A Comparison of Paintings Madonna and Child by Lorenzo di Credi and Child in glory by Benvenuto Tisi - Essay Example

Visual Analysis Paper If one takes a look at the human civilization, one can not help noticing that the notion of artplays exceptionally important part in it. In addition to that, it would not be mistake to suggest that the development of art is able to reflect evolution of the humanity in general. This paper will analyze to works of art: the first one is Madonna and Child by Lorenzo di Credi and the second one is titled Madonna and Child in glory by Benvenuto Tisi also known as Il Garofalo. A comparison of the two paintings will prove that in spite of the fact that there is a short time difference, the former artist belonged to the School of Florence and can be seen as a typical representative of Renaissance while the latter articulated a new period which is called Mannerism. Similarities between two paintings To begin with, it may be particularly important to examine the similarities which can be found in the two works of art. First of all, the most obvious point that the two paintings share is colors of the clothes that Mary the Virgin wears. Thus, the authors adhered to the tradition and depicted her wearing old fashion garments, one of which is red and the other is blue. The contrast between these two colors is easily recognizable and is pleasing to the eye. While both authors used red, the intensity of this color is different: on the former picture it is significantly lighter than on the second one. Another point that the two works of art share is the posture of Mary. As one can easily see, she is depicted sitting and looking at her child. It is rather obvious that this composition can be interpreted from different points of view. On the one hand, this kind of posture reflects the biblical story and might be seen as a typical one. On the other hand, it is quite natural for a mother to look at her child while being painted or taken picture of. That is why the general atmosphere of the picture is incredibly humanistic: it depicts behavior of almost real people which contributes to warm perception of it. The third aspect which should be taken into account while considering the similarities between the two pictures is the way the two characters look. It must be noted that they do not look straight at the audience, but down and to the side. The reason why Mary is depicted in such a way can be easily understood: she looks at her son who is smaller than her and is sitting on her laps; that is why, it is natural for her to look down. However, the child also looks down and to the side. There are might be several ways to explain it. According to one of them, people can not have a direct eye contact with God, so the artists decided to depict Jesus Christ looking to the side. Speaking of the reason why He looks down, it can be explained by the fact that the figure of Christ is traditionally put in the upper part of the picture. Finally, there is one more similarity that can be seen between the pictures. Thus, each work of art shows that Mary holds the child. While the way in which the child is held might be different, the contact between her hand and the body of Jesus Christ is an irreplaceable attribute of each of these painting. It may be interpreted as a close connection between mother and son as well as the desire of the former to protect the latter from the dangers of the world. Another point that should be mentioned is that such support of a woman does not diminish the glory of God in any way. Differences in the two paintings In spite of the fact that the two works of art were created only thirty five years apart, they feature a considerable number of differences which is conditioned by the fact that their authors belong to different art movements. The first difference that can be easily observed is the posture of Jesus Christ. The first painting shows Him sitting on the laps of His mother which reflects the canonical scene and is a rather traditional approach towards depiction of this scene. One also might recall that it is rather characteristic for Renaissance to paint people in postures that are quite relaxed. Contrary to the, the second painting shows that Jesus Christ is not only standing, but also uses hand of his mother as a support. There is no doubt that such position can not be called a relaxed one. Indeed, Mannerism, the art movement that Il Garofalo belonged to, is often characterized by depicting of such postures. In other words, the former artistic wanted to create a warm and peaceful atmosphere that would be easily accepted by the audience, while the latter artist tried to create a situation when the viewers would almost feel the effort that a little child makes to stand on the laps of his mother. Keeping this in mind, one might argue that the second picture appears to be depicting a more realistic situation rather then a religious one. The next difference that should be taken into account is the background of the two paintings. In spite of the fact that the main focus is made on the figures of Mary and Christ, the landscape that us depicted along side is also quite important since it contributes to the formation of the general atmosphere of the painting. If one takes a look at the first one, one will be able to see that the landscape in the background resembles pictures in Medieval geography books rather than a real landscape. Indeed, while all the proportions are maintained, one can hardly call this landscape a realistic one. Therefore, the general atmosphere of the painting is perceived in a religious and an abstract key. On the other hand, the second picture also features a landscape in the background; however, the way the author depicted it is completely different. The river, the building, the forest and the mountain are painted in quite realistic manner as if a person was looking out of the window. Indeed, if the former painting features traits of religious art to a certain extent which can be see in numerous aspects, the second painting is praised not only for the religious element, but also accuracy of depiction of the world. This might be seen as a shift of the artist from a more abstract perception as well as depiction of the reality to a more accurate one. If one develops a general understanding of this process, one can not help noting that it reflects the development and evolution of the European culture of the time. Finally, the difference that might serve as a rather characteristic one when the two paintings are compared is the way the each of the authors decided to depict faces of the characters. On the other hand, di Credi painted Mary and Jesus Christ in quite a stereotypical manner. In other words, if one looks for other paintings of Renaissance and especially those which were painted within the School of Florence, one will be able to find numerous similar works. In addition to that, the way Mary is depicted reflects the contemporary idea of beauty: her forehead is clearly disproportional. This is can not be explained by her hair style, not only by the idea that big forehead resembled wisdom, the trait which was largely respected at the time. However, if one takes a look at the second picture, one will be able to see that the faces on it are much more realistic and far less stereotypical if compared to the first one. Indeed, the forehead of Mary painted by Garofalo is much smaller and resembles a real face more. A similar situation is found when the face of the child is examined: in the former instance it features a big forehead, while in the latter one it much more proportionate. This reflects the general tendency to depict people as they are rather than adhering to the traditional patterns that are affected by some stereotypes. Conclusion Having examined all the points that were brought up in the paragraphs above, one is able to come to the following conclusion: two paintings Madonna and Child by Lorenzo di Credi and Madonna and Child in glory by Il Garofalo reflect two different art movements that existed in the beginning of the sixteenth century. Di Credi complied with the principles of the School of Florence and Renaissance in general, while Garofalo was a proponent of the new view which rejected the Renaissance approach to a certain extent. Of the major differences between the two is the extent of realistic depiction that is engaged. Thus, in the first painting the artist complies with the establish patterns while the second artist depicted his characters as well as the background in a much more realistic way. Read More