Renaissance Perspectives, Essay Example

Art is a form of human expression presented through visual, audio or verbal mediums. Relatively, it is most often than not created according to the notion of the creator with regards the most appealing element that he might realize to have an impact on his being and his development as a person. It also provides a distinction on how he sees the society around him thus reflecting the issues that the people during a specific span of time are most likely interested in. The development of art has been accounted to be specifically dependent on how humans defined the society as it changes its face each year or from one era to another. Understandably, this is the reason why it was said that developmental arts does not only show the development of art itself but the advancement of the society as well.

In his written description of what renaissance art is and how it defines the society that existed alongside with it, he presented several indications of development in relation to how art was produced and how it was later on recognized by the society. In this writing, he imposes that art is not a stagnant element, instead it is a matter that specifically takes a stand in relation to the changes occurring in the world from then until the present times of social existence. To note the different aspects of presentation and arguments that Vasari gave specific attention to, some questions are to be responded to as shown in the paragraphs that follow:

Vasari defines the different phases of Renaissance art in terms of an evolution or development (from good to better to best). What pitfalls might be associated with this developmental theory?

Although it is true that an era differs from one to the other through developmental points of progress, it could be assumed that in the form of art that is defined in Vasari’s writing, continuous evolution of development cannot be the only source of art’s progress. Instead, it could be realized that coming back and forth from what has already been accomplished in the past years especially with regards the presentation of artistic elements create a distinctive orientation on what constitutes progress in the said field of human expression. The era of renaissance might have been a time of enlightenment and massive change in the field of art and design. Nevertheless, this does not mean that artists then did not have to go back and pick certain styles that would define their artistic signature. Definitely, going back and forth creates a more refined outcome in the context of artistic presentation. It is not necessary that the development process would be onwards as described by Vasari in his writing.

What five qualities does the author identify as the basis for excellence in the art of his own day (what he calls “modern art”)? What does he mean by each of these qualities?

Vasari applauded the five primary qualities of good artists, which includes good rule, order, proportion, design and style. According to Vasari, the collaborative use of such characteristics or qualities allow artists to define the subject they present to their audience with crisp and specific indication to its beauty, details and the quality of message it hopes to send out to the viewing public. He further adds that the capacity of the artist to seek the specificity of all these elements give the art itself a worth that is valuable enough to make a distinctive impact on how a developmental era in art develops further.

What general contributions and also weaknesses are described in relation to the art of Vasari’s first and second periods?

When it comes to the first period, Vasari describes the era to be rather spontaneous and continuously seeking for ‘something new’ thus implicating to be vastly characterized by development. It could be analyzed that the condition of development that Vasari brings about in his discussion describes how the first period embraced excellence completely while the artists were described to have been applying the five qualities of good artistry. On the other end, the second period fell short of the fact that the continuance of development was hindered by rather more personal interpretation of art. Free as the idealism of the second period is, it welcomed more personal courses of defining artistry, which at some point was not given so much praise by Vasari in his notes.

What change occurred after the second period that allowed later artists to succeed? Why is Michelangelo praised?

Even though Vasari was not that fond of the personalization of art in the second period, he was able to praise particular artists like Michelangelo. The applause given to these artists were specifically accounted for the recognition of the characteristics of good artistry embedded within the creations of the said artist. Understandably, it could be realized that the excellence of Michelangelo’s work was not merely based from personal identification of the art he wants to share, instead, it also represents the most important elements of art during the first period as defined by Vasari.

Overall, the writing of Vasari provides a clear vision on what real art is all about, how it is able to develop and how it could be recognized as successful. Relatively, not all good art are successful; thus not all successful artworks could be considered good. The worth of the art forms created and the meaning they present the society with could only be defined through the manner by which the society accepts their message and interprets their overall worth. From this point, it could then be agreed upon that the being of an artist could be identified through his work and vice versa. This is the reason why the analysis of such works of art does not specifically rely on the five qualities defined by Vasari, instead, it carries into consideration all the other personal characteristics that make up the artist as a person. This way, not only is the art work a sense of representing one’s mind, but also a medium of sharing one’s being to the society. In recognition to this manner of analysis, it could be realized that art should not be seen as a mere form of excellent aesthetics, instead it should serve as the mirror of its creator.

Reference:

Giorgio Vasari. “Preface to Part Three”. Excerpt From Lives of the Artists 2nd ed., 1568.