Sacred and Profane Love by Tiziano Vecelli

2018-08-08T13:30:00.000-04:00

I've always loved this painting - since the first time I saw it. Each time I look at it I see something I didn't see before. I remember studying this picture in college - I think this was the first time I was exposed to the idea that a painting of this nature could be political or serve a purpose beyond art.

The story goes this was commissioned for the merging of two families - meaning a wedding between Nicolo Aurelio and Laura Bagarotto in 1514. It's name was not Sacred and Profane Love at first but it was described as "Beauty adorned and Beauty unadorned". Is that what you see when you look at this painting? I mean the adorning is pretty freaking clear, and it looks like two versions of Venus (goddess of love and beauty). Pretty straight forward name ... or is it? This is one of the many things scholars debate constantly about this painting. The information you find on it states that the backgrounds of each half could represent the places the merging families came from - but they also state all kinds of contradictory opinions so take it with a grain of salt.

For me the right side seems full of light and air, which matches with the unadorned beauty and her flowing cape(?); according to scholars the sweeping up of her ahem crimson mantle (excuse me!), her position above the other and the lamp with eternal flame she holds all represent the exalted divine Venus framed by clouds. The left to me appears like a hidden enclave of trees, with a fortress peaking in the background above, making it feel more constricted which ties into the adorned beauty in all her restricting looking petticoat(?) layers. One scholarly version is this is the human version of Venus, surrounded by opulent materiality displayed by her seated position (lowering her in comparison to the divine), enclosed by nature and how she is dressed. Another version being that she represents the bride herself, represented by typical symbols of a bride of the time which were gloves, a belt, roses, a myrtle plant and a coffer of jewels.

Random tidbit: one article claimed that the color of hair depicted on these two women was stylistically so typical of Titian it began to be known as "Titian-haired".

In the middle, the little winged cupid seems to be playing in the fountain. A scholarly explanation of this is that he is "mixing the waters in the well - suggesting an ideal synthesis of the two." Another explanation is that he is simply a cherub. The well or sarcophagus itself is covered in images of horses and violence. I'm not sure what this means, but it feels unbridled and as if it represented the passions the human and divine keep at bay (or a lid on it - if I wanted to be literal) - as if it is something to suppress. One article I read suggested this is bestial love - pure lust, and that its position below human and divine is all part of the built in hierarchy of the piece. Another article suggested that the relief and the spout of the well on the sarcophagus was actually representing the coat of arms of the husband to be (Aurelio). Another that it represented biblical stories, and yet another that it was figures from antiquity. The one thing I don't find information about is the bride's coat of arms which would typically have also been represented in such a painting.

Random tidbit: The sarcophagus, or coffin rather is so odd to me. But I guess being re-purposed as a well can symbolize the replenishing of life from death?? Add the flowering plant right in front being watered by the spout from the well makes this even more plausible.

Other disputed items in this painting are the background activities in the scenes. To the left there are two rabbits (apparently a symbol of lust during the Renaissance), a man on a horse and some people milling about the castle; to the right, two men on horses hunting a hare with dogs, a flock of sheep tended by a shepherd, and a pair of lovers sitting nearby. Don't feel bad if you can't make all this out - with what's available online I barely saw what I was reading about. Not every aspect is given meaning, perhaps it was just an attempt to portray a typical provincial scene. However, I always wonder about that - when I paint (shittily) I think about every element. Even if something was unintentionally added, I recognize it and then choose to leave it there or try to cover it up. I can't for the life of me tell you why these were added or what they mean to me, but I believe they all held some type of meaning when added to this scene even if they are almost non-existent and in the background.

If I knew nothing of its purpose and only the name Sacred and Profane Love I would have a hard time trying to understand which was which. Some articles suggest that due to the steeple on the right side of the picture, the unadorned beauty is sacred (the divine have no need for adornment), and due to the walled fortressed castle on the left (apparently a clear symbol of war and humanity) that the adorned beauty would be profane. If profane represents the opposite of orthodoxy then yes, this symbolically appears to make sense. What I find inconsistent about it is the nudity, which from a very basic level (especially in a time long ago) would have been profane. Perhaps the artist intended it to be multi-layered or questioned. Maybe he intended to show that each version of love has within itself the ability to be sacred and profane, or perhaps he wanted each viewer to decide for themselves.

Sidebar: How can war be human when every book I've read and story I've heard that included god, gods, etc had them at war with each other?? Wouldn't the human be the innocent/sheep follower of the right just desperate to be divine, and the gods be the left, poised and in control? And the idea that a church steeple represents sacred when the church was literally bankrolling violence ....

Personally, I see more than two types of love in this painting. There is mental love (adorned), innocent/fun love (cupid), spiritual love (unadorned) and even physical love (the sarcophagus). All these loves come together when people come together which is essentially what this is about. One type of love cannot sustain the union and it will require all of them for it to be true love.

Sources:

http://www.titian.org/sacred-and-profane-love.jsp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_and_Profane_Love
http://totallyhistory.com/sacred-and-profane-love/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sacred_and_Profane_Love_by_Titian
https://www.walksofitaly.com/blog/art-culture/sacred-profane-love-titian-mysteries
http://www.pauldoughton.com/2011/06/symbolic-and-geometric-substructures.html
http://www.smartrippin.com/en/sacred-and-profane-love-the-secrets-behind-titians-masterpiece/

The Damned Soul by Michelangelo Buonarroti

2018-07-19T17:23:00.000-04:00

No this isn't drawn by a Ninja Turtle.

But isn't it beautiful. Look at the face, really stare at it. The eyes staring intently - locked in pain and fury. You can almost hear the scream - reaching out past the lines into your own heart. What do you see, pain? anger? anguish? there is something that draws me in - maybe its the intensity of the muscles tightly bound but surrounded by air and light and flow.

So I did a little digging (ahem Wikipedia) and although I cannot confirm whether what I found is factual, the story goes that this was a presentation drawing for Gherardo Perini, who was one of Michelangelo's life models. Wikipedia states that when Gherardo would not show at the studio Michelangelo would refuse to draw. In designing ideas or creating inspiration for his sculptures Michelangelo would draw many pictures.When you stare at the drawing it almost looks like it could be made of stone. I could imagine how visually this would translate to sculpture. It's honestly incredible to imagine something that looks so delicate actually be carved from a chunk of rock.

This model is claimed to be a love of Michelangelo's, and mentioned in his poetry. Knowing this adds another dimension to this face. A story being told through the careful drawing of each line and crease. Did the model have to pose in this manner or was it taken from inspiration or memory. Michelangelo seems to have been enthralled with Gherardo - can you see the thrall in this drawing? According to what I read, the love wasn't always mutual which makes me wonder - in the art world it seems the artist and the muse are often interconnected in more ways then through the art. Is this just another version of the "casting couch" or was there more shared there. You can taint the picture depending on what you believe. If the love was real and this was drawn with careful attention to the details in the face it can almost appear sad and cause a little heartache - if the muse just used the artist to get ahead then he can appear like a vile greedy goblin. That's the best part of it being in the eye of the beholder - you get to decide.

Enjoy

image source: http://www.museumsinflorence.com/musei/uffizi-draws.html

smoke bomb

2017-11-13T12:09:00.000-05:00

... darkness ...

Think tank

Sacred and Profane Love by Tiziano Vecelli

The Damned Soul by Michelangelo Buonarroti

smoke bomb