Yesterday in class we discussed the cultural drought of the Middle Ages, followed by the incredible upturn in the Renaissance. The Arab architecture, the lavishness of the style and the creativity of the artists inspired Europeans to think. They thought in ways that were contrary to the norm, they thought about designing architecture not just for efficiency but for aesthetic beauty. Artwork and music became steadily more complicated and interesting until its peak in the Baroque era. In this time period the artwork was visually golden and heavily embellished. Gods, mythological creatures and ancient heroes were depicted more gloriously than ever before, in bright colors with dramatic lighting. The music was audibly ornamented, and often improvised by the performer to add even more complex melodic lines. The pinnacle of Baroque extravagance was opera, brought to life by Monteverdi. The first official opera was "Dafne" composed by Jacopo Peri, but it paled in comparison to Monteverdi's "Orfeo". Here is a link to an aria from "Orfeo", based on the Greek tragedy of Orpheus and Euridice:
L'Orfeo
In my opinion, the ultimate pioneer of Baroque art was Caravaggio. This may be because I wrote a research paper on Caravaggio for Italian class, but my bias is beneficial. Caravaggio played with light in a radical way, a way that refined the Chiaroscuro method (light and dark). It was a high contrast style of painting that was popular at the time. Also, see the incredible early baroque painter, Artemisia Gentileschi. Her life is fascinating and her artwork is gorgeous.
Note: If you don't like violence or gore, avoid these artists.
Judith Beheading Holofernes by Caravaggio
Susannah and the Elders by Gentileschi
Next up: Juan Carlos Delgado
I think we have a proof of two of Marx's theorems in this example. One: we don't have to accept this nonsense about slow, evolutionary change. We see historical change in jumps, in contradictory combinations.
ReplyDeleteTwo: is it not painfully obvious that the 'social relations of material life' have such a determining effect? Could we - even as a thought experiment - think of a Renaissance in spite of the death and poverty of the Middle Ages? On the other hand, could we think of one after the world revolutions that followed the Renaissance, where the majority of people lost their property and the artisan class was dissolved, in other words, after the classes who did the painting and who commissioned the painting no longer existed?