I'm In Nice!

and its very nice :)

not alot to say acutally, we took a 7 hour train here and had a little trouble finding the hostel which is actually an incredibly fantastic place. Its much nicer than many hotels i have stayed in, the only downside is taht we have to share the room with two other people, although this really isnt much of an issue because they are both 20+ year old girls from the east coast.

We walked around the city a bit, and its nice. But the whole thing feels like a reality check...a big one. Its hard to point out the specific things that are so striking but it feels like i walked out of disney land and am suddenly in a normal society. Like, there are normal size cars, there are big buildings, people dress much more casual and there is a huge range in people.

i think there is a big part of me that just wants to make it through this trip as quickly as possible. I really couldn't care less how great it is. I think i am going through the motions a bit, because i went on this trip more based on principle than actual want. Although i am really excited about Paris.

we are spending all day tomorrow here, and then the next day we take of to Avignon :)

Review of Surrounding Country Side

Boboli Gardens, Piazza della Santissima Annunziata, and the Orto Botanical

The Boboli Gardens are my socket. I could not live in Florence without them. I wander the grey, wet, dark, stone streets of Florence purely on battery power. Don’t misunderstand, these streets are some of the most incredible, amazing, and beautiful in the world to me, but they ever so minutely drain me. A constant drain that I always feel in the city, any city. I feel the life slowly leave me and it is at that time that I return to my favorite place in Florence: the Boboli Gardens. I go there to recharge, to get my daily dose of green, and if it is green you are looking for these are the gardens to go to. So large are they, so magical, and so beautiful that there is no other substitute. Built in 1550, everything within them is full of energy; from the huge variety of trees (cypress, oak, ect.) to the design of the gardens, nothing is lacking except for flowers. But it is winter so we can excuse this. I walk through the gardens, heading south towards my favorite spot, right at the end of Cyprus Alley in the famous reflecting pool called L’Isolotto (or Little Island). The energy in that very spot is unlike any other, it is my socket, my place to recharge. My place of solitude where I gain the energy to survive for another couple of days. It smells of nature, the sound of birds fills the air. People talk and laugh on the main streets, and to feel sunshine! Oh nothing is better than getting that dose of vitamin C. If I had not found this place I could never of been as happy as I am now. My time in Florence would have been one continuous drain, but luckily I did find it.

In comparison to the two other places I visited, The Orto Botanico (also known as the garden of the simples) and the Piazza della Santissima Annunziata, the Boboli’s are no comparison. Yet, these two places serve very different purposes than the Boboli’s. Piazza della Santissima Annunziata is one of the most fantastic piazzas in Florence. Dating from the early 13^th century, the true magnificence of the piazza is do to the influence by Filippo Brunelleschi’s Loggiato dell’Ospedale degli Innocenti (1419-1451). Most consider this work by Brunelleschi to be the first true renaissance piece, the sloping arches with the white babies and blue background give this pizza something different. The Innocenti was Europe’s first orphanage, with a system allowing mothers to drop of unwanted children anonymously. This gives it a odd air, because it was one of the first outreaches to the needy. It is the first open arched piazza to be placed in Florence and one of the first of its design in Europe. It has a sense of…dare I say abandonment? Yes, it has a sense of abandonment to it, as if people have forgotten the significance of this place. People stand in groves, staring at the Duomo, Ponte Vecchio, Plaza Vecchio, yet no one seems to stand a stair at the significance of this place. This is why I like it, because I do know the  importance. I have not forgotten.

            My third spot, unfortunately, I could not get into. It is closed for various reasons, none of which I was able to figure out, but I was still able to stand a stair at the Orto Botanico. The Boboli’s are my place of rest, the Loggiato dell’Ospedale degli Innocenti is my spot of wisdom, but the Botanico is my glimpse of ancient Medici, a quick view of the past that is so utterly different than the other monuments of Florence. The Duomo is beautiful, significant, and very old. The Palazzo Vecchio is even older, but both do only one thing: intimidate me. These gardens though are meant to do nothing of the sort. They were possibly the first Botanical gardens in Europe, used to grow medical herbs. Founded by nuns, and eventually controlled by Cosimo the first in 1545. Covering over 400 acres, and containing over 6000 different herbs it is a very straightforward garden. Not meant to impress but rather to serve a purpose. A purpose now looked at very different; hospitals, medicine, drugs, and the sort are not often thought of as gardens, but rather plastic pill containers. But this place is a mixture of the two, almost eerie for some reason, it contains an entirely different form of beauty the other two locations. A beauty far reaching, and much deeper.

Michelangelo Vs. Bernini

Sculpture represents reality. Painting does not. Painting is about conveying a message or documenting the way something looks. But sculpture is far and beyond a mere recording of visual fact when it is done right. Good sculpture is nice: like a painting it can convey a message or document a living person, however the important difference—and the reason why sculpture will always be superior to painting—is that great sculpture has its own life: a realism that can never be matched in any other artistic expression. Michelangelo and Bernini were able to give personality, emotion, and quite nearly a soul to their best work. Michelangelo’s “Pieta” and “David”, and Bernini’s “Rape of Proserpina” and “Apollo and Daphne” all fool the viewer into wanting to believe they are "alive". The street performers that can be seen standing perfectly still on the street do this, but in reverse. They sit there and stare at you, playing with you, teasing you, and almost fools the viewer into thinking that they are works of art made of stone. But between these two fantastic sculptures, which one is superior? Michelangelo or Bernini?

Michelangelo is the Mozart of art. He was the young, snobbish, kid who was just naturally great at everything he ever tried to do. He had very little to no actual training and gained the favor of the Medici family very early on. They commissioned works from him for an extended time until the Pope caught sight of him and never let him go. Michelangelo's first noticeable work was some fine relief work--which is carving into a solid piece of marble, but only partially which is not meant to be seen “full circle” but only from the front, like a painting--and a rather ugly wooden crucifixion located in the Santa Spirito. Ironically enough, the piece that caught the attention of the Vatican was a sculpture he carved of "Cupid" (which has been lost) that was damaged, by the Medici, to make it appear as if it was an original ancient Roman piece. When it was discovered to be a fraud, the Medici got in trouble, but Michelangelo was invited to Rome to work for the pope. This is where things get weird. One of my favorite pieces of all time is created just after one of the most disappointing pieces of all time. Michelangelo sculpts a piece now located in the Bargello: Bacchus. It is a really funny looking sculpture, which has an oddly shaped face and no real life to it. It looks like a failure that was attempted to be passed of as a success. It is a piece that is meant to express the look of a drunkard. But it just doesn’t. It has narrow eyes, a weird mouth, and just simply does not look realistic. I wish I could say why it doesn’t work, but I can’t. Judge for your self, but even the man it was commissioned by, Cardinal Raffaele Riario, rejected the piece. I believe this was Michelangelo’s first real commission, and also his first failure. It must be because of this piece that he was so adamant about doing things his way afterwards and why he tried to destroy pieces he felt were failures. But, directly after this failure he finished a piece in 1497 that will stand above all others in sheer beauty for all of time: The Pieta. A perfectly executed classic pieta, it does everything proto-renaissance sculpture is suppose to do but presents it in a way that had never been seen before in Italy. Most notable is the Pieta’s beauty, specifically Mother Mary’s, which is actually odd. She looks as if she is a young women, probably in her early 20’s or younger. Which is, of course, not logical—Jesus was thirty three when he died. She is also sculptor much much larger than Jesus, which is meant to portray the look Michelangelo wanted: a month cradling her son. This is contrary to the scientific nature of the renaissance; it is an example of an artist taking “artistic liberties” to express what he wants the viewer to see rather than what actually happened. It is possibly Michelangelo’s most finished work, with a highly waxed exterior (which gives it that glossy look) and is the second sculpture in artistic history to perfectly capture a moment, never to be outdone (the first is Donatello’s Mary Magdalene). This is why it is so significant, it is nearly perfect. There is nothing to be done better, no flaws in the entire piece. The lifeless body of Jesus along with the flawlessly serene face of Mary is . . . perfect. The emotion that is evoked by looking at it overwhelms the viewer, a feeling of shock, horror, beauty, and love. It is simply stunning. Only two years later, in 1499, Michelangelo started his second perfect sculpture. It is my favorite piece of art: the David. Sculpted from what was called a ruined piece of carrara marble, no one thought it could be finished. The marble itself was flawed, and still Michelangelo spent the next five years working on it. The result is the most spectacular David, and most powerful piece of sculpture ever done at the time and still stands strong as the most impressive work because of its massive size and serene beauty. But my favorite part is not the size, or impressive nature, but rather the facial expression and how it changes as the viewer moves from right to left. From the right side he actually looks concerned and scared, but from the far left he looks like a true “mans man”, as confident as is humanly possible. If the viewer stands on the right side, and slowly moves to the left in a circle, they can actually watch as David makes up his mind that he IS going to face of with Goliath. It is the most fantastic thing I have ever seen, and again, it will never be out done. After this, Michelangelo did a couple of paintings (the Sistine chapel comes to mind) but for the sake of this comparison, I am going to stick to sculpture because that is what Bernini was great at. Funny enough, the rest of Michelangelo’s sculpture does not strike me any where near as great as these two mentioned. Maybe he got lucky, maybe he was temporarily anointed by God, or maybe he tried to do too much, but the rest of the sculpture (specifically the woman in the San Lorenzo New Baptistery) just looks off. Infact, all sculpture looks off after looking at the David and the Pieta (with the exception, of course, of Donatello’s Mary Magdalane). No one, not even Michelangelo himself, is able to come close to reaching this incredible mastery of the “perfection”  seen in the Pieta and David, that is until a young boy named Gian Lorenzo Bernini came along.

Bernini was literally called Michelangelo reincarnated. Similar to Michelangelo, he was spotted by the Vatican (specifically the Pope) at a very young age, but in direct contrast, Bernini worked faithfully for the Pope his entire life where as Michelangelo mostly worked against the Vatican. His story is much simpler, and therefore shorter. As a sculptor he produced five significant pieces that I am going to look at, starting with his most strange and least impressive, "Aeneas, Anchises, and Ascanius". It is a strange piece because it does not look realistic, and I want to look at it first because it is Bernini’s first significant piece and is similar to the Pieta in its unrealistic aspects. It shows Aeneas fleeing the burning city of troy with his son following and his father on his back. Realistically, you would hold someone on your back by letting them straddle you, but in this sculpture the grandfather is sitting on one shoulder as if it is a chair of sorts. He is also much smaller than Aeneas. This is done in order to show the main point of the piece, the three stages of life (youth, adulthood, and old age). Now, it is no where near as impressive as the Pieta, Bernini’s next four are, but this one is important because it does a couple of new things that Bernini will use more effectively in his next couple of statues. For one, you see a disregard for realism, meaning that Bernini wants to make a point more than make a piece realistic. Two, Bernini loves the very vertical, tall, and twisting motion in his sculpture. Almost as if to show a disregard for gravity, which is very different than Michelangelo’s Pieta, which is extremely stable and set with gravity. And third, Bernini uses very different effects on the marble to create extreme differences in texture. Michelangelo barely did this; which can be seen in the texture of David’s hair versus his body versus the tree trunk. Bernini begins to master this in this piece, expressing the roughness of the hair, the smooth quality of the young body and the old age of the elder’s skin. Most impressive is the face of Aeneas, which is very beautiful and soft…that’s right, soft. Which is an odd way to make a face look when it is carved out of stone, but Bernini will do that, he will make things look very peculiar. These three principles of Bernini’s can be seen much clearer in his next statue, “The Rape of Proserpina”. The first thing the viewer notices is the realistic qualities of the skin…I mean marble that is supposed to look like skin. The fingers pressing into Proserpina’s side, the wrinkles in her twisting body and the soft nature all are unlike anything that has even been seen before. You can see Bernini’s lack of strict detail in the expressions of the faces, specifically in the face of Pluto, who has a huge beard and, for lack of a better word, a bit cartoony of a face.  He also continues his vertical, twisting, contrapposto look of defying gravity. He tends to go vertical, and does so even more in the statue with hands, arms, hair and all other manners of objects sticking out in odd directions. He enhances his use of texture in the face, hair, dog, and most of all, skin of the piece. He creates a strong sense of life, and more than ever before it feels as if this piece was digitally created by Pixar and is simply paused; except, it is made of marble (which one continues to forget) and was done in the 17^th century. But, if the texture, movement, and lifelike nature is impressive in “The Rape” then it is perfectly done in his most famous, and my favorite work: “Apollo and Daphne”. The principle of realism is forgotten because, well, no woman ever turned into a tree in mid stride. But, somehow, it seems more realistic than the first two. This is Bernini at his best. He absolutely destroys the laws of physics, moving marble up and out as was never thought possible. Daphne’s hair, and hands, are hanging in mid air where one just wonders what is supporting all that weight. It is phenomenal to see it done that well, but almost as impressive is the incredibly realistic texture created by Bernini. The wood looks like wood, and the skin looks like skin. It is nearly impossibly to believe that it is actually crafted out of marble because it shouldn’t be possible. But he did it, and did it perfectly. It is a piece that stands so pure, and so impossibly, that any person could love it. The detail between her leg and what is becoming the tree is amazing, the way her hair is changing into leaves, and the MOTION that is created. Nothing has even been close, and nothing ever will be. It is perfectly done, just like Michelangelo’s Pieta and David. There is virtually nothing about the statue that makes sense because all of the basic principles of sculpting in marble are broken. It doesn’t look like marble, it looks like its too light to be marble, and no one can convey motion in a piece of stone like this. But Bernini did. His next two pieces are not nearly as impressive, yet are extremely amazing none the less. His “David”—which shows an in-between stage of David as he slings the rock, and expresses real motion in a piece of marble—and “Ecstasy of St. Theresa” which is a beautifully crafted in the Mannerist style (with extreme gold sunlight, and a busy atmosphere and a pricelessly beautiful face of St. Theresa and the angel).

But who is better between the two? Michelangelo was able to do the classic stuff like no one before and no one after. In my opinion he had two perfect statues that will never be bested. But, on the other hand, Bernini was able to do things with marble that shouldn’t of been possible. Where Michelangelo’s philosophy of sculpture was to free the being inside from the surrounding stone, Bernini’s was a step further. He actually wanted to free the being from the confines of being stone, turning it into something greater. Who is better? The answer is neither, they both are truly phenomenal artist’s who had very different styles and were able to master these styles never to be

   

Donatello (i havn't had time to write on her, so i might as well put what i've been writing for school

 (i havn't had time to write on her, so i might as well put what i've been writing for school)

                                

Exam 1:

Comprehensive look at and critique of Vasari’s view of Donatello

All of the artists that can be chosen from are proto or early renaissance geniuses. They all contributed in one way or another to what eventually became the artwork of Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and Raphael. Some, however, such as Fra Angelica, capture something that the high renaissance artists never could. In his case, the serenity of Mary in his annunciations may never be equaled. Above all else, the single early-renaissance artist that probably will never be bested is Donatello. Donatello is truly one of a kind. No other artist in history has been able to capture the raw emotion of a person and portray it through sculpture as effectively and simply as he does. His work is able to touch the soul, but even more remarkable is he was the first to ever attempt to do so. Without doubt he succeed far beyond what any person believed was possible, and no one will ever be able to match his ability to capture everything it means to be human with in sculpture.

Vasari pays Donatello the highest compliment, saying that he “sculpts with so much grace and elegance and such fine sense of design that they were considered to be more like the distinguished works of the ancient Greeks and Romans than any other artist” (Vasari, 148). Of course, because the Greeks and Romans were considered to be the best sculptors before the renaissance, to say that he nearly imitates them perfect is a huge compliment. He even says it more straight forward in the sentence after, saying that “no other artissan surpassed him in this field, and even in our own times, there is no one who is his equal” (Vasari, 148). There is no better praise that can be given, and all of this praise is more than justified. Donatello truly was the first to fully grasp what is possible in a piece of sculpture; the emotions, the feelings, the personal relationship a viewer can have with the piece, he was able to do it all. Vasari goes through a long list of the magnificent work, specifically his David, his Saint George, a piece Vasari calls the Abundance, his I’ll Zuccone, and most of all his Gattamelata. Vasari gives all the pieces individual comments of recognition, but the three most important are his Saint George, which is given worthy praise, his David, a piece highly over rated in relation to other similar pieces, and his Mary Magdalene, a highly underrated piece of his and possibly one of the most signficant pieces of early renaissance.

Saint George is a fantastic sculpture, originally crafted for the Armourers’ Guild to be placed in their niche of the Orsanmichele, it is by far the most famous of the representatives inhabiting the structure. Later moved to the near by Bargello, people come from far and wide to view this dragon slaying hero. Vasari describes the head of the figure as “a youthful beauty, courage and skill in arms are reflected, as well as a fiercely awesome vitality and a marvelous sense of movement” (Vasari, 151). This is an exceptionally accurate account of the piece. The small jaw and head, along with the simple eye brows and smile, give the sculpture a boyish, or “youthful”, appearance. Yet, accompanying this boyishness is the stern gaze which is looking, presumably, at the dragon. This gaze screams of confidence, even more so than Michelangelo’s David. If there was a statue to come to life and, with sword in hand, slay a dragon it would be this one. More than any other piece, it is his eyes that capture me. Some say he looks as if he were a man turned to stone, but I disagree with this. There is no way he could be: he is much too good looking. There is an idealized air around the piece that is portrayed so significantly by the great Donatello. Vasari goes on to speak about the bas-relief on the lower part of Saint George’s tabernacle, calling it a piece with “a horse that is highly esteemed and highly praised” (Vasari, 151). This is more praise than I feel inclined to give. I do not fully understand the appreciation of bas-relief. It does its purpose well in the tabernacle—which is to tell the story of Saint George without distracting from George himself—but the bas-relief by itself does not seem to be anything too substantial. There is only so much praise lightly carved material deserves, but none the less the two together are remarkable. They represent the most pure form of confidence that can be found in Renaissance art.

 Unfortunately, the view of Saint George is slightly blocked by what is sometimes considered Donatello’s greatest work: David. Located directly in front of Saint George, it is easy to compare the two; the powerful, beautiful Saint George versus the David; most accurately descirbed as very….feminine. The age of David when he slays Goliath is unclear, some would say that he was an undeveloped boy, others would say a teenager beginning to look like a man. Different artists have chosen to shape David in very different ways. Verrocchio’s David looks like a young boy, and later, Michelangelo’s David looks like a full blown man. However, Donatello’s doesn’t look like either. When looked at disregarding the “man parts” he, without doubt, looks like a little girl. The curve of the body, the simplistic shape and lack of muscle development create a very effeminate look, from the back he actually looks a little provocative, no man has curves like that. But why would Donatello do this? Maybe it only looks feminine compared to the other two David’s. Maybe a little girl and a little boy look a lot a like, or most likely, Donatello probably tried to convey the sense of innocence that David had when he set out to slay Goliath, emphasizing how incredible the feet really was. Likely, in truth, it is a mixture of all of the above,  but the the fact is that his David is distractingly feminine. The light smile, and curvy body, all seem to emphasize femininity and create a weird sense of questioning that can make it uncomfortable for the viewer. The size of the hips, the placement of his hands, and even the hat, all seem like something a girl would do and wear. But most disconcerting of all is the uncomfortable feather standing up right into the most “private spot” of the statue. The sole salvaging aspect, however, is his face. No other piece surpasses the serenity, the life like qualities, of this face. Again, it does look a little girly, but beautiful without question. The proportions, the softness, and most of all, the smile, all are phenomenal. It’s the only aspect of the piece that screams “Donatello made this!” because no other artists has even been able to create a more powerful, yet simple, face in his or her work than Donatello. Some would say that it deserves extra room for error considering it was the first full cast bronze nude since the Romans, but truthfully Donatello knew what it was going to look like and purposefully made him look like a her. All in all, it is sad that the David gets as much attention as it does, there are other pieces by Donatello that deserve far more credit.

No piece is a better example of deserving more attention than Donatello’s Mary Magdalene. Carved out of wood, no other statue can take you through such a emotional journey. Vasari says that she is “very beautiful and well executed, for she has wasted away by fasting and abstinence to such an extent that every part of her body reflects a perfect and complete understanding of human anatomy” (Vasari, 149). This is true, but it is so much more than just an admirable statue. He only makes one comment which only draws attention to the physical production of the piece; this, possibly, is because Vasari is looking at it from an artists eye. But as a human, she can connect with a cord inside a person unlike any other sculpture. When first seen, the viewer is struck by a strange wooden carving, unclear of what is being represented, but as it is looked at more closely a face and body is found. Emotionally, the first feeling is disgust, for she looks to be in utmost grief. The cutting away is very ragged, much different than the normal polished marble people are used to looking at. The eyes have sunk back into their sockets, many teeth are missing, and she is clothed purely by her overgrown, ragged, and dirty hair. The viewer can not help but think of how ugly this piece is, but soon after that thought enters the mind her hands catch the eye. Perfectly carved, smooth and beautiful—in a gesture of prayer—they stand in direct contrast to the rest of her. And, as if the struck by an instant realization, the viewer sees that she isn’t in pain, isn’t ugly, but has rather given herself fully to God. Through fasting and abstinence she has focused everything on her savior, and her body has deteriated because of it. Part of her is in pain, for her savior is gone and she desires nothing else but to return to him; she is close, soon going to die, but it is clear that she is heaven bound, her hands show this within their serenity. They have done nothing but pray, and pray beautifuly. The detail of the piece only compliments the lack of detail in the hair and clothing. It shows that it is ragged not because the sculptor was a poor artist, but because he choose to express her that way. It is a beautiful piece, horrid and terrifying, yet most definitely beautiful which deserves great praise and recognition. Funny enough, seeing it in the small Duomo museum actually adds to its majesty because one does not expect to see such a powerful and significant piece of work in such a place.

Without doubt, Donatello is the most powerful sculptor who has ever lived, portraying all sides of human emotional, beauty, and spirituality. Although some have come close (like Michelangelo), no one has even been able to recreate the power of his pieces. He said it best himself when comparing his simple wooden crucifixion with Brunelleschi’s heroic, beautiful, one. He said to him “it’s for you to make Christs and for me to make peasants” (Vasari, 149), and this he did beautifully, always representing the common man.

High Resolution Photos

If you want to see my favorites or want desktop images, follow this link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tddl/

Tired Tired Tired

So things have really changed for me this last week and i just now realized what it was. Over the summer i used to go to bible camp, it would be a week long program where i would have 8 or so cabin mates, would play games, do organized activities, have free time, and go to chapel. Its the only other time i have ever been away from home. Coming here i realize now i had the same attitude as if i was going to camp. I was going to have room mates (cabin mates), school (chapel), time to explore Florence (free time), AIFS activites like soccer games (organized activities) my teachers are councilors, the AIFS staff is the program staff, and everyone wants to meet everyone. This is how it felt. It was go go go for the first two months, doing everything and anything possible. People were hanging out, meeting people, going to school, but in the last month everything has changed.

Now it doesn't feel like camp anymore. I know people well enough, and am used to the way of living here, that it feels like thats all i am doing: living. Its much more casual (because i can watch hours of Seinfeld and not feel like i'm missing out on priceless wonders around me) but also a lot less fun. It is a very different way of living, and i just don't know which one i like more. Before everything was an adventure. I was completely out of my element, exploring, getting lost, ect. But now i've made Florence into my element. I think i changed a lot in order to adapt to living here (specifically because i am living in the middle of a large city, something that would of been a shock no matter where, even back home). The good news is that ive learned from all of this, i've learned to take care of myself, to be comfortable in a city setting, to not need to understand everything (if anything) of whats going on around me. The good news is that, in many ways, i have made Florence mine. I will always think of Florence as home, it will be that spot i will always want to visit again; i am sure of that. But the interesting thing (and kinda bad news) is that a couple of things are missing. It feels like there is a whole inside of me. Its not painful, and its not all that horrible, but i do know that i will never really be content or happy until i fill that hole. What is it? It's simple, and can be explained in one word: family.

I miss my family like i never knew i could miss anything; it is ok, because i will be going home in a month, but if i wasn't i would not be able to stay here. But its more than just my immediate family, is my cousins, and aunts and uncles, and grandma's and grandfather's and friends. All of these are waiting back home for me, and that is such a wonderful feeling i can't express how happy that makes me. I cant wait to get back home, and i can't wait to be able to see everyone again. This hole can be filled and i know it, the only thing i don't have waiting for me back home (or here) is a girl. But i am confident that i will find one soon, i have to, i know i will never be really happy until i do.

One month left. . .