own academy in the Renaissance. According to Erwin Panofsky, the Neoplatonic Academy of Florence was a philosophical system which must be reckoned among the boldest intellectual structures ever erected by the human mind... which had its origin in the Platonic Academy of Florence, a select group of men held together by mutual friendship, a common taste for conviviality and human culture, and an almost religious worship of Plato. Since Cosimo de Medici has immense power in the time of both Botticelli and Poliziano, it seems very likely that both figures would be quite influenced by these Neoplatonic ideals. According to Panofsky, the Neoplatonic Academy had three main goals in mind. The first goal was to translate Platonic and other ancient Greek works into Latin, making sure to review and analyze these works. The second goal of the Neoplatonic Academy was to organize these texts into a philosophical system, capable of instilling a new meaning into the entire cultural heritage of the period, into Virgil and Cicero, as well as into St. Augustine and Dante, into classical mythology as well as into physics, astrology and medicine. The last was to harmonize this ancient Greek-inspired system with Christianity. This last goal is an integral aspect of the Neoplatonic interpretation of both the Birth of Venus and Primavera.
According to this interpretation, the Neoplatonic Academy of Florence took their interpretation of Venus from Plato. According to Plato, Venus had two roles as goddess of love on earth she inspired physical love among humans, while in heaven she inspired spiritual love in humans. For Plato, looking at physical beauty can lead to the contemplation of spiritual beauty. He argued that one must
...begin from the beauties of earth and mount upwards for the sake of that other beauty...until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty, and at last knows what the essence of beauty is... Beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities... and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may.
In this hierarchy of beauty, since Venus is the most beautiful of the goddesses, at first she inspires a sense physical of beauty, which then leads to the reflection upon beauty in the abstract and ultimately to the contemplation of the God.
This interpretation of beauty was easily employed by the Neoplatonic Academy, which, as stated earlier, attempted to reconcile the values of ancient Greece with Christianity. If the Birth of Venus is understood in terms of Neoplatonic ideals, it is likely that the goal of this painting was to inspire a sense of beauty in the viewer that would lead to a contemplation of divine love. Neoplatonic writer Marsilio Ficino provides further evidence for this idea. Since there is reason to believe that the Birth of Venus hung opposite Primavera, there may be a correlation between these two complementary Venuses and the notion of twin Venuses discussed in Ficinos Commentary on Platos Symposium. According to Ficino, there are two Venuses in the soul, the one heavenly, the other earthly. Let them both have a love, the Heavenly for the reflection upon divine beauty, the earthly for generating divine beauty in earthly. If we understand the Birth of Venus in relation to Ficinos idea of twin Venuses , the painting easily lends itself to an interpretation of Venus as a representation of divine love. This same interpretation would then also lead to the conclusion that the Venus of the Primavera represents earthly love.
The Primavera was painted using tempura on panel in around 1482. Like the Birth of Venus, the painting was assumed to be owned by Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de Medici, but there is some debate about when and how the painting was acquired. This painting is much busier and harder to interpret than the Birth of Venus. In the center (and slightly in the background) of the painting is Venus. To her right the Three Graces are dancing in a circle, oblivious to Cupid aiming one of his arrows in their direction. The Three Graces are the Roman equivalent of the Charites of ancient Greece, representing beauty, mirth and good cheer. The entire scene is carefully guarded by Mercury (on Venuss right hand side). We can identify him as Mercury because of his winged shoes and caduceus staff. His status as protector is demonstrated by his adornment of a helmet and a sword. Despite his status as guardian, he maintains the leisurely atmosphere of the entire scene with his relaxed contrapposto stance as he reaches up pick some fruit off a tree. To Venuss left, we see Zephyrus, the god of the winds, vigorously trying to push his way into the leisurely scene in pursuit of the nymph Chloris. Next to Chloris is the goddess of Spring, Flora. She gazes directly at the viewer, welcoming them into the scene by scattering flowers in their path.
Many believe that the Birth of Venus and the Primavera complement each other. The alignment of both paintings suggests that the two paintings combine to form one message. In effect, the scene shown in the Birth of Venus evolves into the scene depicted in the Primavera. The placement of one male figure and three female figures is repeated twice in the Primavera, first with Mercury and the Three Graces, than again with Zephyrus, Venus, Flora and Chloris (Cupid occupies another level outside this alignment). If the paintings are held side by side (with the Birth of Venus to the left and the Primavera to the right) they seem to tell one story. The Birth of Venus, as the representation of the spiritual realm, depicts the birth of the soul. Mercury, looking away from the earthly scene in which he resides, focuses on the mystical scene of Venuss birth, pointing to his role as mediator between the spiritual and the earthly realms. Next in the scene depicted in the Primavera are the Three Graces, which according to De Giolami represent all that is complementary to human life they depict all that exists in a superlative way the most precious and beautiful in nature and in the life of an individual poetry, music, art, virtue and knowledge. This interpretation of the Three Graces falls directly in line with Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy, which, as mentioned earlier, sees earthly beauty as leading directly to the contemplation of beauty in the abstract, which is what the Three Graces are said to represent. The final section of the painting to the right represents the fulfillment of life, and ultimately, death. To the far right we see Zephyruss attempt to steal Chloris away from the earthly realm, but Venus and Floras impregnated bodies point to development of a new soul. In a sense, the cycle continues. This conjoined scene represents not only the birth-life-death sequence, but also the Neoplatonic discussion of emanation raptureconversion re-ascent used in discussions of the immortality of the soul.
Throughout this paper I have evaluated a number of possible interpretations of the Birth of Venus and the Primavera. Without a doubt, all these interpretations point to the classical and Neoplatonic literary influences of Botticelli. Although none of these interpretations are conclusive, they open up a world of possible ways to consider both works. Whether we consider them together or separately, it goes without saying that are full of meaning. Examining all these possible meanings can be both an enjoyable and fruitful task.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment