The Humanists rebuild Rome, and in the process, create one of the most eternal, persevering cities in history. To look upon Rome today is to see a conglomeration of ancient Roman Architecture and modern buildings; a lovely hodge-podge (yeah, it's a word.) of styles from many different eras. It's all spelled out very rosily in this week's reading, but I'm glad to see that they mention the financial aspect of this rebuilding and cultural growth. Can't rebuild a city without money, of course, and nobody would see any kind of significant cultural growth or rebuilding until the income of the city was constant and fairly secure.
Another big thing we see in this text is the contribution of many different political factions and schools of thought coming together to rebuild. We see Humanist writers, artists, members of the papacy, all contributing to the new, Renaissance Roma. But even so, the Humanists managed to come to be the predominant authority in both the written and spoken word. In a society that so revered it's written texts, this wasn't all that surprising. They really managed to create a sort of educational curriculum, where sometimes men (not, not really women. Don't act surprised by that.) of modest wealth could work and improve a somewhat modest social standing. Keep in mind I typed somewhat, as the Humanists were still a bit classist, and if you hadn't mastered the Latin, you were kinda screwed, fluidity of social standing it 15th and 16th century Rome notwithstanding.
Despite this, there was also an ambitious project by the Humanists to encapsulate this ancient style of writing and recording, and sort of morph it to suit Humanist writings at the time. To do this, they looked to ancient writings and architecture. Through this, we see the establishment of news schools and libraries; places where knowledge could be actively sought and drawn from. Pretty cool.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
Leonardo and Anatomy
Leonardo Da Vinci is one of my favorite Renaissance artists, hands down. I know he's very well known and that's a very standard choice, but I really don't care. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more brilliant, if flighty, mind anywhere. His anatomical sketches and studies have always been the most fascinating to me; this brilliant man rending apart the mysteries of the human body and replicating his findings in such a detailed manner in his books has always been a wonderful sort of image for me. A bit romanticized, but still wonderful.
I believe that the church held issue with his anatomical studies at the time, stating that the mysteries of the body were only for God to know, or some nonsense. Whatever. You can't halt learning, I say, and this dissent didn't halt Leonardo by any means. I believe that his dissections and sketches were originally done as a means to further his ability to portray figures in his art, but eventually developed into an entirely separate area of study for him, but you can still see that an artist captured these forms. He was a confident artist and a brilliant scientific mind, and his anatomical sketches furthered study of the human body and set a standard for all artists studying the human body to come. You go, Leonardo, you go.
I believe that the church held issue with his anatomical studies at the time, stating that the mysteries of the body were only for God to know, or some nonsense. Whatever. You can't halt learning, I say, and this dissent didn't halt Leonardo by any means. I believe that his dissections and sketches were originally done as a means to further his ability to portray figures in his art, but eventually developed into an entirely separate area of study for him, but you can still see that an artist captured these forms. He was a confident artist and a brilliant scientific mind, and his anatomical sketches furthered study of the human body and set a standard for all artists studying the human body to come. You go, Leonardo, you go.
The Humanists
So, Humanism. The Humanists had quite the interesting school of thought here. Humanism itself seemed to be more of an ideal, a lifestyle, a goal to strive for than anything else. It's interesting, because in reading about them and their striving for that attainment of knowledge and eloquence and whatnot, we see that a lot of the basic applications were in grammar. Structure and the written word and that precision of language (A line I blatantly stole from The Giver) that is so prevalent in Humanist writings. We see that a lot of their technical applications were rooted in this grammar and mastery of the written and spoken word.
Now, where I feel that albeit noble intentions start to go astray is in their applications among the social elite. Indeed, Humanism itself was something that really could only be utilized to it's fullest extent among upper class citizens. The text itself states that there was a " need for correct expression...on people of high social station." Which is all well and good, as we frequently see the social elite in positions of power. As that was so frequently the case, it was important for them to be knowledgeable and eloquent, so as to be able to benefit their city. All these Humanists, as the text also states, "made a candid alliance with power." The only issue I have with this is that it was difficult for anyone of a lower social standing, say a merchant, to gain that same education or that same tie with positions of power as those who had the money to do so right off the bad. People learning a trade would be at a solid disadvantage right from the start, and wouldn't have the time to devote to mastering Latin or making ties as those who had the money and time to fund their own learning. The whole thing seems very classist. But that could just be me being a idealist.
Now, where I feel that albeit noble intentions start to go astray is in their applications among the social elite. Indeed, Humanism itself was something that really could only be utilized to it's fullest extent among upper class citizens. The text itself states that there was a " need for correct expression...on people of high social station." Which is all well and good, as we frequently see the social elite in positions of power. As that was so frequently the case, it was important for them to be knowledgeable and eloquent, so as to be able to benefit their city. All these Humanists, as the text also states, "made a candid alliance with power." The only issue I have with this is that it was difficult for anyone of a lower social standing, say a merchant, to gain that same education or that same tie with positions of power as those who had the money to do so right off the bad. People learning a trade would be at a solid disadvantage right from the start, and wouldn't have the time to devote to mastering Latin or making ties as those who had the money and time to fund their own learning. The whole thing seems very classist. But that could just be me being a idealist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)