03.04
Last week I wandered the 50+ rooms of the Pitti Palace in Florence – home of the richest and most influential patrons of the arts that have and will ever exist. These rooms… they were so full of the greatest art… sorry, words fail me. After exiting, I was stunned. Not just because of the thousands of masterpiece paintings and frescoes. Not just because of the elaborate marble and wood architecture. No, what I was stunned by was the fact that someone actually cared enough about art that they dedicated their lives to precise framing and composition of every single work.
Some would disagree with me. “Care? No, they only procured and paid for this art because it was fashionable or a symbol of status.” But anyone that would say that has never been to Florence. There is love and respect for these artists there. Real love, tangible and undeniable. The containing buildings are as lovingly crafted as the art. Not like the National Gallery, were the building is at odds with its goods, were history is more important than the art itself(disgrace!).
I can only say that I am hesitant to call myself an artist now.
And I am hesitant to believe that there is a place for art anymore.
Florence is already full.
But what about civic duty and expressions of faith?
Civic duty for the artist? Sure, but that is a minor draw… if you are referring to the reasons for taking such care to nurture and preserve art, the only civic duty the Medici s felt was to demonstrate their power. Religious expression is a good point for the artist, but again, the Medici s were bankers before Catholics and, though they built many cathedrals, seem to have cultivated religion away from art. That’s one of the greatest reasons the period is referred to as the Renaissance. No, in my humble opinion, this art was preserved as an act of love and respect. To a degree that we will never see again.
I think it’s very easy from a post-Marxist viewpoint to downplay the importance religion played in the lives of people from the past. I really don’t think art was made for individual expression: That was wholly a modern concern. Even in the Renaissance, artists were making works to glorify God. And families like the Medici’s saw it as their civic duty to promote these arts for the people; hence, the Divine Right of Kings. They saw themselves as the chosen people to bring salvations to the serfs. Now was commerce beginning to pave the way out of the Middle Ages? Of course. But the Medici’s were still very religious people.
Machiavelli is another example of the Renaissance. Though his most well-known writing (The Prince) is purely a secular study on political power, he was still 100% Catholic and was scared to death he was going to hell…
…and I’m not saying in any way that the Medici’s were any less corrupt than our current political power structure today. The names and faces change, but human nature is a constant. It doesn’t matter if it’s God or Democracy or both — ICKY!
…but they didn’t believe their own bullshit.
Given. Religion was a huge factor in Renaissance and pre-Renaissance life. I have visited many basilicas, monasteries and churches. But there is nothing like what I saw in Florence, NOTHING. If God and eternal salvation was all the Medici s (especially Lorenzo, patron of Michelangelo) were interested in, the glory of the halls of their home would have made them SAINTS. But they were not. and these were their living quarters, not visiting areas.
No, I’m sorry, though religion may have been high on their list, the Medici were in love with this art.
And I do NOT downplay the role of religion in the pre-industrial world. I may be secular, but it makes me no less afraid of churches and their power.