The Dissection Of Humanism: Opening Up Renaissance Art

          As both a product and part of culture, art acts as mirror to the society that created it. When culture changes, generally so does art. As the Byzantine Empire began to crumble in the late-14^th to early 15^th centuries, Italy became the home of classic Greek and Roman writings and the scholars that broke translational traditions that made the works difficult to understand.¹ Those works reignited a spark of learning that was captured by the artists' hands, a reflection frozen in time. In this paper I will argue that Renaissance artists used the humanist ideals of their day to radically depart the Medieval traditions of the art world. I will do this by first showing why it is necessary to limit the meaning the of now-fattened “humanism” term down to something closer to what was understood in the Renaissance. Then I will show that the narrowed definition is clearly visible in the art itself.

          The term “humanism” has gained various meanings over the years including many from different philosophic, ethical, political, secular, and religious schools of thought.² It is close to becoming an umbrella term that can contain notions that confuse the nature of the topic being discussed. By that I mean that what can be properly called “humanistic” might be human-centric, the study of the modern concepts of the humanities, or more simply classicism (the study of the art of ancient Greece and Rome).³ Lest ideas from modernity be improperly conveyed into topics to which they have no business being associated, before beginning a discussion about humanism in the art of antiquity and the Renaissance, it is necessary to separated the exact meaning intended by the use of “humanism” in this context.

          If the artist was unable to gain an understanding of the inner workings of the body, then the lack of knowledge would be reflected in the art world. If that is the case, then it would be reasonable to claim that there was a loss of general observational knowledge about human anatomy, much like the loss of other traditions in the Greek and Roman writings. When the field of anatomy was enlivened, that too would be reflected by the artist. It seems an easy argument to make when comparing depictions of the human form in Medieval art to those found in Renaissance art.⁴ However, that conclusion would be a mistake, and one that relies on a non-classicist concept of humanism, specifically the humanities.

          Under the modern concept of the “Humanities”, an education will be broad and cover a number of subjects that use “analytic and critical methods of inquiry derived from an appreciation of human values”.⁵ If the Medieval or Renaissance artist was chiefly using direct observations of the human body for want of Classical medical knowledge, then a loss of anatomical accuracy could be blamed on prohibitions about dissections, or a lack of access to the medical arts. The latter option must be discounted as during the Renaissance public dissections became “expensive social functions” that required special papal indulgence, and university decrees.⁶ However, they also gained a theatrical aspect including band music, the eventual building of “anatomic theaters”, and a kind of regular trade in bodies suitable for dissection.⁷

          The former option, prohibitions on dissections, while conflicting with documented social functions, also lacks general Historical evidence. The closest “sign of a general (or even common) prohibition concerning the opened corpse” is the 1300 bull of Boniface VIII that only prohibited “boiling the flesh off the bones in order to allow them to be more easily transported for distant burial.”⁸ Beyond that, Italian records of dissections date back to at least the 1280s, and postmortem inspection of organs was, in some cases, part of the Church's investigations of candidates for sainthood.⁹ The insides of a body were directly observed by the Church in the Medieval period, and were publicly displayed by anatomists in the Renaissance. Even before the fall of Constantinople, it was likely that artists could view anatomy on at least an irregular basis. By the late 1400s Leonardo da Vinci was “working with cadavers obtained from hospitals in Florence, Rome, and apparently Milan.”¹⁰

          With over 750 detailed sketches of a wide variety of anatomical subjects, Leonardo “taught painters and sculptors that a scientific knowledge of the artistic anatomy – something quite different from the Greek sculptor's instinctive knowledge of the nude figure in action and repose – can be gained only at the dissection table.”¹¹ Not only was his new artistic approach to the recording of his observations quite different than other artists, but it was also unheard of among the anatomists. When the early Renaissance medical experts recorded their observations, they did so in the style of “purely traditional, servile copies from manuscript sketches of the past, with some little superadded touches here and there.”¹²

          With this, it might seem that I have contradicted myself, that the artist's hands had captured the loss of knowledge, and Leonardo captured the reemergence of the field: I have not. Because the artist's potential access to the body predates the Renaissance, and there were no effective prohibitions on opening a corpse, direct observation was possible. Even the anatomists followed a tradition of copying manuscripts instead of increasing the accuracy of their drawing according to what they saw. While there was a general lack of accurately recorded knowledge, there was no general loss of knowledge. So, the knowledge could have been available to the Medieval artist, and the connection between what is shown in the art and what the artist could have known is suspect. We have to eliminate the modern “humanities” element from of the definition of “humanism”.¹³ It is not likely that the influx of Byzantine-preserved ancient thinking came with special anatomical information. Instead, we have artists like Leonardo inventing what would become the cross-discipline thinking modern humanities. For the remainder of this paper, I will abandon the use of the muddled “humanism” and all of its modern trappings, in favor of “classicism” in the Renaissance era.¹⁴

          In order to demonstrate classicism in Renaissance art, consider the effects of a courtyard filled with Classical Greek works of art on display in the Vatican, thanks to Julius II, where Michelangelo Buonarroti was known to spend time examining them, sketchpad in hand.¹⁵ Among those works was Athanadoros', Hagesandros', and Polydoros' of Rhodes Laocoön and His Sons.¹⁶ Michelangelo's “boundless admiration for the sculptors of antiquity” shown through not only his drawings, but in his following Florentine sculptural project of 1501, David.¹⁷

          After the Greek sculptor Polykleitos had given form to the so-called perfect beauty (called by Pliny the Elder, “art itself”) in the work he named Canon, c.450-440 BCE, which modernity calls Doryphoros (Spear Bearer), Greek statues mimicked both the proportions and the anatomical nature of the contrapposto-standing statue.¹⁸ The form of the nude male is rendered with details of a muscular frame, although some exaggeration produces bulging love-handles, sunken hips and a slight potbelly along with the muscular definition of the torso.¹⁹ Four or five hundred years later, the anatomical features of the marble Laocoön show a far more detailed depiction of the muscular structures, retaining similar proportions, but replace the balanced stillness and motion of Canon with anguish, action, and struggle of the Trojan priest.²⁰ The partially seated Laocoön holds fast to a massive serpent with his left hand while wrenching his upper body and lunging from his left foot away from the fangs. The serpent's fangs have already struck deep, and the length of its body loops and enwraps the three nude males, seeming to constrict the entire horrific scene. Laocoön's clearly defined rib cage juts forward and his taught muscles nearly seem to ripple under the strain.

          The Florentine that slew “the Giant”, the nickname of the block of marble from which Michelangelo's 17'-tall David was carved, took form a millennium and a half after Laocoön, between 1501-04.²¹ The giant had been resting for 60 years before Michelangelo took on the project, which had been abandoned in the workshop of the first artist to receive the commission.²² Like Canon, David stands with the right half of his body seeming to be at rest, and the left half nearly moving, with his weight shifted to his right hip.²³ While Canon looks slightly to the right of his center, David gazes down the line of his shoulders to the left. The veins on his enlarged right hand budge and the bones of his left hand are clearly visible. From his clavicle upward, each muscle in his neck visibly strains. His rib cage is discernible, but is overlaid by and intertwined with the powerful musculature in his torso. As Laocoön increased in detail from Canon, so David's anatomical detailing increased from Laocoön.

          There had been a long absence of the artist nude male, having only recently been reintroduced by Donato di Niccolo Bardi, better known as Donatello, in his c.1440-1460 bronze rendition of David.²⁴ His David nearly serves as “Canon” to Michelangelo's “Laocoön”: the anatomical elements are suggested in the earlier work, but the latter is render in far greater detail.²⁵ In the interim between the two Renaissance artists, the Vatican's courtyard was filled with statues from antiquity, and more than 750 corpses had been meticulously dissected and painstakingly drawn. Michelangelo himself was known to perform dissections, and some suggest that his previous depiction of Christ's anguish was made more realistic because the artist murdered a potter to watch the death.²⁶ Whether or not the rumors of foul play for art's sake can be believed, it is clear that a fundamental “something” had changed between the beginning of the Renaissance, and Michelangelo.

          It is tempting to claim that “something” is humanism, and it would be in vogue with both modern historians, and perhaps even with the Renaissance learned. The application of that now-fattened umbrella term amounts to hand waving, and comes close to sophistry. It is Canon to Laocoön, Donatello's David to Michelangelo's. The right ideological elements are there, but we need to dissect it to see what really should be inside. The love of antique statuary that was mutually shared by Julius II and Michelangelo is best and most accurately called “classicism”. The study Michelangelo unquestionably undertook of Greek and Roman statues is immediately visible in his work. That alone is not sufficient to explain the “something” that changed. While the Greek and Roman knowledge, transmitted to Italy at the fall of Constantinople, surely played some part which sowed the seeds of the future humanities, the quake that rocked the Medieval medical, scientific, and artistic traditions was Leonardo da Vinci. And that was something completely new.

Bibliography

Athanadoros, Hagesandros, and Polydoros of Rhodes. “Laocoön and His Sons.” Marble, early first century CE (Musei Vaticani, Rome). In Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, 3^rd ed., by Fred Kleiner, Figure 2-59. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013.

Bell, Jordan. “Modus Tollens.” MathWorld—A Wolfram Web Resource. Last modified March 20, 2014. Accessed March 26, 2014. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModusTollens.html.

British Museum Company. The Drawing of Michelangelo. Narrated by Neil MacGregor. 2005. New York: Films Media Group. Streaming video. URL: http://digital.films.com/play/S8M27B.

Buonarroti, Michelangelo. “David.” Marble, 1501-1504 (Galleria dell'Accademia, Florance). In Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, 3^rd ed., by Fred Kleiner, Figure 9-9. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013.

"Classicism and Neoclassicism." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed March 20, 2014. http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/EBchecked/topic/120317/Classicism.

Donatello. “David.” Bronze, c.1440-1460 (Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florance). In Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, 3^rd ed., by Fred Kleiner, Figure 8-20. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013.

Garrison, Fielding. An Introduction to the History of Medicine with Medical Chronology Bibliographic Data and Test Questions. Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saunders Company, 1914. PDF e-book.

"Humanism." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed March 20, 2014. http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/EBchecked/topic/275932/humanism.

"Humanities." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed March 26, 2014. http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/EBchecked/topic/276026/humanities.

Kleiner, Fred. Gardner's Art Through the Ages, 3^rd ed. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013.

Park, Katharine. “The Criminal and the Saintly Body: Autopsy and Dissection in Renaissance Italy.” Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Spring, 1994): 10, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2863109.

Polykleitos. “Doryphoros (Spear Bearer).” Marble, Roman copy of a bronze original, c. 450-440 BCE (Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples). In Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, 3^rd ed., by Fred Kleiner, Figure 2-35. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013.

The Power of the Past, with Bill Moyers: Florence. Films On Demand. 1990. New York: Films Media Group. Streaming video. URL: http://digital.films.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=18623&xtid=44390.

1 See the sections “The 14^th Century” and “The 15^th Century” from: "Humanism," Encyclopædia Britannica Online, accessed March 20, 2014, http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/EBchecked/topic/275932/humanism.

2 "Humanism," Encyclopædia Britannica Online, accessed March 20, 2014, http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/EBchecked/topic/275932/humanism.

3 For the types of “humanism” see “Other Uses” under "Humanism," Encyclopædia Britannica Online, accessed March 20, 2014, http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/EBchecked/topic/275932/humanism.

For Classicism see: "Classicism and Neoclassicism," Encyclopædia Britannica Online, accessed March 20, 2014, http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/EBchecked/topic/120317/Classicism.

4 This was my honestly held belief and the line of argumentation that I set out to prove when beginning my research. I was not able to find any creditable historians that make this argument, but Katharine Park mentions key elements of the alleged prohibitions on dissection in her paper, calling it a myth on par with “the flat-earth” (pg. 4). She, at length, demonstrates that it is a falsely-held modern belief about History.

5 "Humanities," Encyclopædia Britannica Online, accessed March 26, 2014, http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/EBchecked/topic/276026/humanities.

6 Fielding Garrison, An Introduction to the History of Medicine with Medical Chronology Bibliographic Data and Test Questions (Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saunders Company, 1914), 168.

7 Ibid., 168.

8 Katharine Park, “The Criminal and the Saintly Body: Autopsy and Dissection in Renaissance Italy,” Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Spring, 1994): 10, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2863109.

9 Ibid., 2-3.

10 Ibid., 16.

11 Garrison, 149.

12 Ibid., 145.

13 For clarity sake, here I make repeated use of Modus Tollens, which is a very basic argument form in the discipline of Logic. If the artist can't gain an anatomical understanding, then it is reflected in the art. If there is a reflected lack of knowledge, then there is a loss of general observational knowledge. If the lack of knowledge comes from a loss of direct observation, then it might be caused by either a lack of access or prohibitions on the practice. There was access, and there was no effective prohibitions; therefore, direct observation was possible. Therefore, there is no lack of general observational knowledge. Therefore, it is not the case that the reflection is of a lack of knowledge. Therefore, it is not the case that the artists could not gain an anatomical understanding. For a very brief explanation of M.T., see: Jordan Bell, “Modus Tollens,” MathWorld—A Wolfram Web Resource, last modified March 20, 2014, accessed March 26, 2014, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModusTollens.html.

14 I will acknowledge that the “human-centric” option is still live, but it seems that the application of that kind of secular thinking ought not to mesh as well with religious art as it widely did. I forgo that effort because it would take a significantly greater amount of space.

15 British Museum Company, The Drawing of Michelangelo, narrated by Neil MacGregor, (2005; New York: Films Media Group), streaming video, 09:26-10:05.

16 Ibid., 10:20-10:27.

17 Ibid., 11:57-12:22.

18 Fred Kleiner, Gardner's Art Through the Ages, 3^rd ed., (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 68.

19 Polykleitos, “Doryphoros (Spear Bearer),” marble Roman copy of a bronze original, c. 450-440 BCE (Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples). In Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, 3^rd ed., by Fred Kleiner, Figure 2-35. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 68.

20 For background information, see: Kleiner, 84. For the work of art, see: Athanadoros, Hagesandros, and Polydoros of Rhodes, “Laocoön and His Sons,” marble, early first century CE (Musei Vaticani, Rome). In Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, 3^rd ed., by Fred Kleiner, Figure 2-59. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 68.

21 Ibid., 266.

22 The Power of the Past, with Bill Moyers: Florence, Films On Demand, (1990; New York: Films Media Group), streaming video, 01:11:58-01:12:51.

23 Michelangelo Buonarroti, “David,” marble, 1501-1504 (Galleria dell'Accademia, Florance). In Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, 3^rd ed., by Fred Kleiner, Figure 9-9. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 266.

24 Kleiner, 238-239.

25 Donatello, “David,” bronze, c.1440-1460 (Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florance). In Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, 3^rd ed., by Fred Kleiner, Figure 8-20. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 238.

26 Park, 19.