Michelangelo

Michelangelo stands tall among the most prestigious and acclaimed Italian experts of the Renaissance period, both in his own time and as modern-day examples of craftsmanship. The David statue and the Sistine Chapel frescoes are two of the most convincing works that have influenced the reach of craftsmanship and have remained the finest (Keizer 305). Without a question, considering the extent Michelangelo gave to the world of art, the Renaissance growth in Europe and Italy would have been uneventful if he had not been a part of it. Conceived in 1475 6 of March and demised 89 years after, Michelangelo was a talented and adept Florentine individual in various zones of workmanship, including being an artist, engineer, painter, and stone carver. Described as one of the best of all circumstances in craftsmanship, he impacted western art altogether (Hornik 453). Therefore, other than discussing the paintings and sculptures of Michelangelo; the Sculpture of David, the Sistine Chapel painting, and the Adam sculpture, it is as well imperative to outline the relation with its architectural, social, economic, political, and historical contexts, as well as the related aesthetics of art.

Michelangelo was an incredibly young craftsman by 1501 when he was appointed with the fathers of Florence, constrained by the energy of the capacity he could convey, to shape the loved statue of David. Very motivated by the old Greek artistry, much the same as numerous specialists, Michelangelo blossomed with this topic of Christianity, aside from that he went a step higher, past the capacities of his peers. By and large, despite the fact that he was a staunch Catholic, he opposed the social and conventional religion focused painting, and his veering into familiar subjects of art is the thing that activated ability in numerous various specialists to advance what they knew best in the train. Subsequently, the humanist development that described the medieval period in Europe amid the Renaissance was motivated by such brassy endeavors from Michelangelo (Hornik 456). However, most intriguing is the capacity of Michelangelo not be made a divine being, yet instead, to making a saint out of marble into an unending man, the sculpture of David, which was an understanding of the male Greek legend of Renaissance standing bare.

The aspects of beauty, taste, as well as art, are pertinent to the philosophical study of aesthetics, which in uniformity are inclined toward recognize the measure and significance of beauty in art. Both the sensory-emotional and the subjective values otherwise referred to as the judgments of taste and sentiment are critical components of aesthetics in the art (Kirwan 15). Nevertheless, following the evolution of the human aspects of social life, aesthetics too has been changing in meaning, and currently the phrase has a broader meaning in its definition; whereby apparently aesthetics in art encompass not only the elements of culture and nature but also the critical reflection on the subject of art (Friedrich 35). The term aesthetics was coined and first used in the ninetieth century by one Alexander Baumgarten, the German philosopher, and in the then context it meant the appreciation of beauty and the principles of nature that embrace and critically demystify visual art. Nevertheless, philosophically arguing, aesthetics in art had been used by Michelangelo and his peers in their time, and it refers to the artistic taste and beauty embodied in such genre. In this relation, many British artists who lived in the twentieth century including one Richard Hamilton had a lot to deliver when it comes to aesthetics in art. Richard Hamilton cherished and thrived significantly in the pop art, as at all times he remained focused, determined and visionary about the genre. Indeed, Michelangelo did a lot about the art industry by laying the background and made the aesthetic art an admirable element of art, considering the feeling he caused in his audience and the emotional attraction he spurred among his contemporaries in his Florence and beyond (Friedrich 231). At a critical look, it is evidenced by scholarly data that Michelangelo was the most acclaimed figure in aesthetic art, and he was such expanded in his business, transformations in culture and traditional beliefs, utilized mass production, as well as being witty in life.

The city of Florence had a compromised leadership, with its security at stake following the constant attacks from neighboring dynasties. Therefore, the creation of the statue of David would allude to the biblical defiant young man by the same name, and this was a clear demonstration of the new courage, defiance, and the audacity in the willingness to meet the any under any circumstances. While most artists who had depicted David in their art focused on the icon after he slew Goliath, which had become a unique tradition in the industry, Michelangelo decided to apply an all distinctive approach; he chose to design the statue of David, just before he could meet the giant enemy (Keizer 308). The essence of this timing was very critical because then it would bring out the true meaning of the anxiety that characterized the moment.

In revelation, Michelangelo through his art had the power to launch a new phase of human thought and experience in how difficult and challenging situations were to be handled in life about its architectural, social, economic, political, and historical contexts. It was then clear that humanity was not cowed away from the imminent challenges, rather, devising ways out of diversity, and not yielding to the paralysis that anxiety imposes and fear it subjects people to, instead, rising outside of the crowd and defending one's position was a paradigm shift that marked the new beginning. The right hand of the statue as was architecture by Michelangelo was relatively more significant than the left arm, a show of the might, the willingness, and the potential that was in phase, to soon inscribe a signature of hope before humanity, curve a new trajectory to trickle down in history in lieu of fiction, and this would control and deliver the shape and the new destiny of the newfangled world (Hornik 455). In essence, Michelangelo had no interest in carving the best portray of marble to depict the iconic David, instead, he was focused on delivering a new hope, vision, and a formidable vision for civilization which had faced threats for the last one hundred decades, without making tangible progress beyond superstition. Therefore, the statue of David after the artistic touch by Michelangelo gave rise to a new Europe, a continent that marked its development from dark ages since then to a more robust architectural, social, economic, political, and historical contexts. Perhaps this confirms the reason as to why Michelangelo is configured as the father of Renaissance. Therefore, other than being an indispensable embodiment of leadership, Michelangelo was an icon that shaped the realities of the new world, and ushered in a distinctively new epoch to define the future that runs in the modern day, not only continental Europe but beyond. Indeed, David was a magnificent piece of art whose influential sparks radiated their impact up to as far as the western society lasting into the present day world (Anirudh 5).

In 1508, Michelangelo single-handedly offered to paint the Sistine and the altar wall of the Vatican chapel. He did a lot in the preceding four years, as by then he had painted over 400 life-sized biblical figures while lying on his back and using the most sophisticated medium of fresco painting. Even though this could appear unheard of, what is even more perplexing is the unique touch of content he tailored to mirror every single presentation of the biblical scenes he worked on tirelessly (Deimling 244). All the bodies were full of life, proportional, and well presented, as he did not only sculpt, but he also did the painting to obtain an all refined product, appealing to all eyes, even that that recognized the least principles of art. Though during the dark ages the Christian art was what mattered and characterized the culture of art, Michelangelo`s work was to mark a new phase in the industry. The European art was revolutionized, given a new meaning, and reinvigorated to a different level, as was influenced by Michelangelo`s painting of the Sistine Chapel (Deimling 245). The painting of Adam is a fresco that is very magnificent in the chapel, as it tells volumes about the original creation of God, the human person. The figure is a show of Adam and God almost reaching his hand, a figurative portrayal that depicts the closeness and the vivid communication that so candidly defined the times in antiquity. Below are the paintings and sculptures of Michelangelo; figure 1, 2, and 3 the Sculpture of David, The Sistine Chapel painting, and The Adam sculpture respectfully;

Figure 1



Sculpture of David by Anirudh 2015

Figure 2



The Sistine Chapel painting by Anirudh 2015

Figure 3

The Adam sculpture by Anirudh 2015

When it comes to the Scholarly Concepts Michelangelo on Aesthetics in Art Diction, and the correct use of language, as well as painting, have always been the primary challenge experienced by scholars to appropriately define what aesthetic in the art should be well perceived. Despite the lack of perfect abilities to make the aesthetic description a more perfect and empirical portray of art, it remains cardinal that the judgment should not be compromised and hence should remain more intuitive across the text and at all levels. Indeed, it has been confirmed across millennia that the segment of aesthetics is very paramount to any piece of art, and that beauty, art, and taste are irresistible inseparable in its exploration. For instance, based on the argumentative presentations in the paint by Michelangelo; both the common human truth and the atmosphere of a subject beauty in the experience of judgment should be embraced while redefining the authenticity in the discipline of aesthetics in the art (Kirwan 23). Moreover, on the contrary, Arthur Schopenhauer asserts that the critical analysis and presentation of aesthetic art should be characterized with phenomenal beauty in its freest and pure human intellect, hence the beauty in entirety therein (Kirwan 12). In essence, through the practical scrutiny of the aesthetics of art, the discipline of art is lifted to a superior platform of human caption and hence the ease of understanding as the eventual embrace by the human emotion based on the work Michelangelo did in Florence.

Indeed, the artwork that is aesthetically interesting is the painting culture by one Michelangelo. When he came into the limelight, there was a lot of controversy in his time, as to whether art was to be commercialized or to be distinct and held as separate from business (Grimes 19). Nevertheless, Michelangelo was a tough, highly sophisticated, experienced, and well-exposed person, who through his talent and experience compelled his peers and his audience to be capable of appreciating diversity and a multifaceted approach. He was capable of convincing the society that the commercial approach was such a lucrative and indispensable mechanism for making the field of art thrive and hit new heights like never before. Indeed, based on scholarly evidence, there has not been witnessed such a massive experience of artistic influence in Florence in the industry to date (Kirwan 14). It is true that while Michelangelo lived and even posthumously, his art of painting did not only reach the levels of a massive movement but also remained to be a way of life among the different communities that count his contribution as exceedingly phenomenal. He bound his audience to embrace popular culture, whereby immersion in art. Michelangelo was capable of technically orchestrating and paving the way for the bridging the gap between consumer culture and high art, considering his towering and unmatched alignment (Grimes 19). Based on this critical scrutiny, reason evidently dictates that just like any other refined artist who showed versatility and full command of what they knew best in the industry, Michelangelo was no mean icon when it came to his abilities to delivering not only quality but also what was deemed as relevant for the moment it pumped into his diverse audience (Rueger 365).

Furthermore, Michelangelo acted as the platform, a background upon which other artists came up in the industry. Many developed their respective careers from aping and embracing what Michelangelo taught them through his aesthetics as part of his audience. Michelangelo was such an icon in the art industry and his outstanding position in how well he did what the audience needed perhaps explain in volumes why he projects that meaning that painting art undoubtedly originated from Florence (Grimes 19). Michelangelo was among the daring young architects, artists, and critics in Florence, who came out boldly and with passion, to claim the new role of visual arts in the training of that finest artist to uphold, including household appliances (Guyer 135). The aesthetic value of Michelangelo`s art that made it even more fascinating that some of the core ideas he utilized were imported from the contemporary culture of the day. He assaulted other themes of art to come up with a new touch of the ultimate beauty of the industry, that is so phenomenal in his art of imagery (Rueger 364).

There was a lot based on the arguments made by scholars in need for the demystification of aesthetics in the art which was entailed in reaching this decision that made art by Michelangelo in Florence be acclaimed as one of the most aesthetically interesting artwork. While many consider the judgment of beauty and taste as the core of aesthetics in art, Michelangelo is very phenomenal in his express arguments that sense of taste surpasses all forms of aesthetic art scrutiny. While considering the contribution of the British sentimentalist in the traditional antiquity, Kant argues that both universality and subjectivity are indispensable elements that could characterize the judgment of taste in an artwork (Guyer 135). By subjectivity, Kant alludes to the inevitable feeling of either pleasure of displeasure, or even a mix of the two while interacting with a given piece of art. Therefore, subjectivity distinguishes empirical judgment from the judgment of taste. While the judgment of test could be of not only nature but also test, both beauty and ugliness are key aspects therein. Other than the elements above, while scrutinizing Michelangelo`s artwork for critical judgment, the aspect of normativity arises in his aesthetics. Indeed, Kant notes that the aspect of universal validity is core and the ultimate platform to acquire while dealing with the pleasure and beauty principal, hence the evidenced special elements of the judgment of taste in Michelangelo`s Florence art (Kaizen 113). On the other hand, the elements of normativity and pleasure emerge as the litmus test for the judgment of taste in Michelangelo`s art. This is because the prediction of the beauty of this art without necessarily making a reflection on the pertinent responses would be meaningless. Consequently, the attention and influence his art spurred in his audience are very key when it comes to the analogy of Kant in his judgments (Shaviro 199). Therefore, both the perceptions of taste and the empirical judgments portray both the inner and external responses that paint a picture of the beauty or ugliness of Michelangelo`s art.

In conclusion, therefore, Michelangelo thrived in the Florentine art and constituted what made his work the most aesthetic of the time. He broke down the orthodox distinctions between high and popular culture, individuality as well as mass production in the art industry. Furthermore, the inception of works like sculpture and painting then helped a great deal in boosting the energies put in place by other artists to critically and charismatically factor out the domain of his position in art. Michelangelo used many art platforms to come to the top of art culture, including religious and communal arena among others. The strategy was to hit a wide audience and very first, to overcome any come pressure that could so hold him behind at the moment. Perhaps it could be noted that then, Michelangelo had taken a new approach, and what he was trying to put across was a new recipe. The reception of his content was unprecedented, and hence the need for him to must have come up with full energy, a natural and opportunistic momentum that even propelled him further. The other strategic mechanism Michelangelo embraced to make his art the most desirable was accessibility, the prices of his products were conveniently regulated, so that those who could not understand the painting and sculpturing culture of art he generated at relatively expensive prices had the products at affordable prices, hence increasing access to his audience and wielding convenience and fame in his favor. Everything was new and diverse in the pieces of art presented by Michelangelo. He made sure that both object and subject became one thing in the industry (Wenzel 2). By so doing, it became a core strategizing move that worked vehemently in his favor. The visual and audial entities of his presentation were maximized on what the audience could perceive as neutrality. Therefore, the art of Michelangelo was the most aesthetic in his time. Notwithstanding, he towered above his contemporaries not only in Florence but also in his European home turf, and this gave him an opportunistic bearing in the industry that worked to his advantage in eventuality. The subject of aesthetics in the art thus comes out conspicuous in the art of Michelangelo.



Works Cited

Anirudh. “10 Most Famous Works By Michelangelo _ Learnodo Newtonic.” 2015: 1–15. Web.

Deimling, Barbara. “Early Renaissance Art in Florence and Central Italy.” The Art of the Italian Renaissance: Architecture, Sculpture, Painting, Drawing. N.p., 1995. 244–246. Print.

Friedrich, Wilhelm. “Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775—1854)lling, F.” 2014: 1–890. Web.

Grimes, William. “Richard Hamilton, British Painter And a Creator of Pop Art, Dies at 89.” New York Times (2011): 19. Web.

Guyer, Paul. “Review: Kant and the Ends of Aesthetics.” Mind 111.442 (2002): 363–366. Web.

Hornik, Heidi J. “Michelangelo and the Reform of Art.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 27.4 (2000): 452–456. Web.

Kaizen, William R. “Richard Hamilton’s Tabular Image.” October 94 (2000): 113. Web.

Keizer, Joost. “Michelangelo, Drawing, and the Subject of Art.” Art Bulletin 93.3 (2011): 304–324. Web.

Kirwan, James. The Aesthetic in Kant. N.p., 2006. 1-78 Web.

Rueger, Alexander. “Kant and the Aesthetics of Nature.” British Journal of Aesthetics 2007: 138–155. Web.

Shaviro, Steven. “Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics.” Common Knowledge. Vol. 17. N.p., 2011. 198–199. Web.

Wenzel, Christian Helmut. An Introduction to Kant’s Aesthetics: Core Concepts and Problems., 2008. 1-88 Web.



Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Receive Paper In 3 Hours
Calculate the Price
275 words
First order 15%
Total Price:
$38.07 $38.07
Calculating ellipsis
Hire an expert
This discount is valid only for orders of new customer and with the total more than 25$
This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Get Price