:.‘.,.x V V . . ‘ V A . , mama.

( .
; . . ‘
.r.‘ .. .3

. .25.. as...

s.

a a5 ..

. .. £ .

fin..fi\flzu....r§,

sun? Nun»! LE...» ..
. 12.x
.xmhfi

I. 2'.
I»;
9...:

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Ali. , . . v-.AA.II"- . m
.aéams .. x . $3.. . . magfiz

 

 

THESIS

.‘4‘ NIINHIUHIIHHUHUllllllil‘llilillillllll

{1 j; 3 1293 01561

                         

 

‘ LIBRARY

Michigan State
' University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

SPIRITUAL AND NATURAL LIGHT
IN MICHELANGELO'S SISTINE CHAPEL FRESCOES

presented by
LISA A. HEARD

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MASIERLdegree in ART HrsmnRY

@1th
6,4346

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

0-7639

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove We checkout tron your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or More dete due.

  

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU leAn AfflrmettveAcflon/Emel Opporumuy trunnion
Wyn-ni

SPIRITUAL AND NATURAL LIGHT
IN MICHELANGELO'S SISTINE CHAPEL FRESCOES

BY

LISA A. HEARD

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF ART HISTORY

Department of Art
1996

Dr. Eldon VanLiere

ABSTRACT

SPIRITUAL AND NATURAL LIGHT
IN MICHELANGELO'S SISTINE CHAPEL FRESCOES

Despite the controversy surrounding the restoration and cleaning of the
Sistine Chapel, it has provided an opportunity to explore a new aspect of
Michelangelo's ceiling frescoes; namely, his conception of light and
shadow. Beautifully accentuated figures, such as the Delphic Sibyl and
Adam and Eve from the Expulsion fresco, can now be examined in terms
of the manipulation of light and shadow upon them. Michelangelo's
handling of light and shadow appears, however, inconsistent. He takes
great care to harmonize the lighting and shadows in the scenes which, in
Michelangelo's chronological development, lead up to the Expulsion of
Adam and Eve from Paradise . The scenes change in character after this
point. The figures begin to occupy a different kind of space, one that is
less defined and structured -- a space which also reduces the demand for
renderings of perspective and shadow.
This thesis examines the causes for this apparently contradictory and
inharmonlous handling of light and shadow. It argues that Michelangelo's
Sistine Chapel frescoes in fact represent two distinct yet interdependent
forms of "light". This thesis also explores the means by which these forms of
light emerge and ultimately converge in the Sistine Chapel.

Accompanying the rise of naturalism in Renaissance art were

emerging concerns for humanism, perspective, anatomy, light and
shadow. Because these ideas have their roots much earlier than the
Renaissance, this thesis begins its exploration with Medieval art. Medieval
artists did not make use of natural light or its effects in paintings; however,
as the Renaissance artists begin to explore the empirical world, their use
and understanding of light changes. Michelangelo inherits this long and
rich history of painting light before he begins work on the Sistine Chapel
ceiling itself. This detailed examination of Michelangelo's use of light and
shadow reveals that the completed frescoes are a culmination and

synthesis of Medieval conceptualism and Renaissance naturalism.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this thesis is due in great part to my mother and step-
father, Kathy and Douglas Peterson. Without whose untiring help and

encouragement the writing of this thesis would not have come to fruition.

Thank you...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ..................................................... vi
Introduction ..................................................... l
Chapter One

The Sistine Chapel .......................................... 9
Chapter Two

Inherited Traditions ......................................... 32
Chapter Three

Michelangelo's Early Style .................................. 55
Chapter Four

Michelangelo's Mature Style ................................ 64
Conclusion

The Unity of Light .......................................... 77
Figures ......................................................... 80
Bibliography ................................................... l 20

Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:

Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:

LIST OF FIGURES

Michelangelo Buonarroti, The Drunkenness of Noah .................... 80
Michelangelo, The Flood ..................................................................... 81
Michelangelo ,The Sacrifice of Noah ............................................... 82
Michelangelo, The Temptation and The Expulsion ........................ 83
Michelangelo, The Creation of Eve .................................................. 84
Michelangelo, The Creation of Adam .............................................. 85
Michelangelo, Congregation of the Waters ................................... 86
Michelangelo, Creation of the Sun, Moon and Planets ............... 87
Michelangelo, Separation of Light from Darkness ......................... 88

Michelangelo, Delphic Sibyl .............................................................. 89
Michelangelo, Libian Sibyl .................................................................. 90
Michelangelo, lgnudi .......................................................................... 91
Michelangelo, Judith and Holofernes ............................................. 92
Michelangelo, David and Goliath .................................................... 93
Michelangelo, The Punishment of Haman ..................................... 94
Michelangelo, The Brazen Serpent .................................................. 95
Masolino, The Temptation ................................................................... 96

Figure 18: Masaccio, The Expulsion ..................................................................... 97
Figure 19: Giotto, The Crucifixion ......................................................................... 98
Figure 20: Duccio, The Crucifixion ........................................................................ 99
Figure 21: Giotto, The Vision of Anna ............................................................... 100
Figure 22: Giotto, The Annunciation ................................................................. 101
Figure 23: Taddeo Gaddi, The Annunciation to the Shepherds ................ 102
Figure 24: Taddeo Gaddi, The Tree of Life ...................................................... 103
Figure 25: Gentile da Fabriano, Adoration of the Magi from the

Strozzi Altarpiece .................................................................................................. 104
Figure 26: Gentile da Fabriano, Navitity from the Strozzi Altarpiece ....... 105
Figure 27: Gentile, Flight into Egypt from the Strozzi Altarpiece ................ 106
Figure 28: Masolino, Healing of the Cripple and the Raising of Tabitha.. 107
Figure 29: Masaccio, Tribute Money ................................................................ 108
Figure 30: Masaccio, St. Peter Healing with His Shadow ............................. 109

vi

Figure 31: Pro Filippo Lippi, The Annunciation ................................................ 1 10
Figure 32: Domenico Veneziano, Madonna and Child with Saints

from the St. Lucy Altarpiece ............................................................................... 1 1 1
Figure 33: Veneziano, The Annunciation from the predella of the St. Lucy
Altarpiece ............................................................................................................... 1 12
Figure 34: Leonardo da Vinci, The Annunciation .......................................... 1 13
Figure 35: Domenico del Ghirlandaio, Miracle of the Child of the

French Notary ........................................................................................................ 1 14
Figure 36: Michelangelo, Madonna of the Stairs ......................................... 1 15
Figure 37: Michelangelo, Battle of the Centaurs .......................................... 1 16
Figure 38: Michelangelo, David ........................................................................ 1 17
Figure 39: Michelangelo, Tomb of Giuliano de'Medici ................................ 1 18
Figure 40: Michelangelo, Tomb of Lorenzo de'Medici ................................. 1 18
Figure 41: Michelangelo, Tomb of Lorenzo de'Medici ................................. 1 19

vii

INTRODUCTION

During the cleaning and restoration, in the early 1990's, of the Sistine
Chapel something new emerged. Amidst the scaffolding, tarps and
restorers to many peoples' surprise and outrage, the bright and lively
colors of Michelangelo's frescoes appeared. Historians, for years, have
suggested that the "ceiling's greatness resided in its drabness".‘ H.W.
Janson, in the W, stated, "if he here (in the Sistine Chapel)
restricts his palette to 'stony' colors, it is to give his figures the quality of
painted sculpture and integrate them with their architectural setting. His
narrative scenes are the pictorial counterpart of reliefs rather than
illusionistic 'windows."' The acceptance of Michelangelo, in the 1700's, as
"the greatest of all draftsmen and the weakest colorist"2 held in our
judgments and interpretations of the ceiling frescoes. If our modern
assessment of the 450 year old frescoes has been clouded by grime and
soot and poor restoration attempts, imagine what we have passed over
without even realizing it. Now that the frescoes are cleaned they afford us
a view with a clear eye.

The frescoes begin in the temporal and empirical world at the east

 

1David Van Biema, "A Clear View of Heaven: A controversial restoration of

the Sistine ceiling reveals its true colors," LLe November 1991, vol 14, no 14:
38.

2ibid.

end of the chapel with the W (fig 1) and proceed to
the E19951 (fig 2) and the W121 (fig 3). Next is the ngingLSin
(fig 4) and Expulsion (fig 4) of Adam and Eve from Paradise, followed by
the CLQQIIQDQLEXQ (fig 5) and the W (fig 6). They then
progress 10 the WW (fig 7). The Cmflguoflbejm.
MW (fig 8) and culminate in the Semmlionofliahflmm
Darkness (fig 9), the actual creation of light, or the creative power of light,
before the light of the sun itself, over the altar. These narratives are
flanked by 12 Old Testament prophets and Sibyls, (fig 10 8 1 1) 40

ancestors of Christ and various other figures.

The underlying meaning of the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel has
been explained in numerous ways. Many scholars, such as de Tolnay,
seek refuge in Neo-Platonic interpretations, suggesting the cycle
represents the liberation of the soul from its human confines. This may
undoubtedly be true, but what is allowed us for the first time now is to
examine Michelangelo's use of light when composing the frescoes.

An examination of the overall use of light in the narrative frescoes is
curious for its inconsistent distinction between light and shadow: yet, this
should not be surprising for it is in keeping with Alberti's tenant that light is
used by the artist to make the natural world surrounding us visible on a

painted surface. It is not used symbolically, but rather functionally. Light is

a unifying quality which Michelangelo uses to enhance the vibrant colors
and to model figures, to create something solid and muscular, which
exists within a pictorial space. This is not far removed from Giotto's use of
light in the Arena Chapel 200 years earlier, where one witnesses his use of
light as a unifying quality, rather than light from a directional source which
would cast shadows. There are, however, scenes in the Genesis Cycle
from the Sistine ceiling in which Michelangelo disregards this convention
and depicts natural, visible light. These are the DmnkennesmLNggn
(1191). lbs-31.89051 (fig 2). the Sacflflcegmmh (fig 3). end 1he Emulsiongf
Waging (fig 4). All these scenes depict slight
shadows which would suggest the presence of a physical source of light.
In the W, for example,
Michelangelo depicts a slight shadow under the spurned and
despondent figures of Adam and Eve.

But what does this indicate? It has been suggested that
Michelangelo was aware of Masaccio's W
Eden (fig 18) in the Brancacci Chapel of Santa Maria del Carmine.
Florence and stylistically modelled his Adam and Eve after Masaccio's. It

is not surprising that Masaccio would include cast shadows for he is one of

the first artists to depict natural light.3 But does the inclusion of shadows in
Masaccio's scene influence Michelangelo? Or does the inclusion of
shadows also signify Adam's and Eve's relocation to this world, the world
where natural light gives shape to forms and in which shadows exist? It is
possible that Michelangelo borrowed the imagery for Adam and Eve, but
how does one then address the question of shadows in regards to the
Genesis scenes or the Sibyls, Prophets and ancestors when they are
conspicuously absent from other scenes?

The light in the Genesis scenes does hold for us an interesting
quality, for while it does not consistently cast shadows other than to
accentuate the musculature of the figures, it is the source of light by
which the Sibyls, Old Testament Prophets and ancestors are illuminated:
this is seen in the manner in which they receive light and cast shadows on
the wall behind them. Take for example the W (fig 10), whose
body faces in the direction of the altar while her face is shown head on.
The light strikes the front of her body and the right side of her face with full

force and throws the left side into shadow. Her left arm reaches across

 

3If, for example, one examines the Tribute Money from this chapel one
sees the use of cast shadows which not only helps establish the figures
solidly on the ground and within a perspectival space, but the shadows
also indicate from which direction the light is coming. Masaccio is one of
the first Renaissance artists who consistently and naturally depicts the
empirical phenomena of light.

her body to hold up a scroll. Her forearm receives the most direct light
and the triceps and shoulder are cast in shadows. Her physical presence
is further solidified by the shadow on the wall behind her and the shadow
cast by the arm of her chair. The same physical presence is also found in
the lgnudi (fig 12), which flank each Genesis Cycle fresco. The lgnudi.
even more than the Prophets and Sibyls, appear to strive toward a firm
sculptural representation. They are an integral part of the architecture of
the Chapel and are depicted as free standing sculptures rather than flat.
two dimensional painted surfaces. Other examples, which are closely
related to the style in the Prophets and Sibyls, are the ancestors of Christ.
found in the lunettes. Even further examples of such treatment of light are
found in the four angular Cloister vaults with the scenes of Jngflttmng
Holofernes (fig 13). Wain (fig l4tlbe£m1t1mngfljgmgn
(fig 15) and W‘ (fig 161.

One can not help but ponder Michelangelo's apparent lack of
consistency in depicting light. One might also find it curious why
Michelangelo chose to depict both the creation of natural light, sun light,
as well as light which has no physical resemblance or parallel in the
empirical world. Is light in this second instance merely a means of

illuminating the scene, as Alberti calls for, or is it something else? One can

 

4These frescoes will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter one.

find possible answers in the frescoes themselves.

Michelangelo, in choosing to depict the separation of light from
darkness through the figure of God, who is depicted in a swirl of clouds.
expounds upon the notion proposed by St. Bonaventura and others, that
divine light is analogous to the creative force of God and was created
three days before the light of the sun. One can pause for a moment and
wonder, if Michelangelo in depicting the figure of God separating light
from darkness and thus evoking the creative force of the divine light to
generate the sun, is he not also expressing his own view of the artist as one
who, through light and color, calls into being the images of the fresco.
The creative process which brings into our world the sun and its light is
beautifully analogous to the creative process of painting which brings
forth the work of art. ls Michelangelo concerned with more than
illustrating the narrative, is he also interested in bringing out the
importance of the very act of painting itself? We see this same notion
later in Velazquez' painting LgsMenings, where the artist depicts himself in
the process of painting. It is admittedly tempting to want to see in
Michelangelo the break from the artist as one who imitates nature to one
whose painting and process actually becomes the subject of the work. In
many respects Michelangelo's notions of art are very modern, especially

when one considers that one of the central tenants of the Early

Renaissance is the issue of imitation. Regardless of what might be present
in this particular fresco, we do see that art is no longer mimetic. It requires
the artist to call upon his Imagination to form a correspondence between
the viewer and the Idea, which is being symbolically represented. If the
art of the High Renaissance and Michelangelo in particular is no longer
mimetic, how does it reach this point? How does Michelangelo come to
depict the world with two seemingly different kinds of light in the Sistine
Chapel and more importantly, why? If one is natural light, what is the
other? ls Michelangelo conceiving of a duality in light, or is he simply
being awkward? When do questions regarding light and its rendering in
paintings and frescoes start, is it here with Michelangelo, earlier with the
artists of the Early Italian Renaissance, or even before?

In chapter one I will detail the visual representations of light and
shadow in the Sistine Chapel ceiling frescoes. Chapter two traces the
historical development and emergence of natural light in painting. In
Chapters three and four I will discuss Michelangelo's own style of painting
and sculputure from his earliest works through the Medici Chapel. And
finally, in the conclusion I will touch upon the significance of
Michelangelo's use and understanding of light as it is manifest in two

frescoes: the lemotaiiangndfixowsion and the WW
Darkness . After all is said, this examination will conclude that light is

related to his notion of Being and reveals the special position which art

has in Michelangelo's Weltanschauung.

CHAPTER ONE

The Sistine Chapel

Michelangelo referred to himself on several occasions as a sculptor
rather than a painter, especially during the difficult timess while he was
painting the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel. In fact he entreats his family
and friends to mail his correspondences to "Michelangelo, sculptor in
Rome", for he feels painting is not his true profession and he is only
creating "dead paintings“3 . Despite all of his complaining and pain the
frescoes appear to us alive with vibrant colors and illusionistic relief. The
frescoes deviate from the established ceiling decoration for a chapel in
the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Traditionally, the vault
would be painted over in blue and sprinkled with thousands of tiny gold
stars while the walls would be covered with religious narratives. Such was
the scheme of the Sistine Chapel itself until Michelangelo was asked to
renovate it. The project began for Michelangelo in 1508 and was
completed in 1512. Michelangelo was allowed the freedom by Pope
Julius II to alter this popular convention. As de Tolnay points out, the
frescoes were completed in four sections. The first included all the Noah

stories and the second consisted of scenes from the Original Sin to the

 

5Valerio Mariani.Mi§b.e|QnQ.e.LQ_lbe_EQ1m§I (New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Inc. 1964) 52

10

creation of Adam. The third section included almost all the remaining
figures except the ancestors of Christ and the figures in the lunettes
around the windows.

Upon careful consideration and observation one sees that
Michelangelo not only altered the convention of chapel decoration but
that his own style changed in the course of completing the frescoes. The
figures become more robust and less detailed as our eye passes from the
temporal world of Noah to the trans-empirical realm of God and the
Creation. This change in figural style was evident even before the recent
restoration, but what was covered over by years of soot and grime was
Michelangelo's conception of light and shadow. Now not only are the
figures more spirited and dynamic due to the cleaning and restoration.
but their incorporation into the architectural setting becomes more
evident as we see emerge the shadows cast by the figures.

The frescoes in the genesis cycle begin in the temporal and
empirical world at the east end of the chapel with the Qunkennessef
Neg): (fig 1). Here one witnesses the intricate play of light and shadow on
the figures and drapery, especially that of Noah, giving the figures an

almost sculptural appearance. The figure of Noah is reminiscent of the

11

classical sculptural renderings of the Rivers,6 this bestows upon him an
almost timeless quality yet at the same time endowing him with the
temporality of human life. His weighty body is slumped on the ground and
his Darkness shadow is sharply contrasted with the bright green of the
billowy cloth upon which he lies. His sagging muscles and rolls of flesh are
pronounced because of Michelangelo's acute awareness of how light
reacts when it hits a solid surface. The listless figure of Noah differs from his
three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, who populate the right portion of the
scene. They stand, agitatedly, as one youth places a purple translucent
cloth over Noah's head. Their garments swirl about them and their hair is
tousled, giving their demeanor an unsettled quality. The attention which
Michelangelo pays to every detail, whether that be color, perspective,
anatomy, facial expression, shadow or light, helps him to relate this lively
scene of the DnmkennesLQLNeqn (fig 1) spectator below. Not only are
we invited to recall the story of Noah but in a subtle manner we become
aware of Michelangelo's ability to create figures which are solid and exist
within a set space. This realization is emphasized by his consistent use of
light which comes into this scene from the left. As if the sunlight which

comes in through the chapel windows were actually the light which

 

6ibid notes to plate V

12

illuminates this scene, it strikes the figures of Noah and his sons, modeling
them and firmly establishing their presence on the ground.

The next fresco in the Genesis cycle is the Heed (fig 2). This chaotic
scene shows the frightened people clinging to one another and trying to
seek shelter from the impending flood. The torrential wind rushes through
the landscape and the water threatens to swallow those who cannot
reach shelter. Again we can observe Michelangelo's naturalistic
treatment of figures and landscape. His regard for perspective and
rendering space is evident in the diminution of figures and objects. Unlike
the figures in Giotto's Arena Chapel frescoes which appear disconnected
from their painted surroundings, Michelangelo's figures are not only
integrated into the painted landscape but also into the architectural
setting itself. The scene is like an illusionistic window revealing the story
from the Book of Genesis. Those condemned to perish in the flood are
represented climbing into a boat, running onto high land or seeking
shelter under a tent. The viewer is never forced to make this action come
alive for himself, it magically unfolds before his eyes. This vignette of
dramatic action is contrasted with the static sculptural frame around it. In
the comers of this frame rest four lgnudi, which appear to be rendered in

sculptural relief rather than paint. Their stony colored bodies cast shadows

13

on their architectural setting just as the figures of the Prophets and Sibyls.
as if the light which strikes them comes from the windows of the chapel
itself.

While there appears a dissimilarity between the scenes from the
Book of Genesis and their painted setting, one can not help but notice the
consistent use of natural light within the fresco cycle; the sort of
manifestation of light which comes through empirical observation and the
Renaissance desire to strive toward naturalism. Within the scene
representing the Eleog, the figures cast shadows just as they did in the
scene of the DmnkennesseLNegn. Both scenes and their architectural
settings seem to be governed by the same principles of light, shadow and
perspective. This consistent rendering of light as it strikes objects which
appear to be painted and those which strive toward sculptural likeness is
interesting to notice in these first two scenes, and tends to harmonize the
entire fresco cycle.

The Seedfleeeflsjegn (fig 3), the next in the series, is consistent with
the conventions of light, shadow and perspective established in the first
two scenes. This scene, however, as related in the Bible, follows the end
of the Flood. After the flood had subsided and the earth was completely

dry Noah built an altar to the Lord (Genesis 8.20):

 

T1

14

"he took one of each ritually clean animal and bird, and burned
them whole as a sacrifice on the altar. The odor of the sacrifice
pleased the Lord, and he said to himself, Never again will I put the
earth under a curse because of what man does; I know that from the
time he is young his thoughts are evil. Never again will I destroy
all living beings, as I have done this time. As long as the world
exists, there will be a time for planting and a time for harvest.
There will always be cold and heat, summer and winter, day and
night" (Genesis 821-22).

In the biblical story, the emotional climax comes when the Lord decides
he will not curse man for his actions and concludes in the revelation of
faith for Noah: a moment filled with relief and perhaps confidence, for he
has done what was good and what pleased the Lord. The visual
representation, on the other hand, is of the moment when Noah burns the
ritually clean animals on the altar. This is the moment of thanks and
penitence, a gesture also made by the viewer below as he not only
recalls this story of Noah, but also as he partakes of the sacrament during
Mass.

Stylistically this scene is similar to the other two Noah scenes. The
three scenes themselves are densely populated, the figures are more
detailed and smaller than the remaining frescoes in the Genesis cycle. In
the WM, like the other Noah scenes, there is an inner tension
and emotional fervor. The youths in the foreground struggle to bring in the
sacrificial animals, carry in kindling and stoke the fire in the altar. Their

young, muscular bodies strain under the exertion. but together they

15

accomplish their tasks. Noah stands behind the altar, looking much
calmer than his two companions standing to either side of him. Because
the two groups occupy most of the composition very little room is left for
detail in the architectural setting behind them, making it seem almost
inconsequential. But it is present and gives the central figures something
solid to stand in front of. The arrangement of figures creates a sweeping
effect from the upper left corner, with the sacrificial animals, down to the
center, with the sacrifice of the ram, and back to the upper right corner
with the youth carrying wood; the circle is then completed by the three
figures behind the altar. Our eye follows the increasing and decreasing
tension as we move through the scene, much as it did in the Dmnkenness
eLNeen, and the Heed. This dramatic tenor is made even more
pronounced by Michelangelo's confident handling of light and shadow.
Consistent with the light in the two previous scenes, it comes from the left
and helps to create the illusion of volume and space.

The next fresco in the Genesis cycle is the QnejneLSInendJne
WW (fig 4). The conflation of these two stories
into one scene gives a unique view of Adam and Eve at the moment
when they submit to their temptations and the consequences of their

actions. The Tree of Knowledge and Life visually divides the fresco in half.

 

SL

st

It

SUI

16

but it is curiously not the separation of right from left. The separation is
much more subtly suggested. Eden is depicted as lush green, with rocks
and trees. Outside the gates of Paradise the world is barren and pale.
The different representation of Eve in these two scenes is astonishing. As
she resides in the Garden of Eden her facial features are tranquil and
delicate. The beauty of her face and body is carefully rendered by
Michelangelo. This beautiful Eve is transformed into a haggard old
woman as she is expelled from Paradise. The visual dichotomy is made
even more pronounced by the different handling of light.

As before, the light which radiates in this scene appears to come
from the left. It shines on Adam and Eve, the serpent, the tree and the
rocks in relatively the same fashion as it shines on the figures of Adam and
Eve after their expulsion and the angel who banishes them. The figures'
musculature is beautifully rendered through light and shade and the
texture of their bodies is unmistakably different from the hard, fissured
surface of the rock. But, as the figures in the previous frescoes cast
shadows on the ground, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden do not.
This is curious indeed for in the same scene after the Fall they do.

The logical question now seems to form: is there a precedence for

such a rendering? It has been suggested by various scholars that

17

Michelangelo drew his inspiration for the Expulsion scene from the
ExpelsienfleminefierdeneLEden (fig 18) by Masaccio, in the Brancacci
Chapel of Santa Maria del Carmine. In Masaccio's representation of the
Expulsion he renders the figures of Adam and Eve in much the same
manner as Michelangelo, so indeed it seems plausible that Michelangelo
drew upon this scene for some of his inspiration. There are, however.
distinct differences. Whereas Masaccio shows the golden rays of light
emanating through the gate to Paradise in contrast with the natural light
which hits the figures and casts shadows on the ground, Michelangelo
chooses to depict these two manifestations of light in a more subtle
manner. For Masaccio they are easily separated and understood to have
different physical qualities. The golden rays which radiate from the
Garden of Eden stream through the archway. Their painted character
unmistakably reminds us of the Medieval tradition of representing divine
light, whereby the artist would apply gold to represent the close proximity
of God. Given the subject matter, it is not surprising for Masaccio to
represent the Expulsion in such a manner. What is interesting to note is the
different path Michelangelo chose to follow in order to represent the
Garden of Eden and the Expulsion. His Eden is lush and green, with no hint

of the Medieval iconography of Masaccio. Instead Michelangelo took

18

quite a new and unexplored approach. There is no doubt that
Michelangelo meant to represent a divine presence and "pure" place in
this Garden of Eden, but we have never before seen an artist who chose
to achieve this through the use of light or rather the absence of natural
light.

Another fresco from the Brancacci Chapel which warrants
investigation is the IemejeflenefAdemendjm (fig 17) by Masolino,
because of its proximity and historical relationship to Masaccio's Expelsjen.
Despite the similarity between the two Expulsion frescoes, Michelangelo
does not appear to have drawn inspiration from the Iemetetjen by
Masolino. The beautiful, languid body of Eve replaces Masolino's flat, stiff
and unexpressive pose. In Masolino's Iemeteflen, the only
communication between Adam and Eve is in a slight glance. The snake
appears disconnected from their actions, not at all the Imagery one
expects from this tempting creature. Michelangelo, however, manages
to heighten the fall from this idyllic landscape. The expulsion appears
somehow more tragic because of this scene. To say that Michelangelo
drew inspiration from Masaccio and Masolino can not be disputed, but
one can question the influence of this particular scene. There is however

one similarity: namely, there are no cast shadows on the ground in either

19

representation. The ground in both scenes is noticeably void of shadows.
Whether Michelangelo consciously made the decision to represent his
landscape without shadows based on Masolino's rendering is dubious.

The episode which follows this pivotal scene is the CLQQIIQDQLEALQ
(fig 5). Here Adam lies on the ground in a deep sleep , his torso supported
by a tree stump. Eve stands slightly behind him, her right leg still not fully
emerged from his side and her hands are outstretched toward God.
whose body barely fits within the confines of the painted fresco. The
contrasting positions of the figures establish a different emotion then did
those In earlier frescoes such as the SeenfleeeLHeen or the Heed. But
there are similarities, such as the relationship between the figure of Adam
and God In this scene and that of Noah and his sons in the Hmnkennessef
Hmn. The figures of Adam and Noah are slumped on the ground,
insensible to the action of the story which goes on around them. While, on
the one hand, the aversion and almost repugnance of Noah's sons can
be read not only on their faces, but also in their postures, the quiet.
restrained presence of God creates quite a different mood.

The light in this scene, as in the QriejneLSin, is curious for while it is
used to help model the figures, it does not appear to cast shadows on the

ground. The lgnudi which flank the scene, as before, emerge as if

20

executed in sculptural relief rather than on a flat painted surface. The
shadows behind them visually act to separate them from the ceiling. Their
painted arms, heads and legs all cast very distinct shadows on the surface
behind and the pedestals below them. The Nude in the upper right
comer even obscures part of the scene from the Genesis cycle as if his
presence were three dimensional and closer to the viewer below. The
light within the Qriejnelfiin scene appears somehow different. It is rather
like that used by the early Renaissance artist Giotto. It is of a uniform
quality: it is more like color than it is natural light, which shines into the
chapel and onto the frescoes. This change in quality has an interesting
effect on the scenes. Whereas previously Michelangelo sought to relate
the lighting of the scenes in to the lighting of the architectural setting.
creating illusionistic windows: this change in quality of light now tends to
detach the scenes from their frames. By altering the way the figures and
landscape react to light Michelangelo has removed this scene from the
physical realm of the chapel. It is no longer regulated by the same laws
of nature which govern the other scenes and the lgnudi. It has light which
is self-contained and, therefore, different from the light of the chapel.

The next fresco, the QLeetjeneLAdem (fig 6), is perhaps the most

famous scene in the Sistine Chapel. The personification of God as the

21

creative force appears, accompanied by genli, enveloped in a
voluminous purplish mantle. There is no ground below nor sky above him.
he hangs in a space which is curiously undefined. The force of this
moment, the moment when God gives the spark of life to Man, is sensed
in every muscle, gesture, and glance, in God's wind-swept hair and
garment. The whole scene crescendos in anticipation of the touching of
the two fingers. Adam's arm is outstretched and he glances over his left
shoulder as God approaches him. The shadow from his head falls on his
left shoulder and the shadows on his torso are more pronounced on his
left side thus suggesting that the source of light which falls upon Adam
comes from that direction. This light helps to model every subtle aspect of
the human body. The gentle curve of his forehead, the strong line of his
jaw, the fold of flesh in his right arm and the protrusion of his knee into
space.

The use of Chiaroscuro is not lost on the figures of God and his
entourage, for Michelangelo uses It to create and enhance the depth of
the space within the garment and therefore within the fresco. As the
genie under God's left arm peer out from behind God's body the light
grazes his head and shoulder, but the figure behind this genie is almost lost

as the shadows of the garment envelope him.

22

With all the care and concern Michelangelo took to create figures
which appear lifelike and solid, there is one element which is incongruous,
and that is the landscape upon which Adam lies. It is amorphous. The
thin sliver of blue which borders the green earth is barely suggestive of the
sky and the land seems more like a colored background used to offset
the figure of Adam. Interestingly we see, as In the scene of the erelnel
Sin, that there are again no shadows on the ground.

The SepereiieneflneLendjemthefleiers (fig 7) is the next fresco
in the Genesis cycle and, as in the QLeeijeneLAdem, illustrates the
personification of the creative force of God. Similar to the QLeetjenef
Adem, God is pictured in a swirl of purplish garment. Michelangelo's
awareness of the principles of foreshortening allows him to depict God as
if he were reaching out toward us. He is suspended in a vacuous and
seemingly quiet space, but the theatrical actions of the lgnudi around him
leave us with a feeling nothing short of drama and awe. The four lgnudi
flanking this scene are consistent with those painted previously. They are
each rendered as if they were sculpted rather than painted. They cast
shadows on the ceiling behind them as if they were raised from it and as if
the natural sunlight from the chapel windows were blocked by their

marble surface. Even the pedestals upon which they sit react naturally to

23

the sunlight in the chapel, as if they project from the ceiling as do the
lgnudi. On the other hand, the scene of the SeeeLqijen_et_tne_Lend_trem
tnefleters itself appears differently lit.

Perhaps, because there is no solid ground upon which God rests, he
appears to be bathed in an unusual light. It is somehow brighter yet
diffused and does not appear to come from any one direction. Although
it helps, as elsewhere, to model the figures, it does not contribute to an
illusion of space or depth. Except for the presence of the solid figures.
there is no indication of depth.

The W (fig 81 is possibly
one of the most extraordinary frescoes in the Genesis cycle, especially if
one is examining them in order to understand Michelangelo's use of light.
The gold-colored sun in the center has replaced the natural sunlight in the
chapel as the evident source of light for this scene. One sees this most
directly in the genie in the center who raises his arm to shield his eyes from
the intensity of the light. This light bathes the two figures of God as he
creates the different, yet interdependent, celestial bodies. The sun, which
God here creates, generates its own light, whereas the moon does not.
The light of the sun illuminates our days, gives warmth to the world and

helps plants to grow. The sun's light is also what we witness at night as it

IE

31

24

reflects off the moon. The generative power of the sun, on this one level.
mirrors the creative force of God.

As in the SeeemflenefineLendjLemjneflejecs, the use of light.
shadows and space is here conceived differently from that in the pre-
Lapsarian scenes. The space which God and his genii occupy in the
Qeejjeneflnejun is shallow and undefined. Partially because there is
no tangible ground which they rest upon or float above, which would
give us a hint of recession back into space. But also because the space
around them is void of shadows. The same can be said for the figure of
God as he creates the moon. We see that his back is closest to the sun.
for the color on his garment is lightest there. The volume of his body is
suggested by the darkening color as we look around to his front. Were it
not for this slight change in color, the viewer would have no idea where
God was in relation to the sun.

The final scene in the Genesis cycle is, according to the Bible, the
beginning of all time, the SeeerefleneLLjenandDeLkness, (fig 9) or the
W. In this early moment in time, when God gives
the initial spark to create the universe, "the earth was formless and
desolate" (Genesis 1.1-2). This is a description fitting to these final three

scenes. The scenes are relatively empty, but the magnitude of each act is

 

SC

36

25

not lessened by the barren background. In this scene as in the Creetjen
Wm God's gesture Is emphatic and his body is
monumental, occupying the entire scene. Compared to the figures of
Noah and Adam In the earlier frescoes, God is larger in relationship to the
frame and less precisely defined. The body under his garment is less
emphasized, and the previously established use of space, light and
shadows is almost lost. There is no hint of a directional source of light. The
light from the chapel is not the source of illumination for this scene.

The lgnudi which flank this scene, however, are unchanged from
the previously painted figures of this kind. The light of the chapel still
appears to shine on their bodies revealing their musculature and
anchoring them firmly into the space of the chapel. Their incorporation
into the architectural setting is unquestionable, but the scene which they
border Is removed from the realm of the physical observer.

As was mentioned earlier the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel were
completed in four sections. We have investigated the Noah scenes, the
scenes from the Original Sin and the Creation of Adam, what therefore
seems logical for us to examine next in our study of light and shadow in
the Chapel are the figures of the ancestors and the figures in the lunettes.

In the previous scenes one witnesses a gradual shift from figures which are

26

well defined and firmly anchored into the space and architectural setting
of the chapel to figures which are large, even monumental and less
expressly established in space. But most of all, there is no directional
source of light in these scenes.

The angular Cloister vault with the scene of Jedjtnendfleletemes
(fig 13) is one of the two vaults painted in the first phase of the ceiling
decoration. One notices the clarity of the drawing and the detailed
modeling of the figures similar to that found in the Noah scenes. The
triptych-like partition of the scene appears to emphasize the flight of
Judith and her maid from the lifeless and inert body of Holofernes. The
quiet rustle of their garments is almost audible as they steal away with his
head.

The decapitated body of Holofernes lies heavily on the bed. The
shadows of the wall and the curtain which hangs above him partially
obscure his body. There is a distinction between the darkness which
shrouds his dead body and the light which reveals the two women as they
quietly slip away. The light is subtle and yet enhances the drama of the
scene. It is naturalistic and reacts so. Unlike the light which we found in
the later Genesis frescoes, this light conforms to the physical laws of

nature. The source of light is outside the fresco itself. It comes from within

27

the Chapel to illuminate this fresco, as it does for other Pre-Lapsarian
scenes in the Sistine Chapel.

The second angular cloister vault above the main entrance is the
battle between deidendfieljein (fig 14). The clarity of drawing and
sculptured composition tie it to the other frescoes of the first phase. Similar
to the figures of Judith and Holofernes and those in the Noah scenes,
David and Goliath are robust with well defined muscles and facial
features. The well-developed muscles in David's leg stands out as he
struggles to maintain his hold over Goliath. The massive figure of Goliath
stretches from one side of the vault to the other and at the very pinnacle
of the vault is the sword, which in its downward sweep will slay the giant.
The composition of the two figures echoes the architectural confines of
the vault. The tight space at the bottom of the vault restricts the
movements of Goliath. Whereas, the open space at the top of the vault
frees David, allowing him to use all of his strength and momentum. This
very moment is frozen in time and we anticipate the downward stroke.
Even while the sword is poised and we are intent on the drama in the
scene, the curve of the knife blade mirrors the curve of the vault and we
are reminded that this scene is closely tied to its architectural setting.

The inclusion of the fresco Witt in the Sistine Chapel.

It

br

28

not merely as part of the decorations, 15 further emphasized by the use of
light in the scene. The light is consistent with that used in the scenes of
Noah, Judith and Holofernes and the other scenes leading up to the fall of
man. The light comes in as if from the chapel window and illuminates the
figures. In this particular fresco the light comes from the right and shines
most brightly on the upper body of Goliath, and the back and arm of
David. David's body casts a shadow over much of Goliath, firmly
anchoring him into the ground and below David.

The next angular cloister vault is located along the wall of the Last
Judgement. It represents the EunisnmenLQLHemen (fig 15). It was one of
the last frescos to be painted in the Sistine Chapel. The emphasis has
moved away from the clearly defined and articulated figures. Instead
the artist is interested in the subtle recessions in space. One can see in this
scene a freer composition, bolder foreshortening with more daring angles.
While the fresco of David and Goliath echoed the architectural setting.
this breaks away from its confines. David and Goliath nicely fit into their
architectural setting. The figures in the EdnjsnmenLeLHemen strain to
break free of their setting.

The central figure of Haman is shown in a dramatic foreshortened

pose. His legs and torso are shown frontally, but his arms are twisted so

29

one reaches out toward the viewer and the other reaches back into the
room he occupies. His finger-tips almost expand beyond the top of the
arch. The three seated figures on the left recoil from the contorted figure.
Whereas, the reclining figure of the King on the right points toward the
punished man. His gesture is reminiscent of God as he gives life to Adam
and his left hand is similar to that in the statue Dexjd (fig 38).

The light in this scene is again from some source outside the fresco,
perhaps from the Chapel itself. The figures closest to the foreground
receive the most direct light. For example, the figure in yellow, who
emerges from the adjacent room, is more clearly defined while the figures
in the corner of the room are dark and partially obscured. Another
example of Michelangelo's use of light and shadow is on the figure of
Haman himself. His left quadriceps is fully lit, while the lower leg and foot is
partially shaded by the right leg. The strain In his neck is emphasized by
the shadows around the tendons and jaw. Michelangelo uses light here
in a naturalistic manner, but he also uses it to heighten the emotion of the

scene.

 

tvl

30

The final fresco in this architectural style is the Bquenjereent
(fig 16). Of the four angular vaults, this scene is the culmination of
Michelangelo's studies of muscular forms, dramatic poses, light and
shadow. The entangled figures reminds one of the Laocoon group,
where, in the statue as here, the dramatic play of light and shadow
intensifies the horror that is felt as they fight to free themselves from the
serpent's grip.

In this fresco the brightest concentration of light is at the center,
while the figures in the corners are lost to the shadows. The figure who is
closest to the center of the vault, for example, receives the most direct
light. His left arm casts a dark shadow across his right leg. The dark green
of the snake gradually takes on lighter tones as it worms its way up his
body and across his neck. The sky behind him is bright blue. As our eye
moves to either side the contorted figures begin to fade into the dark
terror.

The four large cloister vaults result from the curve of the ceiling. The
architectural setting for these scenes no doubt played an Important role in
Michelangelo's design and the evolution of his style Is perhaps nowhere as

evident as in these four frescoes. The quiet , well-defined figures of Jydjin

endeeleIernes are echoed in the fresco of W. This quiet

31

and contained ambience begins to decay in the dramatic fresco of the
BenjsnmenLeLHemen. One senses the monumentality in the figure of
Haman, and he also begins to challenge the architectural setting, striving
to reach beyond its confines. Finally, in the Hmzenjerpeni, Michelangelo
is barely able to restrain the figures from overflowing the edges of this
fresco.

As we have seen, the recent cleaning and restoration of the
frescoes in the Sistine Chapel has given us a new appreciation for
Michelangelo's genius. His sure handling of form, perspective, light,
shadow and space can now be fully appreciated. But this observation
has left us with certain inconsistencies which need to be accounted for.
Michelangelo was obviously deeply aware of how light reacts when it hits
a solid object, and he took great care to harmonize the lighting and
shadowing in the scenes up to the WWW
Eeredjse (fig 4). The scenes change in character after this point. The
figures begin to occupy a different kind of space, one that is less defined
and structured: therefore, space which also reduces the demand for
renderings of perspective and shadows. But this does not sufficiently

account for the differences encountered.

CHAPTER TWO

Inherited Traditions

In the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo has created a unique and awe-
inspiring program. After the cleaning and restoration his colors radiate
from the surface of the ceiling and the stories from the Book of Genesis
seem to come alive before our very eyes. However, the revelation does
not end with his use of color. We also noticed, more subtly articulated, his
discernment between light and shadow. In the stories of Noah and the
DEW (fig 4) the light which shone in
the frescoes seemed to come from a source outside them, rendered
perhaps as if it came from the windows of the Chapel itself. As a result his
desire to integrate the frescoes into the architectural setting was
beautifully and skillfully executed and achieved. One of the finest
achievements which Michelangelo brought to this series of frescoes is the
almost sculptural appearance of the lgnudi. These figures seem three-
dimensional and are a part of the architecture of the ceiling itself,
reacting to the natural light in the chapel as if they were statues. The
illusionistic windows, which relate the stories of the Drunkenness of Nean
(fig 1). the Heed (fig 2). the marten (fig 3). the 939161513 (fig 41
and the fixedlsien (fig 4) are vignettes and the amount and angle of light

in these earlier frescoes ties them into their architectural surroundings.

32

33

Yet somehow after those scenes, Michelangelo's need for light
within the frescoes changed and subsequently the effect of light and
shadow was altered. We are left with the question, why? Michelangelo.
as we will see, is working during a time of artistic innovation and
revelation. But it is still a Christian world ruled at times by metaphysical
laws. The systems and conventions which he inherits are part of the
culture. Michelangelo interprets and personalizes them to give us, as he
would see it, an art which will endure time and which ties him to the
tradition of the use of light and shadow in painting. Paul Hills in IneLjeni
eLEeflleeljenEejnjjne discusses the changing treatment of light from the
13th to the 15th centuries and concludes with the appearance of natural
light in Masaccio. His studies can be continued and a progression of the
treatment of light can be traced through the Renaissance. Such a study
would be exhaustive beyond the scope of this examination: therefore.
only those artists who represent a major change in style or had direct
influence on Michelangelo will be discussed.

Accompanying the rise of naturalism in Renaissance art were
emerging concerns for humanism, perspective, anatomy, light, and
shadow. These changes took time to evolve. More and more as the

Middle Ages are left behind, light, shadow and perspective are treated

34

differently. According to Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472), light and color
are essential to the construction of a painted space. He advised artists to
distance themselves from the use of gold, a convention in Medieval art,
because it only detracted from the tonal gradations and produced the
illusion of spacial recession. He conceives of light as strictly a means to an
end. It had neither aesthetic value, nor symbolic significance. Its
purpose, as Moshe Barasch observes, is to illuminate the scene, to make it
visible to the viewer: "To Alberti light is not simply the condition of visual
experience, regardless of what is perceived: he conceives of it as of the
revealer of form, of the structure and volume of material bodies. Light
should show the sculptural solidify, the material firmness of the body.”
One can see the beginnings of this kind of concern for light in the
paintings of Giotto. Giotto's practice anticipates Alberti's theory by over
100 years.

Giotto is generally considered to be the first "Renaissance artist", not
only because of his reintroduction of the narrative scene into painting, but
also because of his attempts at perspectival renderings. Along these lines.

Paul Hills in IneLjenteLEeduteflenEqinflne has introduced the

application of a particularly interesting theory to Giotto's frescoes in the

 

7Moshe Barasch, Light end Cele: in the ltdlidn Rendissdnee Ineory of Art
(New York: New York UP, 1978) 16.

35

Scrovegni Chapel ca. 1305. In his discussion he states the importance of
light in relation to perspective and he suggests that the nearer an object is
the clearer and brighter it appears to be: the antithesis logically states
that the farther away the object the darker and hazier it becomes.8

Light, for Giotto, acts as a unifying factor, it helps to model figures
and establish them within a defined space as opposed to against a flat
background. Giotto's concern to illustrate figures in a somewhat logical
perspective marks a distinct break from the Medieval tradition. When one
compares, for example, the Cmeifixien by Giotto (fig 19) from the
Scrovegni Chapel to the QnJejflxjen by Duccio (fig 20) from the Maesta
ca. 1308-11, the first thing one notices is the distinction between the figures
on the ground in the two works. In keeping with medieval tradition,
Duccio represents the faces of every figure so that each is discernible.
The stacking effect achieved here contrasts with the more naturalistic
perspective of Giotto. Giotto places his figures so that faces overlap and

are partially hidden by a figure who may stand in front of another, in the

 

8 The argument which Paul Hills takes up was originally put forth by Roger
Bacon in Herseeetiye. Herspeetila dealt with the relationship between
vision and geometry and had addressed the nature of light. Mr. Hills does
not suggest that Giotto would have read mm, nor do I, but he
rightfully suggests that similar ideas are present in both works, at roughly
the same time. His application of Bacon's theory is intriguing if one thinks
of the great changes which are about to take place in the history of
painting.

36

same manner as if we looked out at a crowd we would see all the people
in the front and the people behind would be partially obscured.

The light in the Scrovegni Chapel is used to enhance the clarity of
the scene and solidify the figures in the frescoes. Like Giotto's perspectival
renderings, it also differs from his contemporaries--Duccio for example. For
instance, let us look at InemsieneLAnne (fig 21). The scene Includes two
rooms, one in which a servant sits, and the other where Anna is visited by
the angel. The action in this scene takes place towards the front of the
rooms: therefore, if one accepts Bacon's theory of perspective, the back
of the rooms should be less defined and darker, which they are. What is
more interesting, however, is the conspicuous lack of gold in the scene.
The golden nimbus has been retained for the halos of Anna and the
angel, but the scene itself Is no longer set against a gold background nor
are there gold striations in the garments, both Medieval traditions. The
garments are instead modelled through graduated shades of color. But
perhaps the most profound deviation Giotto undertakes in all the frescoes
in the Scrovegni Chapel is to replace the typical gold background with a
blue sky: for it returns the figures to this world and moves them away from
a purely conceptualist rendering. Return for a moment to the CnJejflxiens

by Duccio and Giotto. The absence of a gold background in Giotto

37

marks a definite break. Duccio's Cnsejflxien still belongs to another time
and should be interpreted within those conventions: it is the concept or
the meaning which is essential to understanding this painting, rather than
the history of one man's sufferings for our redemption.

We have not yet witnessed the emergence of cast shadows to
signify the existence of physical light, but here in the Scrovegni Chapel we
have established a painterly depiction of another kind of light, one which
is treated uniformly throughout the frescoes and helps to suggest depth
and volume. But there Is also a different type of light rendered,
specifically in the Annenejeflen (fig 22).

The Virgin Mary is shown kneeling in the presence of the Annunciate
Angel. The rays of light emanate from Gabriel as he raises his hand to
impart the salutation from God that Mary will bring forth the Christ child.
The light falls upon Mary, who calmly accepts her fate. Perhaps it is not
Giotto's Intention to draw attention to the light itself, but rather to fix in the
viewer's mind the God-given moment of conception. None the less, as
Hartt has remarked, "in the Annenejetjen we have emerged from a world
where every scene is bathed in the same dispassionate light into a world

of mysticism and revelation!” This statement is not only fitting, it also

 

9 Frederick Hartt, Histenr elf Itdlidn Rendissdnce Ad (New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall Inc., 1987) 68.

38

recognizes that there are two distinct kinds of light In this artist's
vocabulary. Our latter investigation will see If it is not also fitting to
Michelangelo. The statement by Hartt also suggests that Giotto's
separation from Medieval art lies not only in his narrative style but also in
his decision to execute in painterly fashion what previously would have
been rendered through gold. His conception of light still holds on to the
vestiges of Medieval Conceptualism where light is not only God given, but
God himself, but it has now also taken on a new dimension.

The next artist, whose works are important to the evolution of this
historical process and which Michelangelo might have seen, is Taddeo
Gaddi. The W (fig 23), ca. 1328, is a work
Michelangelo would have been familiar with purely because of its
location in the Baroncelli Chapel in Santa Croce, Florence. However, the
real significance of this work is its location within a historical process. It, like
the frescoes In the Scrovegni Chapel, reveals through painterly means the
inclusion of a divine source for light. The Annunciate Angel appears in a
cloud of light, which radiates down on the shepherd, who lies on the side
of a mountain. The light of the angel is so bright that the definition in the
rocky landscape begins to dissolve and the surface appears washed out.

One shepherd raises his hand to protect his eyes from the light, because

39

the direct light of God can not be observed by man; it is only the
reflection which our eyes can comprehend. Despite its symbolic
significance, light here also reacts naturally to the landscape and figures.
The trees which face the angel, are fully illuminated, whereas those which
are further down the opposite side of the mountain are in darkness. The
animals in the foreground appear to be below the ridge, because the
ground upon which they sit is dark and only the tops of their coats are lit.
One can see that Taddeo Gaddi Is concerned with the concept of light
and its divine properties, but it is also evident that he has examined its
physical principles as well.

The use of light by Gaddi appears to be consistent throughout his
works. If one looks to the fresco, Wife (fig 24), 1355-1360, in the
Refectory in Santa Croce, Florence, one finds comparable manifestations
of light treated similarly to those found In the Baroncelli Chapel. The
fresco depicts Christ hung upon the symbolic Tree of Life. At the left are
WM and a WWW
IQulQuse: at the right SLBenedchanheuesect and the Eegstjniheflouse

911211: and below is the Lestjeeper, a scene which is found in many

refectories. Examine, for example, the SiiemeflzefleneLSLflenejs. The

scene Illustrates St. Francis kneeling In the bottom left comer and gazing in

40

astonishment at the image of Christ, in the upper right. The image of Christ
Is surrounded by light and this light radiates down onto St. Francis and the
landscape in essentially the same naturalistic way we observed In the
Annenejeijenjetnesneenem (fig 23). Light strikes the hills from the right,
from the direction of Christ, and as our eye gradually moves around the
hills to the left we see the shadows become consistently darker. This form
of modeling gives the illusion of shape and contours, but most of all the
illusion of space. There Is a clear distinction between the foreground,
which St. Francis occupies; the middle ground, with the two hills and the
huts on top: and the background, in which can be found dark, distant hills
and trees. The execution of pictorial light is again compatible with Roger
Bacon's notions put forward In Herseectjye. What is curious, however, and
what ultimately leads us to conclude that the light used here is
conceptual or divine in origin and nature, is the lack of cast shadows: for If
it were natural sun light, It would surely cast them. If Taddeo Gaddi had
been concerned with depicting empirical phenomena, If he had wanted
to depict the natural world, and natural light he certainly would have
secured his figures to the ground through the Inclusion of shadows. Giotto.
Taddeo Gaddi and all the Early Renaissance artists work within established

conventions, but one can not help but notice the different approaches

41

these two artists In particular represent. Giotto does not concern himself
with light and shadow to suggest space, but Taddeo Gaddi does. This
clear modification of the convention marks a point In the evolution of light
and space within painting, a progression which will ultimately lead the
artist to depictions of natural light.

One final artist who should be examined before we witness the
revelation of natural light In paintings, however, Is Gentile da Fabriano.
The Strozzi altar, finished in 1423, further discloses a later stage In the
transition from Medieval conceptualism to Renaissance naturalism. » The
main panel depicts the AdeLqijeneLineMeej (fig 25). This rich and
elaborate panel contrasts dramatically with the simple predella panels
below. Joseph, Mary, the Magi and their entourage crowd the scene to
witness the miracle of Christ. Gold halos adorn the holy family and the
Magi, which mystically separates them from the common observers. The
figures themselves are modelled through tonal gradations of color, with
the purely decorative Inclusion of gold on the garments to demonstrate
the wealth of the patrons, the Strozzi family. The entire scene is crowded
and disquieting. Amongst such confusion it is not surprising that the figures
would overlook a small, radiant ball of light above Joseph's head, all save

the groom, who stares In bewilderment at the light. Is this the Holy Spirit

42

visiting this mystical moment? This is curious indeed, for it casts light onto
the cave behind it , but does not appear to strike the facade of the
building behind the Holy Family. This inconsistency can be forgiven,
because of what one finds in the predella.

The predella Is divided into three panels: the left depicting the

Heljym (fig 26), the center the HjethnteEgyet (fig 27), and the right the
Eresenjetieneflnelemele (fig 25). The NQIMN is a nocturnal scene. The

foreground is lit by light which emanates from the Christ child, and which
shines onto the figures of Mary, Joseph, the donkey and ox, as well as the
woman who peers around the corner of the hut. The angel, who
illuminates the background, also announces to the shepherds Christ's birth.
These two sources of light create a void In the middle ground, making it
difficult to comprehend the space between the holy family and the
shepherds. They do, however, create a dramatic visual play between
light and dark, foreground and background, and up and down, which
not many artists had experimented with up to this time. This is Interesting.
but It is finally the Hjenflnjefieyet which is the crucial panel to examine in
this altar.

This scene shows Joseph walking along a road followed by Mary

and the Christ child, who ride on a donkey. In the upper right can be

43

seen a distant city and In the upper left the sun. As far as we know,
Gentile da Fabriano is the "first Italian painter to depict shadows cast
consistently by light from an identifiable source".'° This is undoubtedly true,
but to this statement we can add that, as far as we know, he Is also the
first Italian painter to Include the source of natural light in his work; namely.
the sun. The sun consistently models the landscape, but the figures
themselves do not cast shadows on the ground. It is not until Masaccio
that we find an artist who faithfully looks at the natural world and depicts
in his work what he observes. His concerns enhance the physical
presence of his works as well as the psychological and emotional side of
the figures.

The Brancacci Chapel In Santa Maria del Carmine in Florence Is
adorned with frescoes by Masolino as well as Masaccio, who came, In
1425, to collaborate with Masolino. The narratives illustrate scenes from
the Life of St. Peter, the first pope. For the first time, in these frescoes, we
see the inclusion of shadows on the ground cast by figures. The source of
light is not illustrated, but one Immediately realizes that the kind of light
Masaccio and Masolino are concerned with depicting Is no longer the

conceptual understanding of light and Its divine Implications: but rather.

 

10 Ibid. pg. 182

44

they are depicting natural sun light, the empirical phenomena of light.
Look for a moment at the Heehneeunmeeleendinefiejslneef
Ieejtne (fig 28)ca. 1425 by Masolino. The awkward architectural setting In
the foreground appears Incongruous to the city behind and the figures
appear flat and stiff. Besides these technical difficulties Masolino has
successfully rendered, in a natural, outdoor setting with the sunlight
coming from the left foreground, the conflation of these two narratives.
On the right, St. Peter and St. John are shown In the house of Tabitha.
raising her from the dead; on the left, the two appear before the cripple
and command him to stand and walk. The two episodes are visually
connected by the two messengers, who stride through the foreground,
engaged in conversation with one another. When one compares this
scene to one by Masaccio, one Is Immediately struck by the technical
superiority of Masaccio, and It Is for this reason that Masaccio merits
further Investigation. It Is In him that we find the first Renaissance artist who
truthfully and consistently looks to the empirical world for inspiration.

The W (fig 29)ca. 1425, from the Brancacci Chapel.
effectively Illustrates the difference in technical ability between Masolino
and Masaccio. The composition of this scene Is much more complex than

Masolino's. The spacial relation between one apostle and another Is

VIE

pr

SE

SI

ll

45

visually complicated, yet well conceived and convincing. Each figure
stands firmly on the ground of this stark landscape and the physical
presence of each body beneath the garment Is strengthened by the
sensitive use of Chiaroscuro. The figures retain the gold halos, but the
shadows which each casts on the ground establish them firmly In this
world. Conceptual representation has now given way to something else.
SijejeLHeeflnemnflsfinedew (fig 30) ca. 1425, also from the
Brancacci Chapel, holds for us something else, crucial element. The
narrative Is not only a beautiful example of the differences in the
technical ability between Masolino and Masaccio, but also In their
distinctive use of light and shadow. Upon examination we can also see
distinguishing factors between Medieval conceptualism and Early
Renaissance symbolism and, if one may call it naturalism. The stage-like
surface of Masolino's scene has given way to the integration of the figures
and their landscape. Masaccio, here, creates a street scene inhabited by
the crippled man, St. Peter and St. John, and their disciples. The physical
presence of each body is again observed beneath the garments and
there appears to be more attention given to facial expression: both of
these elements lend themselves to the scene and create a moment

pregnant with emotion and communication between the figures.

46

Something we did not witness in Masolino. The symbolic use of gold and
light has all but disappeared, leaving in Its place the mimetic
representation of this world. Hartt suggests that the subject of St. Peter
healing with his shadow was rare and difficult "In an era before cast
shadows had entered an artist's repertory“.” This statement seems
Inappropriate in light of the artists, such as Taddeo Gaddi, we have seen
experimenting with light effects. We should rather applaud Masaccio for
representing such a scene which demands the inclusion of light and
shadow. As a consequence of what has been examined, Masaccio's
decision to illustrate the absence of light as something divine, something
symbolic, Is rather daring, and should be examined because it brings to
light the differences between conceptualism, symbolism and naturalism.
St. Peter's healing would, Indeed could, not have been Illustrated In
Medieval art. It Is only because of the gradual shift to Include this world,
its empirical phenomena and our senses that such a subject can be
rendered. Medieval conceptualism did not lend itself to subjects such as
fifielenfieeflnesajihflsfibedm (fig 30). The narrative element was
absent: the reliance on the senses was lacking and this kind of symbolic

use of light was missing from their perception of art.

 

11 Ibid. pg. 191

47

The fresco from which we can draw the most direct connection
between Michelangelo and his predecessors Is the Expelsien (fig 18) by
Masaccio, dated ca. 1425, from the Brancacci Chapel. In this scene the
angel Gabriel forcefully banishes Adam and Eve from the Paradise. He
hovers above the dejected and shameful figures and golden rays of light
stream from the arch which separates the now temporal figures from their
previous innocent world. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the
composition of this scene is similar to that of Michelangelo's In the Sistine
Chapel. And one also notices, as in the fresco by Michelangelo, there are
shadows on the ground below the figures of Adam and Eve; however, the
light which Illuminates this scene is not provided by the golden rays of light
which come from the arch behind them. The light which hits the figures
and casts shadows on the ground comes from In front of them, from
outside the picture Itself. We therefore have two different forms of light
represented here: the golden rays which emanates from Paradise and
suggests the divine presence of God, and natural light which illuminates
the temporal world.

From the moment natural light entered the Renaissance artist's
vocabulary, light was used most effectively and to different ends. It

enhanced the angles of an architectural setting such as In the

48

Anneneietjen (fig 31) by Fra Filippo Lippi ca. 1440 or In the Medenneend
Win15 (fig 32) and the AflDMDQlQIiQD (fig 33) from the St. Lucy
altarpiece by Domenico Veneziano ca. 1445. Light was also used to add
volume and further distinguish the foreground from the background as in
Piero Della Francescas' HeeellelieneLcnrisi ca. 1463-64. In this particular
scene illustrating three distinct stages in space, perspective Is made more
convincing by the subtle manipulation of light as it strikes the ground, the
architecture, and the figures. For example, as the light strikes the ceiling
above the flagellation, It casts a short shadow In the coffers of the ceiling
while the coffers further In the Interior of the portico have longer shadows.
thus suggesting distance from the source of light.

There were, however, other Renaissance artists who chose not to
depict natural light. Sandro Botticelli, for example, creates beautiful.
classical scenes which are void of shadows. Lafitimgxera is populated
with graceful, delicate characters In a landscape of trees, grass, and
flowers. Similar to the light Giotto employed, Botticelli Illuminates the
scene with light that is Incidental rather than a tangible participant.
Besides Botticelli's application there are artists who manipulate light to
achieve a specific effect.

One distinctive manifestation Is found In one of Michelangelo's

49

contemporaries, Leonardo Da Vinci. He is as competent and sure of his
handling of light as Is Michelangelo. But Da Vinci also has his own
distinctive manner. Leonardo Da Vinci, perhaps as equally well known
and admired throughout history as Michelangelo, was a scientist as well
as an artist. He studied a variety of subjects from optics to anatomy to the
light of the moon and many of his paintings reflect his variety of Interests.
The Anneneiejjen (fig 34), a work from the late 1470's, Is clearly a
continuation of the tradition of Annunciation scenes In the Renaissance.
The angel comes to visit Mary, who gracefully accepts the news that she
will bear the Christ Child. In Da Vinci's painting the two are enclosed in a
neatly manicured garden which opens out onto a vast landscape of
bushes and trees and In the far distance a hazy mountain. From this
description one Is Immediately reminded of Roger Bacon's book
W in which he suggests that the nearer an object appears the
clearer and sharper the image, whereas the farther away It is the darker
and hazier It becomes. This scene seems to Illustrate Bacon's perspective
theory quite well. The temporal setting Is further indicated by the shadows
which the Annunciate Angel and Mary cast. These figures are exquisitely
rendered. The soft, delicate nature of Mary Is told through her gestures

and gaze, yet the weight and solidity of her body is undeniable beneath

50

the folds of her garment.

The distinct clarity of Da Vinci's Anneneieflen (fig 34) can be sharply
contrasted to his later works, IneMedenneeflneReeks ca. 1483, or
MedenneendjLAnne ca. 1508-1513: a work which was executed at the
same time as Michelangelo's paintings In the Sistine Chapel. The
W seems in many respects to be the antithesis of his
Annenejeflen. Neither the foreground nor the background is particularly
sharp; the figures are larger and more robust, yet a similar sentiment can
be felt as the figures gaze at one another tenderly. The light In this scene.
as In the Medenneeflnefieeks, Is completely different from any we have
yet encountered. It is not particularly suggestive of a divine presence, but
is rather a misty, atmospheric light. There are no distinctive shadows on
the ground, but the light which strikes the figures clearly comes from a
particular direction. Leonardo Da Vinci's distinctive use of light and
shadow Is unquestionably as Individual as Michelangelo's and as
Interesting to ponder. Indeed one could examine each artist in the history
of the Italian Renaissance.

Of all these Renaissance artists who added their own Interpretation
and style to the development of light and shadow In painting, there Is still

one who remains to be examined, because of his connection to

51

Michelangelo. This artist is Domenico Ghirlandaio. He Is Important to this
study not only because his renderings of light and shadow are clearly
defined and naturalistic, but he was also Michelangelo's teacher. There
are legends which state that Michelangelo was uneducated to the art of
fresco painting before he began work on the Sistine Chapel, but coming
from Ghirlandaio's workshop this can hardly be true. Domenico
Ghirlandaio has been described as an "almost perfect technician".'2
Indeed by looking at his frescoes in Santa Trinita, Florence one can
imagine the young Michelangelo examining them both for their technical
merit and aesthetic quality. In Santa Trinita, Ghirlandaio proceeds in the

same manner as Masaccio. Ghirlandaio's convincing use of perspective

in W (fig 35) Oh the alter we“
reminds one of WW (fig 30) where both

frescoes depict an open courtyard flanked by tall buildings. The
architecture In both scenes is secondary to the action of the narrative but
nonetheless demands some attention. The Dark and shadowy doorways
and windows are sharply contrasted to the brightly lit facade. The figures
are proportional to the architecture and like Masaccio's are engaged in

the drama which unfolds around them. They are weighty, solid figures

 

12 Gardner Hale, Ereseeflajnflne (New York: William Edwin Rudge, 1933)
7.

52

who occupy a physical space In the fresco.

Not only would the young Michelangelo become familiar with
various techniques of fresco painting by working in the studio of Dominico
Ghirlandaio, but he was also exposed to the blossoming tradition of
painting light, shadow and color.

Each of these artist's has his own use and need for light. Part of the
effect will be dictated by the subject, the setting, and the message which
is told, but It is becoming Increasingly clear that light in the Renaissance
has many different applications and interpretations. It Is fascinating to
notice how these artists, Giotto, Taddeo Gaddi, Gentile da Fabriano.
Masaccio and Ghirlandaio, In particular choose to depict light. With the
emergence of natural light into the Renaissance artist's vocabulary each
artist has a new tool to work with. Some artists, such as Taddeo Gaddi.
chose to depict a more symbolic kind of light which nevertheless
Illuminates the landscape and figures in a realistic manner. Gentile da
Fabriano depicted the sun Itself, but curiously enough shadows were
missing from his works. It was Masolino and Masaccio who solidified the
use of natural light and brought to the fore the possibilities It held for the

artist. Masaccio depicted natural light In conjunction with spiritual light In

his Exeulsjen (fig 18) scene. He also demonstrates, In SLEEIQLHQQIIDQMID

53

His_$nedm (fig 30), that natural light can have a symbolic meaning as
well. By the time Michelangelo begins to paint the Sistine Chapel many
Interpretations and manipulations of light have been put forth, both
symbolic and natural. It is no wonder then that a man as Individual as
Michelangelo would also have his own perception of light and Its possible
meanings. Michelangelo was Interested In philosophy and the natural
world, but he was also an Introspective person and his use of light
reflected a personal belief. The perceptible Inconsistencies in the frescoes
in the Sistine Chapel are not mere chance.

Michelangelo Inherits the two hundred year history of painting light.
He, like his contemporaries, has different ways of seeing the world, which
artists from the Middle Ages did not conceive. Being first and foremost a
sculptor, Michelangelo shapes his art according to the eye of a sculptor.
His use for light, at the beginning of his career, is therefore dictated by the
laws of nature and by how It physically reacts to a surface. When he
begins to paint the Sistine Chapel It Is with the understanding that has
come from years of looking at the world and examining forms, space, light

and shadows.

Chapter Three

Michelangelo's Early Style

In his youth Michelangelo was primarily Interested In how light
reacted when It struck a surface. During this stage we can observe how
Michelangelo begins to bring the flat surface of a marble block to life.
The early works of Michelangelo illustrate his pronounced interest In the
traditional representations of sculptural relief and, as artists before and
since him, he strove to recount a story and elicit an emotional response.
His Investigation of the natural world centers primarily on the form of the
human body and his interest in natural light, therefore, lies primarily in Its
functional and aesthetic value.

Two of Michelangelo's earliest sculptural works were done during his
apprenticeship at the Medici Palace in the art school run by Lorenzo the
Magnificent. The first extant sculptural relief Is the Medenndeflnejjejrs,
(fig 36) done In 1491. Many scholars, such as de Tolnay, have sought to
show the Neo-Platonic Influences in these works, especially in the
MedeanQIJHeStejrs. As this study will Illustrate, It Is compelling to try to
mingle these notions with the Neo-Platonic understanding of forms and
light and apply them to Michelangelo's sculptures as well as to his
paintings.

The low relief and composition of this sculptural work are similar to

54

55

the MedenneendChild by Donatello ca. 1425-28. While various scholars.
such as Linda Murray in Mjeheldneelo, are quick to point out the clumsy
handling of this inexperienced youth. The Mddonna ef the Stain Itself
seems effectively ethereal and detailed. The actual piece of marble
which Michelangelo had to work with was relatively thin and it has been
suggested that this would account for Its execution In low relief. The
Madonna sits serenely on the stairs, tenderly holding the Christ Child. Her
features are as delicately chiseled as the touch she places on the Christ
Child, and the gentle play of light on the surface emphasizes the calm
moment. The whole scene is made that much more effective In its
simplicity and tenderness by the very technique with which Michelangelo
renders the surface of the marble. The Medenneeflhejjeirs evokes an
air of quietude, simplicity and contemplation, In a way that reminds one
of Donatello's Madonna and Child. It is likely that Michelangelo looked to
this artist and his predecessors for Inspiration and guidance. The sentiment
of Donatello's Madonna Is quiet, reserved, and It illustrates the ”Beautiful
Madonna". The physicality of light Is taken for granted, because one
usually presumes that a piece of sculpture will not be viewed In total
darkness, therefore physical light is simply assumed but never really

consciously thought about.

56

Sculpture, unlike painting, relies on the physical presence of light to
convey the appearance of form. For example, the light, as It hits the
protruding ridge of the Madonna's garment, casts a shadow in the valley.
thus showing the tangible depth and shape of the figure. In painting this Is
known as Chiaroscuro and Is achieved through the manipulation of
graduated tones of color. The physical communication and sentiment of
the MedenndeflheSteiLs depends upon the physical character of the
marble relief, but is enhanced by the delicate and etherial quality of light
which strikes its surface. The physical light which strikes the marble reveals
the delicate folds In the drapery and the modelling of the figures. But this
particular relief Is not as adeptly rendered as Michelangelo's later
accomplishments.

While the Madonna ef the Stdirs is executed in shallow relief and
with quiet sentiment the Behieeflhegenteets (fig 37) Is rendered In much
higher relief, thus accentuating the musculature of the figures and
enhancing the drama and movement of the scene. The intricate play of
light and dark further adds to the emotional tenor of the relief. The bodies
of the figures are somewhat different from sculptures of similar subject
matter. Previously, bodies In such sculptures were partially clothed, but

Michelangelo chose to depict them here without clothes. For example.

57

Michelangelo might have looked to the Bettflfiheljetsemen (1475) by
Giovanni, which was In the Medici palace or the Crucifixien (1260) from

the Pisa Pulpit by Nicola Pisano for inspiration and an Illustration of how to
render a scene pregnant with drama and emotion. Michelangelo's
decision to render the figures completely nude allows him to examine
and depict the human body in motion, In various poses, while
emphasizing the musculature of the human form.

The heightened drama and vigor of the figures Is achieved through
the effect of light and the deeper relief cut into the marble. The scene, In
fact the subject matter Itself, seems to demand this sharp contrast
between the presence and absence of light, and the gnarling and
twisting of bodies. Both Vasari and Condivl assert that Poliziano provided
Michelangelo with subjects, but the two disagree whether this particular
scene represents the ReeeeLDejenjre or the Bdttle ef the Centddrs.
Condivl recalls that Michelangelo succeeded so well In executing this
piece that he remembers "hearing him (Michelangelo) say that, whenever
he sees It again, he realizes what a great wrong he committed
against nature by not promptly pursuing the art of sculpture."‘3

Michelangelo succeeds in revealing Intertwined arms and the contorted

 

13 Ascanio Condivl trans by. Alice Sedgwick Wohl, lhetiteet
Mieheleneele (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP. 1976) 15.

58

poses of figures which seem to emerge from the marble, at times
appearing to be almost separate from the marble block. The scene Is
enhanced and enlivened by the contrast of void spaces, created by the
dark shadows, to light, muscular bodies. Whether or not Michelangelo
consciously conceived of the heightened emotional content through the
visual play of light and dark, no one Is certain: but we do know that he
was attentive to the problems of verisimilitude and alert to the public
perception of his works.

Michelangelo's understanding of light at this point In his career is
purely physical. While various Neo—Platonic Interpretations have been
given for both of these sculptural reliefs, the symbolic quality of light and
shadow has not yet entered Michelangelo's vocabulary. Their subject
matter and technique can be accurately expounded upon In such
philosophical terms, but It Is not until later In his career that Michelangelo

conceives of light other than physically. The MedennaeLtheSteiis ls

commonly extolled for its Neo-Platonic concept of the contemplative life.

"'4 asserts

FicIno, in his theory of "natural appetite" and "natural movement
that all elements naturally tend to ascend or descend according to their

composition. KrIsteller suggests that Flcino was aware of the Aristotelian

 

1“ See chapter 10 In IheEhjleseehyeLMetsjljeHeine by Paul KrIsteller for a

discussion of FicIno's theory of natural appetites.

59

and Augustinian notion of the Souls ascent toward God and this
Influenced this theory. If indeed this Is accurate, the contemplation of the
Medennaetthejteits could reflect the consequences of the
contemplative life in the ascent of the soul and therefore the Inattention
to physical light In this scene can be more readily accepted. If, In a state
of true contemplation, the soul reaches God who exists in a world of pure
light, the light which Is suggested by this state would exist before physical
light and would therefore not be sunlight.

Further support for this claim can be found In the distinction Ficino
makes between the sensuous and contemplative life. He states that the
sensuous life is governed by the laws of the corporeal world. If one
compares the MedenneeLthejteiLs to the BettleeLtheLenteets one is
immediately struck by the stillness of the first piece and the suggestion that
the stairs represent the ascent of the soul through the contemplation of
this work. In a poem by Michelangelo ca. 1522, he Imagines his struggle
to scale the mountain.

The soul tries a thousand remedies in vain;

since I was captured, it's been struggling

in vain to get back on its earlier road.

The sea, and the mountain, and the fire with the sword:

I live in the midst of all of these together.
The one who's deprived me of my mind, and taken

60

away my reason, won't let me up the mountain.15
The ascent of the mountain Is like that of the stairs, but the physical body
retards man from completing his journey. The soft contours and faint
shadows induces a quiet, solemn mood which facilitates contemplation,
unlike the Bettie ef the Centaurs.

These two sculptural works are the first examples we have of
Michelangelo's art. Each illustrates a distinctive approach to relief
sculpture, but his Interest In light lies strictly In how It falls on a surface and
invokes an emotional state. His concern Is not misplaced for the quiet and
solitude of the Medenneetthejteits would be lost had Michelangelo
carved a higher relief with deeper shadows. Whether Michelangelo
consciously chose to illustrate the active and contemplative life Is not In
question, It is, however, our concern to examine his use of forms, light and
shadow.

Another example of his use of physical light is the more skillfully
executed work of the marble Mid (fig 38) (1501-1504), contracted by the
Operai dell 'Opera del Duomo. The biblical figure had long been a
symbol of Florence. The strength of Florence is personified in the youthful,

morally upright, simple body of the young David. He is depicted staring

 

15 ibid p. 88

61

pensively to his left. The furrowed brow and the deep set eyes indicate
David's concentration. The execution of this Ideal human body who
personifies the resolution and fortitude of Florence and Its citizens is breath
taking. The awkward execution of the Madonne of the Steins by the
youthful Michelangelo is nowhere evident In this sculpture. The execution
of the sculpture Is flawless and, as with Michelangelo's previous works, the
physical play of light on its surface 15 strictly aesthetic.

In the span of thirteen years we see Michelangelo mature Into a
talented and confident artist. The skillful manner through which he
executes the statue of David Illustrates Michelangelo's knowledge of
anatomy and the human form. His concern for light In relation to this
piece, as well as his previous sculptural works, Is purely aesthetic. At this
time In his career there are aspects of his art which show the influence of
his early exposure to the scholarly and intellectual circle at the Medici
Palace. It was during his stay at the Medici Palace that Michelangelo
became acquainted with Marsilio Ficino, the founder of the Platonic
Academy In Florence. It was during this period that he also came
together with Christo Landino, an authority on Dante's Divine Comedy:
Angelo Poliziano, poet and scholar In Latin and Greek; Pico della

Mirandola, scholar of Plato and Aristotle, and the man who attempted to

62

reconcile the Bible with Platonic philosophy:'6 and Girolamo Benlvieni.
who taught Michelangelo how to write sonnets.

As we saw in Linda Murray's analysis of the Madonna of the Stairs,
scholars find philosophical and intellectual ideas In Michelangelo's art
from the very beginning of his career. But until he begins work on the
Sistine Chapel, we do not see an awareness of light which Is anything
other than physical. His understanding of light came first as a sculptor
who represents three-dimensional objects in space. This understanding

will dictate how he conceives of light on a painted surface.

 

16 Linda Murray, Mjeheleneele (New York and Toronto: Oxford UP, 1980)
18

Chapter Four

Michelangelo's Mature Style

In the preceding chapters, we witnessed the historical process
surrounding the emergence of natural light in painting as well as
Michelangelo's own adaptation and evolution. Michelangelo begins the
Sistine Chapel with the understanding and desires of a sculptor, but also
with the maturity of a thoughtful, reflective artist. We have seen that his
perception of light Is Influenced by his physical surroundings, but we have
barely touched upon how instrumental his idea of what art truly Is in this
scheme. It is prudent, therefore, to look at completely and understand
Michelangelo's manipulation of natural light, beyond what the Sistine
Chapel reveals. One series of works In particular are of special Interest,
because Michelangelo himself wrote about the light effects in the room.
These works are In the Medici Chapel In Florence, Italy (fig 39-40).

As Michelangelo wrote, the tombs for the Medici Chapel were first
commissioned In 1520, by Pope Leo X, but he died on December 1, 1521
and the project did not proceed until 1524 after Giuliano de' Medici
became Pope Clement Vll on November 18, 1523.” Linda Murray

comments on the symbolism of the chapel in memes, describing it

 

'7 Irving and Jean Stone. WWW
Ihteuehtettets (New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc. 1962) 114-1 15.

63

64

as "a mixture of Christian and classical."18 The original program was
intended to have four River Gods at the ground level, which were never
completed. Linda Murray suggests these figures would have represented
the zone of the Underworld. The figures that were completed, however.
are the four times of the day -Dawn, Dusk, Night, and Day- (fig 39-40)
which "represent the zone of the transient World”9 On top of each
sarcophagus sits a statue of the deceased, Lorenzo de' Medici and
Giuliano de' Medici. Both figures turn to look at the Madonna and Child.
who are the crowning figures and would, therefore, represent the
Heavenly sphere "to which the dead had attained."20 The tomb of
Giuliano de' Medici contains what Linda Murray calls the "positive" times of
day -Day and Night- and the tomb of Lorenzo the "indecisive" times -Dawn
and Dusk. What concerns us in this study, however, Is the physical lighting
of the chapel.

Originally the windows over Lorenzo's tomb were to be darkened, so
that his side of the chapel received only dim light, while full light was

allowed to illumine the side of Giuliano. The positive times of day under

 

1" Linda Murray, Mieheleneele (New York and Toronto: Oxford UP, 1980)
120.

19 ibid
2° ibid

65

Giuliano's tomb -Day and Night- are imbued with determined
characteristics, but are also Introspective as well. The figures themselves
are tense and constricted. Day turns his head to stare out at us over his
right shoulder, his right arm comes across his chest and his left leg crosses
over his right. The extreme angular contortion of his body makes him
appear as if he is closing In upon himself. The figure of Night also reveals
this same tautness and constraint. Her gaze Is directed down and upon
herself. Her right arm Is bent with her hand resting upon her head and her
elbow upon her left thigh. The poses of both figures demand Introspectlon
and contemplation but their dark and somber sentiment is sharply
contrasted to the full light of the chapel. One is again reminded of the
distinction between the MedenneeLtheSteim (fig 36) and the Bettle_et
theCenteets (fig 37) and Michelangelo's well thought out handling of the
marble to achieve a certain look and feel. What we realize by examining
these works is that Michelangelo put great thought into not only the work
Itself, but Its surroundings and how It should be viewed. They have special
meaning to Michelangelo, beyond the mere surface.

In a poem dated ca. 1519, Michelangelo imagines a passage
spoken by Day and Night:

Day and Night speak and say: "We, in our swift course, have led

Duke Giuliano to his death; it is only fair that he should take

revenge on us as he does. And his revenge is this: Having been

66

killed by us, he, being dead, has deprived us of light, and by closing

his eyes has shut ours, which no longer shine upon the earth. What

might he have done with us, then, if he had lived?"21
This poem was written before the actual execution of the tomb, but
Michelangelo had already conceived in his mind the message to be
brought out In this work. The light, referred to In this poem, Is the light of
the soul, which in Platonic theory shines from the eyes, but here has been
extinguished by the passage of time. Giuliano's and perhaps
Michelangelo's revenge is, on the one hand, no longer having to suffer
under the constraints of time and mortality; and on the other, is in
depriving the world of their great contributions and future
accomplishments. By harmonizing the spiritual and the physical light in
the chapel Michelangelo creates a program which is introspective yet
also alive. The aesthetic effect Is visually exciting and suggests a level of
meaning beyond the mere surface.

Dawn and Dusk are Intimated to be the antithesis to Day and Night.
because of their sensuous character and languid poses. The light which

Michelangelo intended to strike these figures was to be diminished. The

reduction of light would lessen the stirring and excitable quality of the

statues, much as It did In the Medenneeflhefiteits. Linda Murray

 

21 ibid pg 84.

67

suggests that the figure of Giuliano de' Medici, In his alert pose, Is the
embodiment of the active life and she concludes that Lorenzo's pose
Invokes the contemplative life. There seems, as a result, to be a
dichotomy in this analysis. The sensuous and languid poses of Dawn and
Dusk suggest the temporal world and therefore the active life, yet
Lorenzo's Is nothing If not contemplative and Introspective. A similar
argument can be made for the figures of Day and Night, with their closed
and introverted poses, and Giuliano, the noble and glorified statesman.

If the light In the chapel had been completed according to
Michelangelo's wishes we would have entered a world of mysterious, dark
shadows and dimly lIt corners. What a dramatic Impact this would have
added to the already visually alive statues. The physical light is an integral
part of the sculptural program, but unlike In the MW and
the WES. It also has a symbolic function.

At times it seems that Michelangelo's struggle with his own mortality
is manifested In his works. The contradictions and disparate qualities
which are apparent in his art are Indeed contradictions which
Michelangelo sees within himself. But somehow art is a means through
which he overcomes and defeats nature and light Is one method used to

Illustrate the process. The light In the Medici Chapel Is natural sun light

68

that has been manipulated and changed to represent a concept. The
once disparate qualities of the contemplative and active life are brought
together in this chapel. It is neither the statues alone nor the light which
represents this union, but rather the entire experience which begins when
one first enters the room.

This complex Idea is again brought up when we examine
Michelangelo's use of natural light In the Sistine Chapel, but it is doubly
perplexing because here he Is not working with natural sun light as it strikes
a physical object, he is rather pictorially representing natural light on a flat
surface as It would strike a three dimensional object. This abstract
distancing which one senses when this analysis is first put forth Is not felt
when one enters the room and views the frescoes. The manipulation of
light which Michelangelo employed in the Medici Chapel seems no less
tangible than here, In the Sistine Chapel.

In the introduction It was established that the frescoes in the Sistine
Chapel begin In the temporal world and are brought to completion In the
temporal world with the LesLJedeement. The only scenes in the Genesis
cycle which depict natural light are those of the temporal world. This
includes the Dmnkennesmmgah (fig 11113189951 (fig 21.1hejgcflflceef
Noah (fig 3). and the WWW

69

(fig 4). We know from the time Michelangelo studied with Domenico del
Ghirlandaio that he did pen and Ink studies of the frescoes by Masaccio in
the Brancacci Chapel, Santa Maria del Carmine, Florence. One fresco In
the chapel depicts the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise. The
expressions of Adam and Eve tell us of their shame and remorse. It Is
commonly assumed that Michelangelo modelled his figures after
Masaccio's, but what Is most Interesting about Masaccio's Adam and Eve
are the golden rays of light which radiate from the open archway through
which they have just passed, and the shadows on the ground below their
feet. The Inclusion of gold to represent a divine source of light Is missing
from Michelangelo's depiction of the Expulsion, but the shadows which
signify Adam and Eve's temporal nature are Included. The same scene,
by Michelangelo, also shows Adam and Eve before the expulsion, but
there are no shadows. These two episodes show the distinction between
the temporal world governed by natural laws, and the spiritual world
which knows no time nor Imperfect shadows. In both Expulsion scenes the
presence of shadows quite convincingly suggests the temporal world,
while their absence In the Original Sin by Michelangelo suggests the
spiritual realm. The Integration of physical light with Its symbolic function.

as we saw, was Illustrated In the Medici Chapel. In the Genesis cycle itself

70

light takes on a symbolic as well as a functional use, but the same
demands are not made on the scenes around them.

The Genesis cycle is framed by seven Old Testament prophets and
five Sibyls. As proposed in the Introduction the shadows cast by the sibyls
and Prophets Indicates a directional source of light emanating from
above, perhaps from the Genesis scenes themselves. Mariani, in
MjeheleneeleLIheEeintet, comments on the prophet Joel and extols the
clarity of the outline "Imposed by the contrast between light and
shadow."22 He further goes on to state that "his face, chiefly characterized
by the strong modeling and accentuated by the sharply slanted light, is
crowned with flaming reddish white hair. The hair covers his great brow
which Is illuminated as if by divine knowledge."23 This statement
contradicts that of Summers, when he states "he (Michelangelo) is not so
much Interested In the Illusions of space and light..."24 Indeed, I would
have to disagree with Summers, Michelangelo Is very much Interested In

light, both for Its natural manifestations and its divine conceptions.

 

22 Valerio Mariani. Michelangelezlheflginter (New York: Harry N. Abrams,
Inc, 1964) 64.

23 ibid.

24 David Summers. MphelengelmndjheLgngnaeeotAri (New Jersey:
Princeton UP. 1981) 71.

71

The same type of light can also be found illuminating the prophet
Zachariah, who turns to his left as the light streams over his right shoulder.
thus fully illuminating the book he studies. The Intricate play of light and
dark in his dazzling green robe proclaims the physical existence of a body
under it. His right knee Is foreshortened and appears as if it were
protruding forward, this area receives the most direct light and Is therefore
painted In the lightest shades: whereas, the folds of fabric which fall down
between his knees are shadowed and dark. His shadow Is also depicted
on the wall behind him. Michelangelo manipulates these elements to
create the Illusion of space and the sculptural quality of the figure is
achieved through the painted depiction of natural light.

The remaining Prophets and Sibyls are consistent with the Prophets
Joel and Zachariah, and the Delphic Sibyl mentioned in the Introduction.
The light which strikes each figure models them and reveals the deep
folds In the fabric while also casting shadows on the throne upon which
they sit. The natural effects of light used in these scenes demonstrates
Michelangelo's awareness of the physical phenomena of light and Its
ability to enliven a figure and scene, but we should expect nothing less
from such an artist. Throughout Michelangelo's career he has been

deeply aware of the physical world and its plastic representation.

72

We witnessed In the Early Renaissance the emerging regard and
curiosity for the natural world and the sense of sight. During the High
Renaissance, In the midst of Neo-Platonism and talks of Platonic Love and
the aspirations of the Soul, Michelangelo found himself deeply aware of
the observed world. But as we discovered there Is another side to
Michelangelo's art, a side which Is Intensely personal and spiritual. It Is this
aspect of his art which makes Michelangelo's use of light unique to him.
Other artists during the Renaissance, Indeed up to the present, mingled
together a spiritual and natural meaning for light, but Michelangleo was
perhaps the first to do it on such a grand scale as in the Sistine Chapel.
The presence of divine light in the Sistine Chapel is more complicated
then the mere appearance of a shaft of brilliant light or the inclusion of
gold to symbolize Its proximity. It Is the absence of shadows from specific
scenes which signifies the presense of divine light. It Is the conscious
decision Michelangelo makes to render some scenes void of shadows
and others not which supports our belief that he Is using light for a specific
effect. Whether that effect be visual, emotional or spiritual will depend
solely on Michelangelo.

As was remarked earlier the Qn'eineLSin (fig 4), CreelieneLEtLe
(fig 5) and QLeetieneLAdem (fig 6) are void of cast shadows on the

73

ground. The absence of shadows in the Cenereeetienetthehtetets

(fig 7). the WWW (fig 8), and the
iepetetjeneLLjehtttemmmess (fig 9) Is perhaps more easily accepted.
because these scenes depict God, in the heavens, generating these
enduring moments. Michelangelo's understanding of the concept of
divine light and Its creative power is nowhere as evident as in the
depiction of God separating light from darkness. This light bestows order
on chaos and begins the very creation of the world for man. For "It is for
man that the Incorruptible heavenly bodies have been created. It Is for
him too that God divides the waters with the firmaments, and calls the dry
land to appear from under the waters and peoples it with animals and the
green herb."25 As suggested In the introduction, Michelangelo is perhaps
Interested in more than Illustrating the narrative of the Book of Genesis. He
is also enthralled by the very act of painting, of creating something which
will endure time, in fact overcome the constraints of nature. We see In his
poetry that a figure carved in stone does Indeed overcome nature, why

then not the creating of a painting?"26 Light is a creative force, much as

 

25 Etienne GIlson. WNW (New
York: Random House. 1966) 174.

26 "Lady, how can that be, which each discerns, as slowly passing years
the truth makes known that longer lives the Image carved In stone. than
he, the maker. who to dust returns? To the effect doth yield, surpassed.

74

the artist possesses a creative Instinct. It Is the mingling of the concept
behind light and natural light which gives us this world and the desire for
eternity and perfection. These two manifestations of light in the end are

not separate for Michelangelo.

 

the cause, and art of man doth nature's self subdue:..." Robert J.
Clements,1he_Eeetnt_ef_Mjehelenee|e (New York: New York UP, 1965) 72.
In this poem Michelangelo refers to the image In stone as If It could defeat
nature and time be enduring through it, unlike Giuliano who was
defeated by time.

75

 

 

"Lady, how can it be. which each discerns, as slowly passing
years the truth makes known that longer lives the image
carved In stone. than he, the maker, who to dust returns? To

the effect doth yield, surpassed, the cause, and art of man
cloth nature's self subdue..."

 

 

Conclusion

The Unity of Light

As stated in the introduction, this thesis explores how light is related to
Michelangelo's notion of Being and how It reveals the special position
which art has in his Weltanshauung. To reflect upon Michelangelo's own
writing (and especially the above poem) uncovers his notion that within
him exists the ability to create something which will endure time. There
are two pivotal frescoes In the Sistine Chapel which not only lead us to this

same conclusion, but which expound upon it; namely. the Qrieinel Sin

and Exeelsien from Eenhly Benedise (fig 4)and the Seeeretion et Light
nomearknee (fig 9)-
In the Qn’ei_n_al_Sinend_Exeelsien, Michelangelo's use of light

changes. Before the fall of man, the scenes are bathed In a light similar to
that used by early Renaissance artists such as Giotto. It Is more an
atmospheric quality of color than It Is suggestive of natural light. After this
scene and the fall of Man, one should not think that it Is by pure chance
that Michelangelo chose to depict the empirical manifestations of light.
After the Fall the world which man Inhabits is the world God created. This
world is steered by natural laws and therefore natural sunlight, but for
Michelangelo the two worlds are intertwined. Michelangelo sought,

through his art, to illustrate the distinction between pure, spiritual light and

76

77

natural light and to ultimately reunite them. As stated previously, It Is in the

two frescoes which depict the Qnejnejjnendfixeelsjenjtemjenhly
Eeredjse and the SeperetjeneLLjethLemjetkness that we can most
readily see the seeds of this desire.

The SeeeLetieneLLiehttLemDeLkness, alternately titled Gedfijles
Qtdefleghees is the second fresco which gives us Insight Into
Michelangelo's desire to reunite, or In this case ultimately control, the
natural separation of spiritual and natural light. When the Lord gives order
to chaos He, In essence, brings together unorganized matter and creates
the spark which ultimately defines time. The first thing one notices is that
this Is a humanistic view of creation. Contrary to the natural laws of
entropy, which state that chaos tends naturally to move towards order,
God, who created the world In his likeness, is the force behind the
ordering of the universe. This is in keeping with the Renaissance notions of
humanism, whereby man Is the measure of all things. Here God Is in
control of evolution, man's destiny and time.

Time Is something which Michelangelo sought to overcome, at least
Its temporal effects. In the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo's frescoes
represent the culmination of his understanding and thoughts about the

temporal nature of life and the eternal struggle which man experiences

78

because of the chasm created by the Fall of Man; the fall of man into
Time. Light Is the vehicle through which Michelangelo illustrates his desire
to reunite this chasm. From the beginning, the two kinds of light were
distinct yet codependent. First, God created spiritual light which brought
order to what previously had been void. Second, God created natural
light which Implies In this moment also the beginning of time. The natural
separation of man from his spiritual self Is facilitated by the passage of
time and time Is seen as the measurement of this mutability. If
Michelangelo can create something which represents the reunion of man
and which endures through time, then perhaps he himself will overcome

nature.

The two frescoes. the QngIngLSInendjxnulsIenfiomjedhlx
Earadise and the SeparationeLLigerLanorkness can be interpreted in

many different ways. When examined In relation to Michelangelo's poetry
. painting, light, shadow and thoughts on Neo-Platonic theory, they give us
a unique Insight into his notion of Being. The struggle of man can
ultimately be overcome, but It would take a person who could create
something which endures through time and reunite the divergent aspects

of man, something which Informs chaos with order.

Figures

79

80

 

Figure l: The Drunkenness of Noah, Michelangelo

81

2698—235

86E 2:.

N 2:3..—

m
m.
m
m.

 

82

 

, Michelangelo

free of Noah

Sacri

Figure 3

83

 

Figure 4: Temptation and Expulsion, Michelangelo

84

 

Figure 5: The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo

85

 

Figure 6: The Creation of Adam, Michelangelo

86

 

Figure 7: Congregation of the Waters, Michelangelo

87

 

Figure 8: Creation of the Sun, Moon and Planets, Michelangelo

88

 

Figure 9: Separation of Light and Darkness, Michelangelo

89

 

Figure 10: Delphic Sybil, Michelangelo

90

 

Figure 11: Libyan Sybil, Mchelangelo

91

 

Figure 12: lgnudi, Michelangelo

92

A

genome—om can 8%.: ”2 flow:—

 

93

 

Figure 14: David and Goliath, Michelangelo

94

 

Figure 15: Punishment of Haman, Michelangelo

95

 

Figure 16: The Brazen Serpent, Michelangelo

96

 

Figure 17: The Temptation, Masolino

97

 

Figure 18: The Expulsion, Masaccio

98

 

 

The Crucifixion, Giotto

Figure 19:

99

 

Figure 20: The Crucifixion, Duccio

 

 

1.00

. .1. . . . .1 . x1 . ..\L
.4 .. . . .LLLBFILILI ...\I// r 3.3 LII.
. ,. .13:3., L spire. L.”
L.. .. . . I Curved}... .. LL .3
L s . . . I I 1 Ir
... . . . . . ;. . I . ... .. . l ,. . .L.
L . x L . .. L ...
L. ,L L
s . . . ..
. . .. L. L
. . L .,
. . ... .12. . . .L . .. LL L.
L . x .
s L . L _ L L . L
. L . :
. . x L L _
L A L LLL .
. _ .. . . _L L
—. . LIL L . V
.. L. L. .. L
L L . . L ..
L . L k. L
. L
. L. L M.
. / r L L LL
.L L L .L , I t L L L. .
. L . L. ,. L . w r .. .. . L
..,. . L . t.
. ,L . . . .9 .. L L L
L L ,. .L . L L \o.
L . , .
L . L t , L L
L . . . . L
L . . . . e L r L
. . . . i. . s
. .. . w L ILL
”w; . .. . . ..
.. L . . Jr .1 .L . . L L L.
.. r . L .
L . . , .LL .\ L L .
y .L. . 1 L . LL.L
\ . I . . L ..
... L e r . .. L L
.. . L l L L .L
. .I L . L .
,L . . L i .. . L t L
. . . . L, L _
..L .0 e r
. . A. D n :
... . . \J r \ .. . . . . .. .
. .. r r .1 I r r I I . . 1 .4l1 1. III . 4-
I L .L . . r. p! L... L r . I... r . . I. 1 ur. 1..
4. r i . . s r . . I
4.. . .L...... , . .. . L .. J .. . L
L .. . . I . . ... . . , L. a. .. r . .
n s L . L 1 it
- .L\ :0». . _
. a -. 1..»
.L L . , . . . . L. . . .
L . . > .. , .. L , .
. . / . L . ., . .. , . . . . . .LL
.1 4 .. L . s . I. L .
.. . J . 4. .
. . . . L. . . . . . L
. . . L . . L L.
. . .r a . . x .n ....
. . . r . r I. II.. . . u . .
. I. :l . . L ..

 

 

 

The Vision of Anna, Giotto

Figure 21:

101

euuomu .flOmuemoasuu< may

"um acumen

 

 

102

.— ‘rz‘ . r
We .L. as--.” L

"“ - v.
L . 1 1,.-.

~ . «a.

 

Figure 23: The Annunciation to the Shepherds, T. Gaddi

103

$73. ‘

A

., .L -.
. (MW :8,
\
.i . .' ,

a}? . ' i“ , \ii .1 17'1 'i I “
- I I I r ' M r i . F
‘ > t'“ . ii‘ 7 ‘ ~‘ ‘ . .L

‘I ’ V‘. r'\"‘. _) '1
. l '.' I

. ., _ ‘ D Y

' .' T."— ‘W—ffi 7 :\

ads-see... slam é
- I '

Zine-seer we
,3 - .

r‘.

 

Figure 24: The Tree of Life, Taddeo Gaddi

104

 

 

 

The Adoration of the Magi, Gentile da Fabriano

Figure 25:

105

    

 

Figure 26: The Navitity, Gentile da Fabriano

106

communuh we ofimucoo .unhwu cuum uJNMHm any

new ouawmm

 

107

— “Hm—u

-~ - - ' -L L er in: r-_.:—.— ..- ‘cc-Lv L-r 1:: W-e-L -

 

Figure 28: Healing of the Cripple and the Raising of Tabitha, Masolino

108

 

Figure 29: The Tribute Money, Masaccio

109

 

L. -LLw—‘L ‘

Figure 30: St. Peter Healing with his Shadow, Masaccio

 

110

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 31: The Annunciation, Fra Filippo Lippi

111

 

sIIIII

 

.‘

a .

|

L
5a.... ..I__._._r..
- LL “4.. L

LL
_\.

 

Figure 32: Madonna and Child with Saints, Domenico Veneziano

112

confine; 8:5an dosage—Hg 2E. ”mm Bowen

 

113

65> 8 85.84

a

5:30:53 2:. “en 65m...—

 

114

esoz as; 2&6 22o secs 2er an came

 

 

115

 

Figure 36: Madonna of the Stairs, Michelangelo

116

a». ._'.. ,

.wcnze v

 

Figure 37: Battle of the Centaurs, Michelangelo

117

 

Figure 38: David, Michelangelo

118

2082222 682.2. Sean a each L2. use".

 

Bowen—20.2

A

5602.2. 05:50 me 550,—. am Bow—m

LIJ‘: .

.s. . Lori .LL.V~OL rebut u.h7.L

III." V|HL 'l'aiia

 

119

affinity), .

 

ici

Tomb of Lomezo de'Med'

Figure 41

Bibliography

 

El 1' l

Alberti, Leon Battista. anejnting. London: Phaidon Press, 1991.

Barasch,Mosche. ’ ol ' l 1' '55 e heo of Art.
New York: New York UP., 1978.

Berenson, Bernard. WW. London: G. Bell
and Sons, 1914.

Blunt. Anthony. W. London: Oxford UP.
1956.

Cassirer, Ernst and Paul Oskar KrIsteller. IheRenejsseneeEhileseehLet
Men. Illinois: University of Chicago Press. 1948.

Clements, Robert. Mieheteneele'slheenLeLAct. New York: New York UP..
1961.

- lheEeetnLeLMjeheleneele. New York: New York Up., 1965.

de Tolnay. Charles. TheArtendlheudbLQLMIohngngelo. New York:
Pantheon Books, 1964.

---, Umberto Baldini, Roberto Salvini, et. al., New York: Reynal and
Company.

-- W New Jersey: Princeten UP»
1975.

de VeCChi. Pierluigi. ILIeLSIsnneLChemILALQlouoesLResmtion. New York:
Harry N. Abrams. Inc., Publishers. 1994.

121

 

122

Eco, Umberto. trans by Hugh Bredin. AW.

New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1986.

Gilson. Etienne. W New York:
Octagon Books, 1983.

---- W. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1938.

-- W. New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons,
1940.

--.. W. New York: Charles Schribner‘s
Sons, 1948.

Gombrioh. E. H. LiabIEEQImgndJexMeinflfleemhfieniunEflainflna

from E. Kleinbauer. Modern Perspectives in Western Art History. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1971.

Haart, Frederick. WEI. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall. 1987.

--—-, Mlenelaggele. New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc.

Hills, Paul. IhengthLEglengjgrLflalnflng. New Haven and London:
Yale UP., 1990.

Kristeller, Paul Oskar. trans, by Virginia Conant. IbiEhMQQbLQLMQEIlIQ
film. New York: Columbia UP.. 1943.

-~—$tu.d.iesin.l§enais_sqr1§elhougbLand_Lett_ea. Roma: EdizionidiStorioe

Ietteratura.

Kristiva, Julia. Delee in Lgngugge; A Semielie AppLQgeh IQ Literature god
Ari. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980.

Mariani, Valerio. Mlebelgngelejhefigmjer. New York: Harry N. Abrams,
Inc., 1964.

Murray, Linda. Mlehelgngele. New York and Toronto: Oxford Up., 1980.
Panofsky, Erwin. EaEILNeiberlandIsILEaimina. Cambridge: Harvard UP,

 

123

1966.

Plato, trans, by Benjamin Jowett. Ilmgeus. Indianapolis and New York:
The Bobbs-Merrill Co. Inc., 1949.

Saslow, James M. [be Eeetry Qf Michelgngelo. New Haven and London:
Yale UP., 1991.

Schone, Wolfgang. WWW. Munchen: Himer
Verlag, 1954.

Seymour, Charles. W. London: Thames
and Hudson, 1972.

Summers, David. lbeLLdgemenigtjense. New York: Cambridge UP..
1987.

W. New Jersey: Princeton UP"
1981.

----, trans. by Joseph J. S. Peake. WW.

Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1968.

 

nICHIan STRTE UNIV. LIBRnRIEs
lll11111”lllll111111111111ll1111111111111111
31293015610946