MADONNA
a study on religion in art
CATHOLICISM
Our religion is itself profoundly sad -- a religion of universal anguish, and one which, because of its very catholicity, grants full liberty to the individual and asks no better than to be celebrated in each man's own language -- so long as he knows anguish and is a painter. - Charles Baudelaire
Yes, we're following up our research on Druids with their eventual destroyers; the Roman Catholics. By this I mean Romans who were Catholics, not modern Roman Catholics. I certainly hope there aren't any bishops going around murdering Druids in the modern era. Speaking of the modern era, we're actually going to focus primarily on a much more modern period of art. You've all heard of it, you'd better love it - it's the Renaissance! Spanning roughly from the 14th to the 17th century - over one and a half thousand years from even the most recent pieces we considered for Druidry - the Renaissance lived up to its name as a "rebirth" of Greco-Roman styles. The drab and artless dark ages were coming to an end and in Italy, many of the artists you undoubtedly know were looking back past that era and to a culture which came far before - the ancients. Artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo and Raphael cast their eyes and minds back, admiring the "masters" of times long ago and seeking to attain the levels of artistic talent which the artists of classical antiquity had already achieved so long ago. I'm absolutely not going to start talking about classical antiquity as an influence, because once I start, I will not stop, and I'm saving that for the page on classical antiquity. Let's move quickly onto some examples of (very) famous renaissance artists and their artwork, specifically those with Catholic themes.
THE REALLY OBVIOUS ONE
(who I don't like that much)
I know, I know. Shock, horror, she doesn't like Leonardo da Vinci. Don't get me wrong, he's good - much better than I'll ever be, most likely. He had a wonderful way of shading and the mix of finished, toned areas and more sketchy areas complements his style of sketching fantastically. But especially in his finished pieces, da Vinci's grasp on anatomy seems to slip. Don't lie, you can't try to claim that the Mona Lisa matches up to many other pieces of the time. Outside of the mysteries surrounding her and her enigmatic smile, I really don't see why it's his most famous piece. The Last Supper works so much better, because while da Vinci wasn't great at anatomy and that shows when you start to examine the piece, his skill with composition and colour choices really shine here.
C'mon, man, look at how much better this is. The drama. The detail. Jesus looks so done. A whole range of emotions are being portrayed by the apostles, and they interact with each other in a natural, albeit incredibly exaggerated, way. Our pal Leonardo has even gone so far as to paint the detail on their feet, which are obviously not the point of focus in this painting. Look at those pink toes! You may notice that Jesus' feet are obscured by a peculiar-looking brown block. This is actually a doorway in the wall The Last Supper was painted on, and while I assumed it had always been there, it was apparently added about 150 years later, knocking straight through Jesus' feet. The door isn't even there any more. I found one early imitation of this mural which contains the missing tootsies:
The paint in this version is also a lot cleaner and better preserved, so we can see so many details in this that are lost to time and construction in the original. According to the Royal Academy, this painting is most likely by one of da Vinci's own pupils, Giampietrino, but it's possible that Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio also contributed. This is thought to have been painted just 15-20 years after the original, so the famous fresco (although it isn't technically a fresco) still had all the original paintwork to study. Through this copy, we can see da Vinci's typical intricate details - perhaps one of his best qualities, consistent throughout his work - and boy, is it fantastic. The spilled salt in front of Judas, said to represent his betrayal, has faded to the point where it's unrecognisable in the original. I didn't even realise that glasses of wine had been depicted across the table, and was critical of its inaccuracy, but there they are! We can see the beautiful rendering of the fabrics, too. Notice in particular Andrew's shirt (he's third from the left), which is some kind of silk or satin, by the looks of it. More details lost in restoration are the painted walls and the stunning landscape which can be seen out of the doors at the back of the hall. Speaking of the doors at the back, it's barely visible, but I believe the lintel above the central one is a different shape - in the original mural, it's a dome, but in this version it seems to be flat. Regardless, it's a fantastic tool when compared to the original, and
allows us to better see da Vinci's intentions.
One of the most frustrating things about Leonardo da Vinci is his procrastination. He was a genius, an artist and inventor, but used his skills in all the wrong ways. The Last Supper was painted using a very experimental method which was devised by Leonardo himself, specifically made so that he could spend longer on the painting than if he was doing it as a fresco. Frescoes are painted on wet plaster while da Vinci's method used dry plaster, meaning he didn't have to finish by the time the plaster dried. It's a good thing, too, as the mural apparently took three years. Similarly, the Mona Lisa took around four years. It's probably partly because of this that there are only fifteen paintings known to be his - and not all of them are even finished. Leonardo had plenty of sketches, though, and they certainly show artistic merit. I can't help but imagine that he overworked his finished pieces, which is why they look so stiff and uncanny. His sketches can be found here (possible nsfw warning, a lot of them are anatomical studies), including the Vitruvian Man, perhaps his most referenced work. As I said, his sketches are where his talent really shines. You see, da Vinci is known for his exacting nature, and it shows wonderfully in his studies of specific muscle groups, or different poses, even an entire human fetus. Yes, you read that right. Leonardo da Vinci knew a biologist, who happened to have a good flow of cadavers for him to study. One of these was a heavily pregnant woman. It's not news to anyone that corpses are just begging to be dissected, and that's exactly what our friends did to the womb of this woman. Thanks to this experience, da Vinci is thought to have been the first person to ever sketch a human fetus as it actually lies in the womb. As much as I have issues with how people idolise da Vinci, that's undeniably rad.
While it isn't really connected to religious art, which is my focus here, it would be a huge oversight on my part to cover Leonardo da Vinci's work and not mention his inventive streak. You've certainly heard of his tank and parachute, did you know that he designed and possibly built a robot in 1495? That's right. A whole entire automated suit of armour, which could move its arms and jaw. This is why I feel that da Vinci is well worth a mention on this page - he wasn't the best of artists, for sure, but he had such a wide area of interest and expertise. He really was a genius, and far ahead of his time.
Leonardo da Vinci was a Roman Catholic by name, but leaned towards Christian Humanism and dabbled in other philosophies during his lifetime. It's worth noting here, at the end of his section, that he did in fact paint several madonnas, the best of which is The Virgin and Child with St. Anne, which I'll show below. And that's it for da Vinci's section! Sorry for rambling, I know a lot more about this stuff than
I do about Druidry so I have a lot of opinions.
THE OTHER REALLY OBVIOUS ONE
(who I like a lot more)
Okay, get ready for some gushing. Michelangelo is one of the artists who I look up to most out of all of them. I've never seen someone with such a mastery over marble, over chalk, it seems almost like he had the Midas touch of artwork. This section will mainly cover the Sistine Chapel ceiling, surely his most ambitious and intense project,
but first I simply need to cover David.
Michelangelo's David is easily one of, if not the most famous sculpture in history. It's well-deserved, too - just look at his hands!
I have a lot to say about this piece. First of all, while I've never really done too much research on him before now (why I haven't is beyond me), but Michelangelo - and David in particular - is truly a pinnacle of artistry, a living (well, not any more) muse. Everything on this sculpture looks so incredibly real, I mean you can literally see the muscles beneath the skin and then you can see the way the skin covers them. That's absurd. As I've already said, David is revered by anyone sane as one of the absolute best artworks in history. There's so much to unpack, so let's start from the beginning.
In 1464, 11 years before Michelangelo was born, a project was started by sculptor Agostino di Duccio. He had been commissioned by the Opera del Duomo to sculpt a giant statue of David, which would eventually be placed 80 metres above the ground in the ceiling of the Cathedral of Florence. While Duccio accepted initially and began work on the project, upon being given a block of marble riddled with imperfections, the presence of which would threaten the structural integrity of any sculpture carved from it, he backed out. In 1475, the Opera del Duomo tried again. The same block of marble was offered to Antonio Rossellino, who declined for the same reason as Duccio. So the block sat in the courtyard, for 25 years, until Michelangelo came along. At the young age of 26, he was already famous and respected by those around him, so our Catholic friends approached him with regards to the now 37-year project. Unlike those before him, Michelangelo reportedly showed great enthusiasm to create a work of such enormity, so he began.
From the very beginning, Michelangelo's depiction of David was revolutionary. To explain this, I'll need to briefly cover the Biblical account of David just in case any of you don't know of it. I'll be as concise as I can. In short, there was a war between the Philistines and the Israelites, and the Philistines had a (nearly) 10ft tall warrior named Goliath who would taunt the Israelite soldiers by telling them to fight him, which obviously none of them did because he was 10 feet tall and armed to the teeth. A shepherd boy named David came along and accepted Goliath's challenge, as he had previously been assisted by God to kill a lion and a bear with his bare (haha) hands and obviously, after that, you aren't really scared of much. David had faith that God would protect him from the champion of the Philistines, to the point where he refused to go up against him while clad in armour. David collected five smooth stones from the riverbed and approached the battle with nothing more than his sling. It says in 1 Samuel 17 that David ran towards Goliath, quickly pulled the sling out of his bag and fired a single stone directly into Goliath's forehead. The giant fell forward, dead, and David chopped off his head in triumph.
In all traditional depictions of David, he is post-victory, stood over Goliath or holding his severed head. In all respects, a hero. When Michelangelo approached this project, however, he did something quite radical. David here is shown before the battle, with tension shown in his vein-riddled right hand and in his wary eyes. He holds the sling over his shoulder, ready for the fight. This new take on a well-known tale served Michelangelo well, as the "Giant" shocked the Vestry board when he revealed it to them. They all agreed that the statue was too perfect to be presented in its original placement - that's right, a twenty-six year old Michelangelo had created something which the Vestry board, who handled the commissions for the cathedral and would have seen and judged art from the best artists of the time - da Vinci, Donatello, countless others - deemed as too perfect. So, a committee was assembled. 30 men (including Leonardo da Vinci himself) put their heads together to decide on a setting which would be appropriate for such a magnificent piece. The eventual decision was made that David would be placed in Piazza della Signoria, seat of the government in Florence, and would replace a statue from Donatello. It took them four days, forty men and the destruction of one archway to move the Giant to its resting place, where it remained for nearly 400 years until it was moved to the much more protected Galleria dell'Accademia (Accademia Gallery) in 1873 in order to avoid deterioration. Through its lifetime, David has suffered some pretty intense stuff. It's had a toe smashed, an arm broken off by rioters, its ankles and tree stump have shown signs of structural insecurity for years and it was even struck by lightning in 1512, just 8 years after its completion. However, even when an "intense" period of restoration began in 2004 to celebrate its 500-year anniversary, the restorers merely cleaned up the statue a bit. To this day, David looks pretty much completely unchanged.
And that's the story of the single best piece of artwork which has ever been, and will ever be, created. Okay, now I've got that out of my system, let's talk about the Sistine Chapel.
It may surprise you to find out that the Sistine Chapel ceiling took a mere 4 years to complete, the same amount of time as the Mona Lisa. I think it's pretty obvious as to which I prefer. Let's take a look.
Now, I'm sure you've already recognised the most famous part of this enormous project. Yes, The Creation of Adam (again, nsfw-ish) is the one panel of the Sistine Chapel which everyone knows. The entire ceiling is an account of Biblical happenings from the Old Testament, with the creation and subsequent disgrace of Adam and Eve taking centre-stage. Now, I know the Bible, and this thing is impossible to follow even
for me, so here's a useful chart:
Now, you may notice the mention of Sibyls on this chart. Here we have one of the strongest connections between this page and that on Druidry - the Sibyls were Pagan prophets, ancient Greek oracles who had apparently predicted the coming of the Messiah. This is a running theme of the original, Roman Catholicism. For many years, Christians are known to have suffered great persecution in the Roman Empire. After legalising Christianity, there was a short period (less than 90 years) when the Empire allowed both Pagans and Christians, before it flipped the script and banned Paganism outright. Ah, politics. Pagan influence didn't simply leave Rome, though - perhaps the most well-known Catholic celebration, Christmas (and New Year's day) is a whole
story on its own. Let's review.
Before Christmas was even thought of, there was Easter. Easter was celebrated as the day God sent the angel Gabriel to visit the Virgin Mary; Jesus Christ's conception. There is no Biblical foundation for this (trust me, I've read the thing); the date of March 25th was actually based on the March Equinox which happens at around the same time, and is the point in the year at which the sun crosses the equator from the Southern Hemisphere to the North. The Equinox has been celebrated for millenia in all different cultures - most notably, for our purposes, by the ancient Druids. I believe it's long been a celebration of fertility, which is perhaps why the Catholics chose to celebrate it as the conception of Jesus. So, from fairly early on in Roman Christianity, the Feast of the Annunciation was celebrated on the March Equinox. Based on this, St. Hippolytus of Rome made the calculations and figured that Jesus must have been born on December 25th (source). As my source states, Christmas wasn't recorded as an official holy day until over 350 years after Jesus' year of birth. December 25th happened to coincide with the celebration of the birth of an ancient Roman sun god (Sol, who had his own official cult by the time Christmas was officially celebrated) as well as the popular Greek festival of Saturnalia. A lot of Saturnalia's customs and traditions were simply re-skinned as Christmas due to how popular the festival was, a move which has not gone unnoticed by many scholars since.
I apologise for not talking about the actual painting of the Sistine Chapel much, I just felt that there were more important and interesting things to cover. Plus, I've already written way too much on the construction of David. Before we move on, though, it's time for Michelangelo's own Madonna spotlight! Michelangelo created a number of Madonnas, including his incredibly famous Pietà, but the one we're focusing on here
is his very last piece of work, the Rondanini Pietà.
It's pretty easy to see that this is an unfinished statue - Michelangelo worked on it until death, even continuing to change his plans for the piece until his dying days. It's another interesting take on a traditional subject, depicting Mary with Jesus as in many Madonnas, but showing her cradling her dead son's body rather than holding him as an infant child. Such is the nature of a Pietà. The sculpting work began in 1552, Michelangelo worked for a year before taking a 2-year break and returning to the piece in 1555 to continue it until his death in 1564. While I can't show the legs, they're the most finished part of this sculpture. Even at the grand age of 88, Michelangelo still stood leagues ahead of the others in artistic skill. The heartbreak of this piece wouldn't have been lost on the artist, as by this point, he had lost his own mother to death. Speaking of death, Michelangelo was working on a sculpture for his own tomb (which he later destroyed) when he began work on this Pietà, as he knew that his life was nearing its end. These factors all play into the solemn, despairing feeling of this piece and its story. A frustrated man, persecuted by the Pope for his beliefs in Spiritualism, working tirelessly until his last days, all the while fearing for his life. Michelangelo eventually died shortly before his 89th birthday, apparently following
a brief illness.
THE FALLEN STAR
Well done! You've made it through the artists I know about, so we're just going to clean up with a couple who I believe deserve mention in this section - first, Raphael.
Raphael is an interesting one. It's hard to escape his work, in particular Portrait of a Young Man, The School of Athens (be sure to click on the picture on this page!) and Self-Portrait With a Friend (this one's probably because of when someone compared it to a photo of Oscar Isaac), but few seem to know his (admittedly rather short) story or of his rather amusing death. Briefly though, before I start, I'll give my own opinions on his work: Raphael is a tough one for me. Certain paintings of his such as The School of Athens, as well as his many sketches and studies, totally blow me away and are honestly close if not equal to the standards which Michelangelo set with his own sketches. However, potentially due to his having 50 assistants and getting them to do most of the work for him, a lot of Raphael's work sits in the same disappointing category as da Vinci's paintings for me. Because I have such a distaste for his paintings, and his sketches are often nudes, I'll just mention one of his Madonnas first and move onto his tale of woe. Here I present the Madonna of Loreto:
Why did I choose this piece? Was it because of the delicate pose of Mary's hands, or the beautifully painted fabrics? Perhaps it was the intriguing composition, including Joseph for once.
No.
I chose this piece because it is literally the only Raphael Madonna I could find where the infant Jesus does not have his entire crotch showing. And I thought Michelangelo was bad - at least I could crop his out. I'll be honest, though, this is a pretty good Madonna. The relationship between Mary and Jesus seems much more loving than in many others, and the inclusion of Joseph certainly isn't lost on me. The halos are a nice addition, too, though I do prefer "background" halos over these more modern-styled ones. Of course, Raphael was a very skilled man, so the quality of his good pieces matches up to his fellow Renaissance artists. Altogether, this is a good piece, but isn't anything revolutionary. It was completed in the same year as The School of Athens, which is a much better painting. Now let's talk about Raphael himself, who makes for a much more interesting conversation.
Raphael was effectively destined to be a painter, having been born to the Duke of Urbino's court painter, Giovanni Santi. He spent a lot of time in the Duke's court during his younger years, giving him excellent manners and charisma. However, things weren't always golden for Raphael. He was orphaned at 11, by which point he had already had his artistic talents recognised and was living partly with his stepmother and partly with a master as he carried out an apprenticeship. Once he was old enough, he became quite the nomad (remember our friends the Celts?) and travelled around Italy, often spending time in Florence. This was until 1508, when he was called by the Pope to Rome to paint, you guessed it, The School of Athens. He spent the rest of his life in Rome. Raphael only lived until the age of 37, so I was intrigued as to how he dies. It turns out that nobody knows for sure, and there are a few theories banging around about how he kicked the bucket. The first, and most boring, is that he suffered a short illness (didn't everyone?) for no discernible reason and simply passed away. The much more interesting version, as stated by Vasari, is that Raphael died of that same illness, cause by exhaustion from too many romantic advances from his mistress. I'm gonna go with that version of events.
THE GUY WHO'S ONLY HERE TO COMPLETE THE NINJA TURTLES
(I'm sorry, okay?)
Donatello is the artist who I have by far the least interest in, though there is one thing he did which is most impressive. He lived quite a bit earlier than the others, who were all in the same generation, and his work is entirely sculptural meaning there isn't very much of it. I can't even find any sketches of his - the picture above is a sketch of his work by another artist. He did, however, create a Madonna. Several, in fact.
This is the Madonna of the Clouds. It's a marble relief, which Donatello invented. You read that right. Donatello invented reliefs. I genuinely didn't know this until I was researching him for this project, and it's the impressive thing I was talking about earlier. Even without this knowledge, Madonna of the Clouds is a great piece. It has a great mix of detail and effective blank space and the gentle intricacy of Mary's face is pretty immaculate. Honestly, though, this is all I really have to say about Donatello. So now we've considered the four Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Madonnas they produced during their lifetimes, let's go over the creation of my own Renaissance-inspired piece.
The Piece
When I started out, I knew that I wanted to take a lot of inspiration from the more populated pieces from the Renaissance. While most Madonnas only feature one or two people, some of them are surrounded by cherubs, saints or angels - this is what I was going for. After a bit of thinking, I came up with my plan. I'd first make a compositional sketch which would serve as a rough guide for my pose references. My pose references are the very reason I can't show most of this process - since such particular poses are impossible to find references for, and I'd feel horrendous sketching over photos which weren't even mine, so I simply... made my own. I got my DSLR out, stood at the other end of the kitchen and posed away, before taking them into Clip Studio Paint and arranging them in a way which resembled the composition sketch, tweaking positions when I needed to and moving a few limbs around. Thankfully I have a shaved head, which makes me a convenient base form to add anything I want onto. I did some rough sketching over my poses, altering things as and when I needed to, changing up some facial features in order to make the characters look like different people. After this, I hid the layer with the photos on, lowered the opacity of the base sketches and started to map out clothing. I didn't use any references for this aside from for the central "Mary" figure, for whom I used a number of references. This was mainly for her veil and cloak which I have no experience with. After I'd done the clothes, I worked on the cherubs. Obviously I couldn't do these poses myself, as I can't revert to childhood, but after a few tries I managed to sketch them out.
The lining process was pretty simple, I used the same brush and technique as in the Arianrhod piece. Up until this point, I'd spent around 10-12 hours on the piece, not including the photography and composition. I decided to call it a night as I'd just finished the lines and my breathing was getting pretty bad, so I started the colour in the morning. Thankfully, the colouring process isn't against cs rules, so I have a speedpaint of it:
This speedpaint has 5 hours worth of footage in it, at 50x speed. I did try to record a voiceover for it but I was far too slow, so here are the notes I wrote while preparing for the voiceover:
Started using watercolour brush, felt it didn’t fit renaissance so changed quickly
Tried to fill in most prominent/largest areas first, as it looks more natural
Initially planned just to use red for the cherubs as they’re childlike and rosy, ended up using it on all figures because it’s more lifelike and what I usually do
Normally wouldn’t shade like this at all but I was trying to mimic renaissance style, usually I have much more contrast but at least in surviving renaissance paintings, things are very flat. Probably because of aging
Tried to make the light source around where the halo is or directly above, so Madonna is the focus
Prefer using elements of her design rather than sticking to her colour palette. Had to omit the horns though as I’ve never seen a renaissance piece with horns
Hair after skin is always the way I’ve worked, had to adapt as I was trying to base things off of my palette which is taken from The Creation of Adam. Also wanted at least some of the hair to actually look like it could be Italians from the 1400s-1500s
Cherubs have lighter hair; it looks more innocent and childish in my opinion. Kept things quite airy with the shading there
Remembered that I intended to paint the wings first, did this with the top two cherubs as their hair is in front of their wings. No white in the palette so I had to improvise. I think they look blue but based on the colour wheel, it’s actually a yellow/orange hue. Accented with pink because why not
Big wings took forever, I had to take a break in the middle of filling them in because my back was killing me
Replaced some stuff behind the halo with bg colour because I wanted the halo to be more present and affect the things around it
Roses on wings, part of Madonna’s design. I’m not good at painting roses so it took a few tries
Used a multiply layer which I wasn’t planning on doing, but shading the wings especially with the roses on there would have taken far too long with just the oil paint brush. Switched to watercolour and lowered the opacity so it wasn’t so intrusive
Carried on my naughty streak and used an Add layer, because the wings just weren’t light enough and would blend with the clouds. Added some other highlights too.
FINALLY onto hair. Wanted the two front angels to match as I saw them as siblings, and I felt the blonde-ish colour suited them
I totally didn’t forget to colour the bow, it was an executive decision. I looked back after watching this and decided it looked fine anyway
Robes based on a couple of Madonnas I saw in my research, red and blue seemed to be popular colours.
The colour clothing on the front angels is from the weird bit of fabric which God is on in The Creation of Adam.
Realised I hadn’t coloured in the legs/feet so I did that right quick
I love shading metal so I took the opportunity to use my beloved watercolour brush on her bracers.
Messed up the shading, was gonna have the wings cast a shadow but it didn’t work out. I remembered that renaissance shading is inaccurate at best and left it
Filling in the clouds, it was evening by this point and my bird was screaming so I took a break once I’d filled them in and finished afterwards
Used watercolour brush for the clouds because it looks lighter and fluffier
Added drips to the halo which I’d tried before, this fits the original design
Eyes one of the last things to be done because they’re so small that a lot of other things would end up going over them.
Did the apple at last because I’d forgotten earlier, struggled a bit with the sash but by this point I was well and truly done.
Didn’t want the outside to distract from the main body of the painting so I just did some soft lighting then added an overlay layer, switched it to multiply to make it look more finished.
While I thought I was finished at this point, some folks in an art Discord I'm in assumed that it was still in progress, so... I got insecure and shaded with some more layers. Since I didn't originally want to rely so heavily on multiply and add layers, so I'll present you now with both the original version and the more "ambient" edition:
Feel free to click on either image, the links take you to view them in a new tab where you can zoom in a little.
I'm a lot happier with how this one turned out. I think, going forward, I'll continue to use elements of Madonna's design from the sketching stage rather than just using the palette since it really didn't work out great with the Druidry piece. I think, for the Greek piece, I'll need to think of some more story surrounding her as their pieces are very illustrative.
To wrap up, I'm sorry that this page didn't cover more of actual Catholicism and Renaissance life - I spent way too much time being absurdly opinionated about da Vinci and Michelangelo, and by the time I'd finished them, I needed to rush to finish my pieces in time. Thank you for listening to my ramblings, let's move onto hopefully more concise pages!