Caravaggio as a comparative test-case A843 Ex. 3.6.2
Sunday, 1 Oct 2017, 15:03
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Steve Bamlett, Sunday, 22 Oct 2017, 21:51
·
What are the main points Sohm is trying to make about biographies of
Caravaggio?
·
How is his case similar to or different from that of Raphael?
I have never understood the point of reading sections of a
paper, especially when directed to comment upon issues related to the theme of
the paper itself, although I warmly recognise that this is an attempt to lessen
the learner workload and therefore has advantages. Hence, this answer is based
on a quick reading of the whole paper. I do not yet know whether I will want
though to confine the answer to the introduction of it. (And still don't know after finishing it thus far - as far as I want to go).
·
The main points are:
o
The function of achieving readable and engaging
narratives elides or possibly (in the biopic) over-rides the function of biography
as an objective historical account.
§
This may extend to using the narrative to make
of the life, death and intervening events a meaningful pattern imposed on it by
the perception of the artist’s life as a whole.
§
The art itself is seen not only as product of
one single individuated ‘ life’ but also as the limiting case for the
authenticity of our reading of one or more artworks (and indeed, sometimes the
defining character of the artwork as a whole oeuvre.
o
Kris & Kurz introduced a formal notion of
the function of ‘early modern’ biography to articulate the meanings of an art
work, and its place in an oeuvre, in terms of a ‘higher truth’ (449). Narrative
in the form of iconic myth becomes the locus of that meaning. This is
especially true of ‘death’ stories, which retrospectively shape the meanings of
earlier artworks.
o
If biography can shape interpretation of
paintings, the corollary is also true (459). This is in past a function of the
function of language to convey multiple meanings simultaneously, and this is
particularly true of literary language (450). A retold life event can be
treated as a form of allegoreisis.[i]
o
The allegorical meanings of an artwork, read as
a combination of the multimodal intertextuality of biography and work, can be
the substantive evidence used to critique:
§
The artwork OR oeuvre;
§
The artist per se – including their socio-cultural
emplacement in history.
§
The culture itself, which the art is used to articulate
(modern or contemporary art for instance cp. Tracey Emin author-function.
o
A Death Scene is the key to ultimate truths.
This is the case for a number of types of biography, even those making ‘truth
claims’ (451).
o
The meaning attained in a review of both life
can be an iconic allegory: Raphael as Christ, Michelangelo as Marsyas, and
Caravaggio as Judas Iscariot (452).
o
Those iconic meanings are embedded in visual art
by manipulations of facial expression, properties, costume and adornment.
However, from the evidence (452f.) I would also add relationship to the artist’s
formal framing devices). We could include Poussin in this.
o
In Caravaggio meaning, description and
allegorical interpretation attach to notions of darkness, in relation to
morality, nature and formal tenebrism – shadowing, chiaroscuro. This can verge
to the notion of Caravaggio as anti-Christ (or anti-artist) in some
particularly class-bound accounts.
o
In particular it can characterise artists who
supplant pursuit of the Platonic Idea for material objects in Nature. Including
fleshly ones, but chiefly monetary reward or its commodification in
possessions.
I would caution here that ‘allegory’ is the
Renaissance (as inherited through The Neo-Platonist revival, was complex. In
England, for instance, Spenser speaks of his Faerie Queene as a ‘continuous allegory or darke conceite’ (sic.).
Here ‘dark’ mirrors 1 Corinthians 13 about the sublunary world as a place in which
we see ‘as in glass darkly’. We can’t confront then uses of darkness in
Renaissance & 17th century art as baldly as this paper does. To
be ‘dark’ is to secrete one’s meaning. This does not always invalidate it – it often
purports to do the opposite.
Raphael is said to be presented as Christ. I
agree in as far as we read that identification as allegorical – a function of
meaning complication. In both cases Icarus myths are used (see Castiglione’s
faux-Raphael) to show attempts to over-reach in an assault on the Sun (like
Marsyas with Apollo, Icarus with Apollo in his natural light). Of course,
though rooted in similar meanings, they can act differently. Thus Caravaggio is
Icarus who is punished by the sun (Apollo) for too much savouring the “cellars
without too much sunlight” and for covering up ‘the difficult parts of art’. (458)
Darkness in Caravaggio is purported to
allegorically point to his love of the lowly, a baseness and lack of right
learning that even elevation to the Knights of Malta cannot hide (458). The
underlying myth here is of the foundling (as found in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline and The Tempest for instance – very much plays about art as noble or
base). Stolen from Court, the true noble will show himself so, even though ‘basely’
brought up. Likewise darkness is a space with different meanings – sinister,
psychological (mad isolation), social as well as theological or philosophical.
(458).
In both cases the artists are described as ‘self-fashioning
(459)’ (using Greenblatt’s terminology), we cannot assume that Caravaggio
fashioned a dark, demented and fragmented self-image for the reasons given by
his biographers. For a modern reading, see Schama’s The Power of Art. Nevertheless both detractors and emulators accept
that C self-consciously evidences the phrase, ‘every painter paints himself’.
This can be used to look at not only subject-matter, and the artist’s
relationship to subject-matter, but also technique – chiaroscuro of course but
also naturalism and the means used to achieve stylistic individuality.
Detractors speak of Caravaggio ‘driven’ by a malign or disordered psychology to
‘paint his own ugliness’. But I wonder – Caravaggio is, for me the master of
the ‘dark conceit’ – the invitation to seek meaning at a number of different
levels, or to speak more contemporaneously, through a number of possible
conflicting discourses.
[i] Mirriam
Webster definition of allegoresis: the interpretation of written, oral, or artistic
expression as allegory.
Caravaggio as a comparative test-case A843 Ex. 3.6.2
· What are the main points Sohm is trying to make about biographies of Caravaggio?
· How is his case similar to or different from that of Raphael?
I have never understood the point of reading sections of a paper, especially when directed to comment upon issues related to the theme of the paper itself, although I warmly recognise that this is an attempt to lessen the learner workload and therefore has advantages. Hence, this answer is based on a quick reading of the whole paper. I do not yet know whether I will want though to confine the answer to the introduction of it. (And still don't know after finishing it thus far - as far as I want to go).
· The main points are:
o The function of achieving readable and engaging narratives elides or possibly (in the biopic) over-rides the function of biography as an objective historical account.
§ This may extend to using the narrative to make of the life, death and intervening events a meaningful pattern imposed on it by the perception of the artist’s life as a whole.
§ The art itself is seen not only as product of one single individuated ‘ life’ but also as the limiting case for the authenticity of our reading of one or more artworks (and indeed, sometimes the defining character of the artwork as a whole oeuvre.
o Kris & Kurz introduced a formal notion of the function of ‘early modern’ biography to articulate the meanings of an art work, and its place in an oeuvre, in terms of a ‘higher truth’ (449). Narrative in the form of iconic myth becomes the locus of that meaning. This is especially true of ‘death’ stories, which retrospectively shape the meanings of earlier artworks.
o If biography can shape interpretation of paintings, the corollary is also true (459). This is in past a function of the function of language to convey multiple meanings simultaneously, and this is particularly true of literary language (450). A retold life event can be treated as a form of allegoreisis.[i]
o The allegorical meanings of an artwork, read as a combination of the multimodal intertextuality of biography and work, can be the substantive evidence used to critique:
§ The artwork OR oeuvre;
§ The artist per se – including their socio-cultural emplacement in history.
§ The culture itself, which the art is used to articulate (modern or contemporary art for instance cp. Tracey Emin author-function.
o A Death Scene is the key to ultimate truths. This is the case for a number of types of biography, even those making ‘truth claims’ (451).
o The meaning attained in a review of both life can be an iconic allegory: Raphael as Christ, Michelangelo as Marsyas, and Caravaggio as Judas Iscariot (452).
o Those iconic meanings are embedded in visual art by manipulations of facial expression, properties, costume and adornment. However, from the evidence (452f.) I would also add relationship to the artist’s formal framing devices). We could include Poussin in this.
o In Caravaggio meaning, description and allegorical interpretation attach to notions of darkness, in relation to morality, nature and formal tenebrism – shadowing, chiaroscuro. This can verge to the notion of Caravaggio as anti-Christ (or anti-artist) in some particularly class-bound accounts.
o In particular it can characterise artists who supplant pursuit of the Platonic Idea for material objects in Nature. Including fleshly ones, but chiefly monetary reward or its commodification in possessions.
I would caution here that ‘allegory’ is the Renaissance (as inherited through The Neo-Platonist revival, was complex. In England, for instance, Spenser speaks of his Faerie Queene as a ‘continuous allegory or darke conceite’ (sic.). Here ‘dark’ mirrors 1 Corinthians 13 about the sublunary world as a place in which we see ‘as in glass darkly’. We can’t confront then uses of darkness in Renaissance & 17th century art as baldly as this paper does. To be ‘dark’ is to secrete one’s meaning. This does not always invalidate it – it often purports to do the opposite.
Darkness in Caravaggio is purported to allegorically point to his love of the lowly, a baseness and lack of right learning that even elevation to the Knights of Malta cannot hide (458). The underlying myth here is of the foundling (as found in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline and The Tempest for instance – very much plays about art as noble or base). Stolen from Court, the true noble will show himself so, even though ‘basely’ brought up. Likewise darkness is a space with different meanings – sinister, psychological (mad isolation), social as well as theological or philosophical. (458).
In both cases the artists are described as ‘self-fashioning (459)’ (using Greenblatt’s terminology), we cannot assume that Caravaggio fashioned a dark, demented and fragmented self-image for the reasons given by his biographers. For a modern reading, see Schama’s The Power of Art. Nevertheless both detractors and emulators accept that C self-consciously evidences the phrase, ‘every painter paints himself’. This can be used to look at not only subject-matter, and the artist’s relationship to subject-matter, but also technique – chiaroscuro of course but also naturalism and the means used to achieve stylistic individuality. Detractors speak of Caravaggio ‘driven’ by a malign or disordered psychology to ‘paint his own ugliness’. But I wonder – Caravaggio is, for me the master of the ‘dark conceit’ – the invitation to seek meaning at a number of different levels, or to speak more contemporaneously, through a number of possible conflicting discourses.
[i] Mirriam Webster definition of allegoresis: the interpretation of written, oral, or artistic expression as allegory.