Sandro Boticelli

Birth of Venus, 1486, oil on canvas, 278.5 x 172.5cm, Uffizi Gallery, Florence, Italy

If you know nothing whatsoever about art, it remains a safe bet that you know at least three works by sight. Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa would certainly be one, Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling would be another, and Boticelli’s Venus would be the third. (The Last Supper and the statue of David could also be included on this list but that would spoil the elegance of my argument, so I won’t mention them.) All three of these artists flourished at about the same time and in the same place, creating a resonance of beauty and intellect and meticulous artistry that radiated from Florence, Italy so brightly it blinded the whole world for centuries after.

Primavera, 1477, tempera on wood, 203 x 314cm, Uffizi

We don’t really know all that much about Boticelli personally, which leads me to believe he was likely a rather timid soul completely different from the enormous personalities of his titanic contemporaries. He never married, but was believed to suffer love for a married woman whom he took as the ideal for his Venus. She died while still young, and it was Boticelli’s wish that he be buried at her feet. Despite the odd impertinence of this request, her family consented and when he died many years later, he got his desire to rest forever ‘neath her corns. The privilege of greatness, I suppose. He was also believed to “keep a boy” but then, who doesn’t?

Adoration of the Magi, 1475, tempera on panel, 107.5 x 173cm, Uffizi

Much of his work remains in various chapels and churches, but to me his work for the Church is the least interesting. He became, eventually, a follower of Savonarola (as did a great many Florentines) and was thought for many years to have destroyed many of his pagan-themed paintings in a Bonfire of the Vanieties. If this is true, then we can only guess at what we have lost yet again to religious zeal. On the other hand, we are lucky to have had him at all.

Pallas and the Centaur, 1482, tempera on convas, 207 x 148cm, Uffizi

Boticelli was funded, both directly and indirectly, by Lorenzo de’ Medici, as were da Vinci and Michelangelo and almost all of the great Renaissance painters and sculptors and writers and composers and actors and hookers and bartenders and barrel racing cowgirls. (These fifteenth century folk were a very naive people—proto-humans really— who believed in a tired principle called noblesse oblige. You might have trouble looking it up. I don’t think it exists anymore except in the PR sense.) De’Medici’s generosity did not arise solely from his good nature; this was not some milk-sop scion of a great man, but a stern and mighty force in his own right. Rather, his patronage reflected his sense of place, which in turn sprang  from the pride and love he held for his own people. He believed that by giving people the means to live and create and then getting out of their way they will do something to enrich their community.

He was wrong, of course, and the best the Florentines managed to do was to change the whole world.

The whole world.

We have been trying to live up to that level of artistry and patronage ever since. So we’re a little more self-centered now, a little greedier…so what? We have worlds inside us, don’t we? Isn’t that what the cool kids tell us? No worries, mate. Just be patient. You’ll get yours, too.

 

 

This entry was posted in Fine Art, The Automat and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Sandro Boticelli

  1. Pat Snyder says:

    giving people the means to live and create – and then getting out of the way
    What an odd idea!

  2. Amazing. Amazing. Amazing. I’m pleased to report (rather smugly) that I’ve seen all three great pieces of art…up close and personal. Smug, because in the world I grew up in the possibility of such an experience was as far away as the moon. No, Further. So, OK, I saw ’em. But I never, ever saw a production like the one you also included. I’m in the middle of a lot of work, but nothing as important as sitting quietly and watching that piece. I’m dazzled. Delighted. And happy! Thank you think you thank you.

  3. Elizabeth says:

    I may sound totally ignorant here, but does that guy play Don Quixote?

    • foxpudding says:

      I presume you are talking of Scheider in the video clip. Oddly enough, in a famous review of this sequence he was described as a “glam-rock Don Quixote,” but I don’t believe he ever played that role. If he seems familiar, you might be recognizing him from “Jaws” in which, in a particularly Freudian admission, he confesses his need for a “bigger boat.”

  4. Jill says:

    And Mr. Fosse the only person to win the big 3 in the same year. Loved that movie. Boticelli and Fosse in the same post, that’s entertainment!.

    • foxpudding says:

      The Fosse came to me because I was writing about Medici’s humanitarianism and the irony of that construction struck me funny which led to the repeated gag about, “a great humanitarian” etc from the movie which led to my looking for this clip and that’s how we make the donuts over here for the Automat. The fact that Fosse can be celebrative about his death by means of the comfort he found in the purity of his art is reassuring to me. Thanks for the comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s