Jonathan Yan, Period 6, 2/9/24

Jonathan Yan Due 2-9-24
Modern Mythology 2024
Blog #3: Research paper


It was the most dramatic change of thinking I have had in recent memory. That most of the great art I have consumed, been influenced by, and modeled myself after, was a product of commercialism, instead of fiery passion. Works I admired, such as Macbeth, are works of creative genius, but they were commissioned: works reluctantly made, not originally meant to be cornerstones of history and art. The example Fusaro detailed to highlight this reality is the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo despised working on this piece. Where we see a spectacle, a triumph of an artist’s skill and a monument of art, Michelangelo saw suffering. In poems he lamated his hatred for working on it. It was a revelation to my psyche. The works we study, turning points of art, may have simply resulted from the need for money. Being a musician, I began to wonder about the works I studied and idolized. How many of them did the artist loathe? Of all the pieces I originally believed to be strokes of genius, how many were deliberately manufactured?

I was aware of the nature of commercialism, that things need to be manufactured, sold and bought. However I always believed that art was inherently resistant to this. Manufactured art is very easily isolated, of poor quality, and you could tell. Right? Titian’s “Assumption of the Virgin” was commissioned, Raphael’s “School of Athens” was commissioned, Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus” was commissioned, and almost all art prior to the 19th century was commissioned. In Renaissance society, artists were revered and respected: painting was considered a noble and high profession. Thus all art was commissioned first, then created. Only in the recent two centuries where art has been more accessible were paintings, created first then sold. I believe that the common notion of artistry was more romantic, that these paintings were deliberately made as a Magnum Opus, from a vision in their head to the canvas. The truth is more realistic, artists need to eat like everyone else does, therefore finances were usually at the forefront of creation, not imagination. That is precisely why so much art was religious or portraits of high figures, those were the people who had the money to commission work.

In early civilization art was used as a form of public display, to show power and authority. A famous case is the Roman Empire, where artists were not valued, and art overall was not appreciated. However, art was utilized as a means of propaganda, public control, and satisfying the Emperor's ego. Examples of this include “Augustus of Primaporta”, “Trajan’s Column”, and Donatello’s “David”, all sculptures commissioned by the wealthy to display some form of authority, power and triumph. The Roman Emperor would have spectacular artistic exhibitions of hunts, wars, and combat not for the passion of the craft but for the display of their power. Furthermore Roman art was heavily borrowed from the Greeks. The Romans favored copies and reproductions of Greek artists, leaving many original Roman sculptors unrecognized. Countless other examples - such as Constatine replacing other emperor’s heads with his head on the Arch of Constantine - of artistic propaganda were created as a means of extending power and enforcing control, rather than for the love of creation and the passion of creativity.

This contributes to our study of folklore in that it calls into question so much of the works we have analyzed. Understanding the context within which the artwork was produced parallels a New Historicism lens. Was “Beowulf” a commission to display a king’s authority? A hero’s triumph? It was originally told to teach the bravery, morals, loyalty, and duty valued in Anglo-Saxon culture, however some debate that “Beowulf” could have been an elegy for a king. How many paintings depicting Greek and biblical tales were meant to be products, instead of art? Deliberating this has also made me think back on a course I did on U.S history through film, art and music. It has led me to question every painting, sculpture, composition, and piece we previously dissected, and look at their meaning and context through a vastly different lens. Going forward, I know that this research will change my perception of art, and especially the mythology we will be studying in the future.


Sources:

Cossio, Regina De Con. “Sybaris Collection ©: A Brief History of Artwork Commission: Ancient Rome and the Italian Renaissance.” Sybaris Collection, 8 July 2020, www.sybariscollection.com/a-brief-history-of-artwork-commission-ancient-rome-and-the-italian-renaissance/#:~:text=Amongst%20the%20most%20celebrated%20artworks,of%20the%20Medici%20art%20collection.


Trentinella, Rosemarie. “Roman Portrait Sculpture: The Stylistic Cycle: Essay: The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History.” The Met’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, 1 Jan. 2001, www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ropo2/hd_ropo2.htm.


7 Ancient Roman Sculptures You Need to Know | Artsy, www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-7-ancient-roman-sculptures. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.


“Ancient Roman Art.” The Art Institute of Chicago, www.artic.edu/highlights/19/ancient-roman-art. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.