Michelangelo got his first commission in Bologna: two small statues of saints. He had been studying the human body and found that he liked it above all other subjects. He would have liked to carve a beautiful nude but with a fourth-century saint for a subject that was out of the question. The friars who ran the church wanted two saint statues like all the rest, dressed in long robes and looking saintly—that is, sleepy.
“Well,” he thought, “if I can’t do a nude, I’ll at least try to put some life into the little figures by messing up their habits.”
Folds can show you much of the body underneath a garment and mark its movements. Michelangelo decided he would as good as strip that old saint while leaving his habit on.
He would cover him all over with the reglamentary cloth (well, a little thinner than habits are supposed to be) and a cape too but that didn’t mean the man would be in a straight-jacket. You were going to see through that habit just where the legs were and how they moved. The habit would tell you what was going on underneath it by clinging to some parts and falling off others; by smoothing out over lifted or prominent areas and dropping in folds over recesses. The folds themselves could be made to have a life of their own: springy, swinging, falling, lying in great, relaxed rings. You could make them do capricious things like double over or bunch up so that they bother a pretty sense of order, like a boy’s cowlick or a disobedient flap of a bedspread. You could give the folds a rhythm, like the ripples in a lake. You could show them flying—still in the air after the movement that preceded them. You could do all kinds of things.
St. Petronius (height 64 cm.) In the Basilica of San Domenico, Bologna.
All in all, when the Petronius was finished, in spite of Michelangelo’s fold-work, it looked pretty much like just any of the saints in churches everywhere, except it was more restless.
For the other saint—the Proculus—Michelangelo made up his mind he was going to have things much more his way.
Michelangelo’s Jogging Saint
St. Proculus (height 59 cm.) In the Basilica of St. Domenico, Bologna
St. Proculus is almost comically—cartoonishly—alive. No habit on this little saint: he’s wearing the clothes of a contemporary Renaissance youth. And there are so many folds and wrinkles in his clothes and so much nervous movement everywhere that he is tiring to look at. He might almost be jogging. Rather than a saint, he looks like a young gallant ready for adventure; and the scowl, which is of course an ancestor of the frown of the great David, makes one suppose he is about to throw off that cape and run to avenge himself, dagger in hand.
Michelangelo couldn’t keep still. He couldn’t make a statue that kept still. He wanted the stone man to come alive, to seem to act.
Sculptors since way back in Greek times had been looking for ways to do that. A man standing stiffly with both feet together, such as it would be natural to carve out of a wooden pole or a stone pillar, is lifeless. That was all right for an idol, like the Egyptian idols or Indian or African totems, which are really just symbols; but now that the sculptor was trying to give you a man, a flesh and blood man, that kind of stiffness wasn’t good enough. Life is movement, tension, variety.
..
Awesome – just painting folds is difficult and tedious for me.
How old was he when sculpted these? Very interesting to compare to his later style. Had he stayed with this style, we would not recognize his name today. Although the signs of his robust style are starting to surface on the second one’s legs and face. And the folds on the first one are excellent. I haven ‘t seen these ones before, so it’s very exciting to see the development of a genius.
Erika: He was nineteen. Two years later he did the Bacchus and four years later, the Pietà.
Such a short answer about Michelangelo, Swallows? I can’t believe it. :) And it’s kinda quiet over here too. I guess it’s summertime.
Hi Erika:
I guess that was a shorty, wasn’t it? Didn’t mean to sound moody. I’m using my time to read instead of write. I did start to feel I was living off my capital. Right now I’m reading Goya’s letters and also trying to get the start of the Second Punic War clear.
How about you?
Come on now! I want to hear what you think of young Michelangelo. You’re not moody. Even when you disagree, you do it so politely. Would he still be the divine Michelangelo with this style? The other day I saw a documentary about Riga. What a beautiful city, with sculptures galore. There were dozens and dozens sculptures there just as good as these.
But he was just a kid, Erika, divine or not! He hadn’t yet found his style. I will look at Riga now but I’ll bet those “dozens” of as-good statues were made by finished masters and not by boys nineteen. And the masters had all had the benefit of 500 years of statue-making by artists who each tried to turn the world upside-down. Also, he couldn’t do what he wanted do but what he was ordered to do. It was bold enough of him to turn St. Proculus into a sort of Julien Sorel, don’t you think? I’m surprised the monks paid him. And even his Petronius–that fiesta of folds–must have puzzled the prior.
In my opinion this kid (Michelangelo) is going places.
Bill: At art schools they used to teach drapery. In his nineteenth-century guide to sculptors, Lanteri devotes about a fourth of one of the three volumes to drapery. Students had to copy many kinds of cloth, arranging wet drapery on plaster and real models, and then come up with their own drapery in graceful folds. Of course those Renaissance artists all studied it too. There are drapery studies by both Michelangelo and Leonardo.
I agree with what you say, Swallows. I don’t know if I can explain this: there are many masters with extraordinary talent and skills, but only a few geniuses. I once received copies of ink drawings of a young boy, maybe 9, who produced amazing surrealist works. “This boy is a genius” – I thought. In 10 years he will be the new Dali. Much much later looked up his name. It turned out he became a graphic designer. So what is that eluding “thing” that makes a genius? These statues are wonderful, and the Bacchus is too, but not masterpieces. And then two short years later he carves the Pieta, the first masterpiece of a genius. What happened between the Bacchus and Pieta?
Great description! Particularily liked all you can tell us about folds and drapery…and then looking at St.Petronius again.
I then remembered having read kind of an essay about the way Botticelli renders folds in comparison with other painters. Must have been Aldous Huxley in his book “The Doors of Perception”.
Thanks, rich. I’ll have to check up on that Huxley. There is an angel dress–I don’t know if it was the creation of Botticelli but it was typically his–a long angel gown with a great billow of cloth between a cincture under the breast and the hips–that everyone imitated for a long time when they did angels. I saw it in Verrocchio; I even saw it in Leonardo.
What I would like to know is what was the REACTION to his finished sculptures? Were the people who paid for them pleased with his interpretation? I think they are magnificent; but did the patrons think so?
Madame Monet
Writing, Painting, Music, and Wine
winewriter.wordpress.com