Two Davids, One Past
MAY 2019 | CLASSICAL CULTURE INDEPENDENT STUDY
Antiquity’s presence continues to ebb in art and culture, even after its demise in the 5th century, revived by the Italian Renaissance. Two sculptors, Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni (Michelangelo) from the High Renaissance and Gian Lorenzo Bernini from the Baroque both created famous sculptures based on Roman classicism. Restricted and influenced by their religious culture, both sculptors each created a statue of the biblical hero, David. By comparing the two Davids, the pose, style, and features of Michelangelo’s sculpture represent the revival of Antiquity’s classicism while Bernini’s David reflects the ideologies of Hellenistic culture and Roman society through facial features, dramatization, and identity. Both Davids portray aspects of Antiquity through differing artistic styles, functions, and the public viewer’s response in a Christian dominated, art-influenced culture.
To understand each David, first a foundation of antique knowledge must be established. Each David stems from the ideologies and artistic perfections of antiquity, based upon the classical form and structure. One must raise the question, then, what do scholars, artists, and modern historians today mean by the term “classical”? Donald Strong defined it as the “Highest aspiration of spirit…expressed in a perfection of human form based upon harmony and proportion” (8). This source of “inspiration” was his claim for all following classic revivalists to uphold and replicate. Classicism, therefore, is the modeling form of such desired harmonious proportions, and creating art pieces that hold a style of elegance and realism.
If this definition was first narrowed down to one particular sculpture, Polykleitos, a Greek bronze-caster, created it. His mathematical proportions in relation to constructing parts as a whole created the Greek athletic ideal of male beauty (Onians 40), titled Doryphoros, or Spear-bearer. This resting male figure poses in a dynamic equilibrium look, thus inventing contrapposto for the first time (Woodford 19). This parallels with the fifth century B.C. Greek obsession with perfection, balance, and harmony in nature. Their purpose was to edify, perfect, and illustrate noble Greek themes over barbaric culture (Strong 9). The Greeks were focused on educating and instructing the public masses (seeing Greeks not as individual citizens but as one giant nation), and the state’s military endeavors were essential to the Greek’s culture and sustainability as a nation. Fifth century sculpture concentrated its attention on victory; statues with young men of “perfect military physique” focused almost solely on the presentation of military, male role models (Onians 132). Doryphoros appeared to encompass not only the perfect human model, but also the physical aesthetic representation of Greek idealism and lack of individualism.
If the term “classical" is being the form derived from Polykleitos’ Doryphoros, then Renaissance revivalists associated their artistic works based strictly on the timeless statue and fifth-century Greek thinking. However, if the word “classical” means a general style of Greco-Romans’ art adaptations and deviations from the original ideal human sculpture, then not only must Hellenistic and Roman works be considered, but also the functions and purposes behind those sculptures directed to the public viewer.
Deviations from the “classic” perfect model emerged in the Hellenistic period. Sculptors criticized earlier Greek sculpture as too idealistic and not realistic. Hellenistic period gave space for creativity and develops purpose to amuse the public rather than to simply advertise (Strong 72). This created a sense of character shown throughout the art pieces. Deviating from Doryphoros, Hellenistic art works focused on statues in action, with twisting bodies and emotional facial expressions. Laocoön and his Sons displays this well; the grieved and countered face, the wrap of the serpent around the bodies, with the figures attempting to escape, and the distinct muscle contractions give a realistic sense of fear and struggle in this sculpture. The statue is playing off the Greek story of the Trojan priest receiving punishment for breaking his priestly vows.[1] Laocoön, to the Greek respondent, was “…an allusion to a famous lesson in mortality would have immediately forced the viewer to engage with its powerful message (Onians 144). It is in this construction of character that creates a story and a moral lesson to not only amuse but to teach to the public.
Another dramatized Hellenistic sculpture is Vanquished Gaul Killing Himself and his Wife, also more commonly known as the Ludovisi Gaul, a morbid, depressing statue depicting the Gaul carrying his wife’s dead, limb body while looking over his shoulder, about to plunge the dagger into his chest. The Gaul is presented with a wide stance, a twisting torso, a raised arm and a head turned all the way to his right. The wife holds one arm above her head (the arm her husband holds), a dropping head, her chest faced downwards, and her body in a position about to fall. This statue’s “in-action” scene clearly differs from traditional “at rest” sculptures, in addition to the facial features and twisted body poses, but the Ludovisi Gaul only displays its defeated victims, not the victors. This is unusual compared to earlier Greek statues, focused on military achievements and conquests (Onians 132). However, in this shifted political culture, there was no need for active civilian enlistment like in the fifth century B.C.; most of the statues produced were for the conquered territories. Thus, the viewer transitioned from seeing oneself as the hero to the defeated. This sculpture, then, become real and engaging to the respondent, a “piece of theatre”, and a strong, powerful appeal to the emotions (Strong 78). This shift from idealism in sculpture reveals character and emotional appeal to the viewer, thus marking it as a relatable and striking art piece in antiquity.
The Romans copied the Greek ideas of art and architecture yet altered it to a more practical and factual tradition, compared to the Greeks’ preferred abstract thought (Woodford 90). There were many statues in antiquity, and one could argue that the Romans did not have an appreciation for their artistic skill and visual appeal like modern society does today. The term ‘statue’ in Roman society was a social term, not an aesthetic one (Stewart 8). The statue’s purpose was to commemorate or honor, set in front of a public audience to demonstrate some sort of social function. The sculptor’s main focus was to produce an artifact, not a work of art (10). However, in the Renaissance, Baroque, and modern times, art history considers Roman sculpture as art rather than objects serving a political or social goal, which distorts the original intentions and purpose Ancient Rome had for their production of statues.
What was the Romans’ purpose in fabricating statues? Romans utilized sculpture for a variety of reasons: for representation, political agendas, or religious/cultural purposes. Mainly, many Roman statues arose due to the society’s demand of portraiture. The Roman world was obsessed with commemoration and individual representation, and the generic Doryphoros model was not going to fly with an identity focused culture. Romans believed that “… the search for the ideal form, with its implied perfection of mind and spirit, led artists away from attempts at true realistic portraiture” (Strong 72). Henceforth, Romans created statue portraits of men and women with wrinkles, sagging faces, large noses, Flavian hairstyles, or any other imperfect feature that allowed the viewer to recognized the identity of the sculpture[2]. Romans portraits could be done of anyone who had the connections or the money. These statues give the illusion of life in sculpture, a tension between life and art (Stewart 37, 44), creating a space for a Roman to have a piece of their identity and legacy represented throughout their lifespan and beyond.
Because the Romans were focused on the function of statues as a social construct, the Romans developed different language for different types of sculpture. There appears to be a distinction between statues of gods and statues of mortals, where gods received the title of “simulacrum” and mortal humans have “statua” (Stewart 20). Simulacrum functions as a religious role by inviting the god’s presence and to stir devotion in the viewer, not just to represent of god in society. Occasionally, simulacrum depict portrait statue of a mortal, which is typically only a king or emperor, a figure who can been portrayed as divine (22). The iconography of Roman statues, particularly in the face, would have given clear indications of which term the sculpture belonged.
Heads and bodies were composed into separate pieces, and the face could stand as sufficient marker for person’s identity (this was a concept that has existed since fifth century Greece with head busts marking individuals’ identities). Peter Stewart applied the coined term “appendage aesthetic” to define the head-and-body relationship: the body of the sculpture created as a podium while the head is the identity (47). This allowed for “divinizing” statues, a concept applied to create a head portraiture with the body of a god or goddess (49). He further explains:
It is thorough the distinction features of the face, regardless of whether they form an accurate likeness, that Roman art expressed personal identity. The body is then used to convey further information about the individual’s social persona. Gods, on the other hand, are more obviously identified not by the facial features, but by the more distinctive attributes associated with the rest of the body. (53)
The nude torso, representing divinity of a god, is used as a prop for the identifiable head (51). This term applies for divinizing and for other statues, like high standing positions in government.
This appendage aesthetic is frequently found in emperors’ portraits. It was an important tactic in imperial propaganda (Strong 135) to display power, rulership, and in some sculptures, divinity. Augustus was one of the first Roman emperors to use this political tool to his advantage, and he began to produce and style Prima Porta in an authoritarian, demanding manner. Although the Augustus respected Doryphoros and based his portraiture on its proportions, he found Polykelitos’ sculpture to conflict with his status as an emperor: it was too idyllic, it was nude, and it lacked in focus and direction (Woodford 91). To demonstrate his power and authority, Augustus needed his own face, royal toga, and his posture to give the sense of demands and leadership to the viewer. Augustus’ Prima Porta shows how the original classical model can be changed with new gestures (Stewart 55) in order to appeal to differing viewers and fulfill different political agendas.
After developing the culture and ideas of both Greek and Roman statues, the Renaissance as a whole can be dissected. Renaissance means “rebirth”[3], and the High Renaissance was structured upon the revival of classic antiquity. The Renaissance’s interest focused on “general spirit and character, for the ethical qualities of which it is a consummate type” (Pater xxiii). Walter Pater thus explains the term Renaissance, “… generally used to denote not merely the revival of classical antiquity… but a whole complex movement, of which that revival of classical antiquity was but one element or symptom” (1). The Renaissance viewed antiquity as a “golden age of perfection” (Olson 47), and put in efforts to emulate its artistic and cultural remains.
Michelangelo’s David has been deemed the epitome of the Renaissance’s achievements (Olson 47). Commissioned in 1501, Michelangelo chiseled the David to completion just three years following. Originally supposed to be placed in the cathedral, there was much debate where the colossus should remain, and the David was placed in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence to symbolize the new republic. Florence was a smaller city state, and its military efforts were small yet mighty. Michelangelo’s sculpture represented Florence as the underdog, compared to its Goliath, the neighboring city-states. Using the current religious culture, Michelangelo created a gigantic sculpture to allude to the city-state’s political military message, focused on the Florence’s hopeful future military success.
The David appears to resemble Doryphoros in its pose, style, and features; it has been labeled as conservative (Paoletti 110) in its nature. The statue’s contrapposto displays the biblical hero in a position of rest, the moment before he springs into action. The David’s left leg is positioned in front of his torso, while his right leg is in a still, straight locked position, holding his weight and balance. The sculpture’s right shoulder is slightly lower than his left, giving more of a S-curve shape to the body. If Michelangelo’s goal was to create a perfect colossus of a man, he nearly fulfilled that aspiration. The sculptor included small details such as the muscle protrusions in his feet and neck, and his veins popping in his arms and hands, crafting the statue to be almost life-like. The David has a sense of elegance and grace towards its structure with “…the contours of the leg, the smooth lines of the thighs…, the sweetness of the pose” (Pope-Hennessy 41). The nude figure is idyllic; representing a clear comparison between the ancient classic sculpture and its two-thousand-year-old predecessor.
If the Renaissance’s idea of classical art was solely based upon Doryphoros, then Michelangelo achieved the goal of emulation. Nonetheless, there are critiques arguing against Michelangelo’s classical sculpture. David’s unproportionally huge hands, his “awkward age of youth”, and difficult gesture (Maclagan 196), strike a comparison with Doryphoros’s perfect proportionality. However, Pope-Hennessy comments that “…the structure of the David is more classical than it might have been if Michelangelo had found himself, as a free agent, confronted by a deeper block” (41). Michelangelo may have not had the resources to be more creative in this sculpting; his style may have been restricted, and therefore, more fifth-century Greek classical in disegno. However, looking at other aspects of the statue gives a wider scope of the purpose and direction in Michelangelo’s thinking, which is directed to a more Greek classical model.
Placed in context, a viewer is able to recognize the biblical figure’s purpose, direction, and identity. However, if the name David was stripped from the statue’s name, would the Renaissance public be able to identity the statue? Donatello’s early Davidic interpretation portrayed the biblical hero more along the lines of the Bible’s story: as a youth, clothed, with Goliath’s head at his feet (Paoletti 78, 83-84). This clearly differs from Michelangelo’s interpretation since the statue resembled an older, mature figure. Michelangelo’s portrayal of the young hero varies even in the small details of the statue: the weapon David holds could be viewed as a sling or a scroll (77), referring to the possibility that the identity of the colossus could be a prophet. Also, the Biblical account has David seen as courageous and confident, unlike the hesitant, fearful look Michelangelo gives to his art (80).
In fact, there is little about the colossus to point to the identity of David; it resembles more of the figure of Adam or Hercules. The nude colossus points to either Adam and Isaac, the only two biblical figures depicted as naked in the sixteenth century (86). The David’s nudity strikes a strong comparison to Tullio and Rizzo’s sculptures of Adam, and is the only other Florentine sculpture that shares the same ridged, classical pose as the Adams (88). Another interesting feature in the David is his detailed, open eyes. This parallels with the biblical account of when Adam ate the fruit, thus opening his eyes and revealing his nakedness (89). This varies with other sculpture of the time and from antiquity: most eyes were a glaze and lacked pupils and irises unlike Michelangelo’s statue.
The David’s stance mirrors the classical contrapposto style that many ancient Hercules statues portray (90). Male nudity was common in ancient sculpture, but there are other similarities between the two heroes. Hercules and David were both warriors and known in their cultures for their combat skills and military successes. The David is a colossal sculpture, and throughout Greek legend, Hercules is referred to as the “giant” (94). There is also a piece to the sculpture that hits to the identity of Hercules. Behind the David’s right leg, a tree stump, the only prop in the sculpture’s background, alludes to a Herculean story. In Greek mythology, Hercules was faced at a crossroads between a path of vice, beauty, and luxury or a hard, barren path of virtue. This explains David’s tense expression in the possibility of deciding between the two trails. Hercules follows the virtuous path and further upholds his “man of virtue” reputation (96-97). Both figures are symbols of humanism and stand for the “…representation of justice and virtue of the state placed in the hands of human governors” (98).
Despite the statue’s unclear identity and deviation from other Davidic sculptures, Michelangelo’s political and social message about his city-state is apparent:
The reticent and multivalent iconographical elements of the David would have allowed the identity of the finished statues to shift back and forth over time among David, Adam, and Hercules, all of whose symbolic meanings could have been read as appropriate signs for the new Republic. (Paoletti 98)
Regardless if the sculpture is David, Adam, or Hercules, the lack of a specific identity holds a type of power and meaning to the Florentine viewer and for Michelangelo’s artistic purposes. Paoletti writes, “…the new forms were deliberately chosen to allow slippage of meaning from one iconography to another, and perhaps even between the object as a content-driven form and one primarily of interest for its aesthetical properties” (98-99). The figure represents no one, possibly for the sole reason of “showing off” Michelangelo’s artistic skill.
Michelangelo’s David aligns more with the fifth century Greek tradition and strays from the commemoration obsessed Roman culture. The lack of clothing, identity, and purposed direction varies drastically with the traditional Roman view and supports the generalized, idealistic Greek culture. The David’s pose, structure, and style reflect the Spear-bearer and does not deviate far from its contrapposto. Overall, the stylistic choices and purposeful symbolic meaning highlights Michelangelo’s capabilities as a sculptor and artist and display his perspective of classicism.
Following the High Renaissance and Michelangelo’s reign, the Baroque artistic wave of theatricality and dramatization replaced the strict revival classic culture of Italy. The Baroque is deemed as the aesthetic portrayal of emotion, and less focused on modeling classical sculptures. Bernini, modernly known as the sculptor of the Baroque (Montagu 2), created countless of dramatic and intense statues throughout his lifetime. In 1623, Bernini received a commission from Cardinal Alessandro Montalto to put a figure of the Biblical hero, David, in his garden. This is one of Bernini’s first sculptures created. It has been speculated the purpose of the Cardinal’s commission, but the aim was not to metaphorically represent the Borghese’ status, seeing that the family’s emblem, an eagle-shaped lyre, is haphazardly thrown at the hero’s feet (Bernini 170). Although Bernini’s David was the least successful of his sculptures, according to Pope-Hennessy, its aesthetic style and dramatic gestures reveal Bernini’s interpretation of the biblical story, his adaptation of classic forms, and his personal reflection of his Baroque disegno.
Bernini began his artistic career by restoring antiques, such as the Borghese Hermaphrodite and the Ludovici Ares, but most of his restorations were not intended to mimic exact productions of the original antique style (Montagu 162). His additions held a more dramatic effect, either through outstretched limbs, charismatic facials, or winding body parts. Bernini’s influence was inspired mostly by Hellenistic works, such as the Borghese’s Gladiator or the Vanquished Gaul Killing Himself and His Wife (Pope-Hennessy 343, 345), which give a more engaging, emotional experience for the viewer, rather than the “classic” Greek contrapposto. These works inspired his David through their Hellenistic mid-action body stances and expressive faces.
Bernini’s choice in depicting David appears drastically different from Michelangelo’s. His sculpture, mid-way in action, follows more along the lines of the biblical story. Bernini writes that the sculptor “… chose the moment in which the young shepherd, having discarded his heavy, useless armor, is preparing to launch the stone that will defeat the giant with the sole strength of his arm” (170). This is the moment where David acts upon his bravery; he stands apart from the other Israelites and strikes the gigantic opposer in front of him. This is the moment that defines David and his noble character, which Bernini emphasizes and portrays in his sculptor. Maclagan observes the clarity in Bernini’s purpose and style: “The statue is fully charged with emotion … It is typical of Bernini’s attitude towards his art that he should be the first sculptor to have represented his David at the very crisis of the drama, slinging the stone at Goliath” (256). Bernini’s use of dramatic features and a more emotional account of the biblical story gives more credibility to the identity of David.
Unlike Michelangelo, Bernini sculpts David in a later moment, with a face of intense confidence and action, straying far from the hesitant, clam, reserved look the High Renaissance sculptor creates. Bernini portrayed the hero’s face in his own likeness, and used a mirror while sculpting the David. The sculpture’s countenance is described with “‘…powerful knitted brows, the terrible fixity of the eyes, and the upper jaw clamped tightly over the lower lip [to] express the rightful wrath of the young Israelite in the act of aiming his sling at the forehead of the giant Philistine’” (170). This self-portrait may have been a response to Michelangelo’s colossus, reinforcing the realism of the biblical narrative, and applying it to a more personal account. Nevertheless, this self-portraiture head and Davidic body reflects the ideals of Ancient Rome’s appendage aesthetic.
Bernini’s adaption also varies in the portrayal of the biblical hero’s body. The statue reflects more of an “in-action” stance, allowing the viewer to engage with the figure and to create a more life-like sculpture. The David is compared to Doryphoros:
Bernini reworked his study of the ancient model and transformed it in accordance with the needs of the narrative. Unlike the left leg of the Greek warrior, which is stretched out straight and ready to parry the imminent impact of the blow, that of the David is slightly flexed, captured in the act of bending in the dynamic push that will give the most power to the torsion and launch. (174)
Bernini’s David varies drastically in pose; the hero “in-action” does not fit the Greek classic “rest” position. This adaption in the body’s structure also contrasts with Michelangelo’s David:
The twist of [Bernini’s] David’s body, primed for the release, engages the surrounding space, and his action, which presupposes the presence of the invisible enemy, expands in time, achieving a result that overcomes the physical limits of the marble. The iconographic tradition of the hero, the sublime model of which was embodied in Michelangelo’s colossal David, was thus radically transformed from the concept of ‘statue’ as standing figure to the dynamic realism of a ‘story’. (Bernini 170)
Bernini developed a dramatic interpretation of the biblical hero, by combining expressive facial features and an almost moving, life-like scene acting in front of the viewer.
Bernini developed his own particular view of classism, shown in his adaptation of David. This Baroque sculptor applied Ancient Hellenistic and Roman cultural ideas to his art: the incorporation of portraiture, the engaging, dramatic visual scenes, and the purposeful life-like qualities of the David resemble later Antiquity’s emphasis on individualism and character. Although Bernini’s David contains fewer stylistic similarities with “classical” works, the purpose and intent of the statue mark it as a classic inspired art piece.
Antiquity changes and develops over time; one Greek military, state culture transitions to a dramatic theatrical, defeated city-state, to a dominating, self-representing, practical empire. With these shifting political and cultural movements, classical antiquity can be difficult to narrow into a definition and base a revival upon. Looking at multiple elements in Antiquity’s evolving society, one can find strong and weak comparisons to both Michelangelo’s and Bernini’s David. The High Renaissance sculptor models his biblical hero in a fifth century Greek classical pose, giving an idealistic model and a vague identification. Michelangelo creates the David to state the new Republic’s future victory and to glorify his artistic skills. Bernini, on the other hand, emphasizes more of a theatrical, dramatic moment to display David’s character and to construct a self-portrait in the style of the Romans. The Baroque artist’s David deviates from the original stylistic classical form, but in another sense, highlights Antiquity’s classic ideologies of character and celebration of individualism. Both Davids hold different classic elements, placed in their aesthetic, Catholic, Italian societies.
Bibliography
Bernini. Edited by Andrea Bacchi and Anna Coliva, translated by Edward Steinberg, Officina Libraria, 2017.
Kleiner, Diana E. E. Roman Sculpture. Yale University Press, 1992.
Maclagan, Eric. Italian Sculpture of the Renaissance. 1935, Harvard University Press, 1963.
Montagu, Jennifer. Roman Baroque Sculpture: The Industry of Art. Yale University Press, 1989.
Olson, Roberta J.M. Italian Renaissance Sculpture. London, Thames and Hudson, 1992.
Onians, John. Classical Art and the Cultures of Greece and Rome. Yale University Press, 1999.
Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, https://www-oed-com.proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu/. Accessed 14 Apr. 2019.
Paoletti, John T. Michelangelo’s David: Florentine History and Civic Identity. Documents transcribed and edited by Rolf Bagemihl, Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Pater, Walter. The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry. 1893, edited by Donald L. Hill, University of California Press, 1980.
Pope-Hennessy, John. An Introduction to Italian Sculpture: Italian High Renaissance & Baroque Sculpture. 1963, 4th ed., vol. 3, Phaidon Press, 1996.
Stewart, Peter. Statues in Roman Society: Representation and Response. Oxford University Press, 2003.
Strong, Donald E. The Classical World. McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Turker, Alev. “Early/High/Late Renaissance and Mannerism in Italy.” History of Art, Part I: Cave Painting to Michelangelo, 30 April 2019, T/TH 12:30-1:45, Lamar Dodd School of Art, The University of Georgia. Lecture.
Woodford, Susan. The Art of Greece and Rome. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[1] See John Onians’ Classical Art and the Cultures of Greece and Rome pages 140-145 for more reading on Laocoön’s story and its difference between Greek and Roman adaptions.
[2] For other readings on Roman portraiture, see Peter Stewart’s Statues in Roman Society: Representation and Response pages 35-60.
[3] See Oxford English Dictionary’s article “Renaissance” for more background information and other definitions.
