Corinthian Dinos vs. Eleusis Amphora

       Although the Corinthian Dinos and the Eleusis Amphora are from the Orientalizing time period, they differ in function, narrative and color, due to the differences in their respected locations. While the Corinthians were concerned with silhouetted animal-style forms that focused on patterns, the Athenians were developing a pro-attic style that portrayed narratives represented by mythological story telling.

       For the Greeks the Orientalizing period was a time where renewed contact and trades with different civilizations around the Mediterranean prospered. This was key and pivotal to the Corinthian style that was developing after being in isolation during the dark ages and the Geometric period.  The Corinthians and the Athenians spoke the same language (although dialects can vary), which was a potentially unifying factor and similarity in their causes.

      The different locations played an important role in the diversity between the two vases.  Most obviously they function differently. The Corinthian Dinos functions as a krater, and is much smaller in scale than the Eleusis Amphora which functioned as a grave marker.  Corinthian clay was white, and produced vases that were cooler and creamier in color.  The Athenians had mastered the       Corinthian style and took it a step further by using a reddish-orange clay for their vases.  The Pro-attic style originated in Athens, but the Corinthian style was a precursor to its development. Pro-Attic vases were leaning towards the Black-Figure technique. Athenians liked the color of the reddish-orange clay. They also adopted their subject matter to be mythological narratives.  Specifically, the Eleusis Amphora narrates the heroic story of Oddysseus and his companions killing a cyclops by stabling it in its eye. This represents victory, in a rather large register, on the neck of the Amphora.  The clay is still not completely red, like the archaic period, yet it stands as a stepping stone from the creamy white Corinthian style to the precursor of the archaic period.

       The Corinthians Dinos has no narrative or story line. It is a parade of animals. Corinth produces a more natural and fluid style, full of curves, elaborate outlines and smooth contours that flow.  Corinth was heavily influenced by Asia Minor and Egypt, and it is apparent by the side profiles of the animals that look almost sphynx-like.  There are no humans on the Corinthian Dinos.

      Both vases use fillers of geometric patterns to fill empty and void spaces, which perhaps is remaining from geometric traditions. 

Defining  Art

     The definition of art has broadened significantly over the last few centuries. Westernized societies on the growing path to enlightenment, no longer strictly adhered to earlier guidelines about what is considered art, and that which is not. Who decides what art is? Over the course of the past few centuries, many Artists rebelled against classical aesthetics and generated their own explanations. Art is what an Artist says it is. Art is an expression of the Artist, rather than pure formal aesthetic. Today, the identification of the Artist is submerged within each artwork. Usually, the Artist can be identified without difficulty, once an observer deciphers the subject matter. The Artist might also be identified when the viewer recognizes the artists’ personal binaries. Binaries in our society are common themes among works in a post-modern art world.

     Marcel Duchamp shocked audiences in 1917, displaying the first ready-made in an exhibit in New York City. Robert Smithson created environmental art, using raw materials of the earth. Rene Magritte painted a pipe and titled the work “ceci n’est pas une pipe” (this is not a pipe), confusing viewers and making them question how they saw art. Duchamp, Smithson, and Magritte rejected the philosophies of earlier Art Historians. Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, attempted to structuralize the definition of art. Kant argued form and aesthetic over expression. According to Kant, art must be functional and rational, and should promote form over content. Dadaist, surrealists, expressionists and cubists are examples of movements that challenged the older ways of thinking. Clearly, expression is art in contemporary times. In fact, there seems to be little or no limitations today. Art is an expression and an outlet for the manifestation of feeling and thought. Successful artworks today, are works that can communicate to other individuals. An effective artist can trigger an emotion in the viewer of their art.

     Technology is also playing a vital role in the development of how art is defined. Today there are graphic artists and photographers that also consider their works to be artwork, and are presented as such in

     Museums and galleries. Cindy Sherman is a feminist, and expresses her views through photography. Pascal Dombis created a digital art exhibition in 2008 titled “Irrational Geometrics”.

     As a result of defiant artists throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, art has evolved into an expression. A vast variety of individuals from all over the world are interacting with one another and learning from each other through technology. This new art movement, in cohesion with technological advances, is creating artists out of everyday ordinary people. Art is evolving rapidly, and where it will be in centuries to come is unpredictable.

The Endangerments of Lust: An Analytic Gaze into Bronzino’s Allegory by Tory Talayi

     Although Agnolo Bronzino’s masterpiece, The Allegory with Cupid and Venus, seemingly portrays a celebration of lust, the painting is rather theorized to demonstrate the risky implications and consequences associated with the temptations of lust.

     In the mid-sixteenth century, many paintings were in the rapid, up-and-coming style of mannerism. The mannerist movement was a reaction to the perfected classical forms established during the High Renaissance. As a Mannerist, Agnolo Bronzino composited works with exaggerated, dramatic contortions, and indirect psychological undertones. In the midst of a prudish counter-reformation, Bronzino created an allegory chockfull of symbolism and sexual innuendo. The painting is an oil on wood, is approximately 146.5 x 116.8 cm in size and is housed in the National Gallery in London. Bronzino painted The Allegory with Cupid and Venus between 1540 and 1550, appealing to the tastes of his commissioners. The commissioners of the work were from the French court and looked to Bronzino to quench King Francis’ thirst for mystery, metaphors and erotic overtones.[1] Therefore, The Allegory offers a lustful façade, at first glance, but after careful analyzation, a viewer will pick up allegorical symbols that denote lust, giving credibility to the contrary. The consequences of lust are Syphilis, Oblivion and Deceit. These are symbolized through the embodiment of sexuality displayed by Cupid, and his mother, Venus. Syphilis is further displayed through the interplay of more mythological figures on the outskirts of the painting, surrounding Cupid and Venus.

     The figures are strategically displayed in correspondence to the Mannerism period. There are seven figures crowed into a chaotic scene, emphasizing mainly three figures in the foreground, presented by a spotlight. The chiaroscuro of the three prominent figures highlight the smooth textures of their skin through the use of sfumato. Due to the startling size and lack of pigmentation, the viewer is forced to initially focus on the three figures in the foreground. Consequently, there are four remaining mythological figures in the background carrying out their own various obligations.

     Due to the shiny golden apple, we can confirm Venus is at the center of this painting, posing in an S shape, which is typical of Mannerism. Her son, Cupid (identified by the quiver hanging from the sash on his back) embraces her while cupping her left breast with one hand and mischievously engaging with the crown on his mother’s head, with his other hand. The hand that cups her breast, is understood as incestuous lust, and the hand that caresses the back of her head, vying for her crown, is revealed as affectionate foolery. Venus secretly lifts an arrow from her sons quiver. Could they be sidetracking each other with sex, in order to steal each other’s possessions? Even though mother and son look as though they are in a lustful embrace, they seem to be fooling each other. Foolish pleasure can be a consequences of lust.

     There have been other paintings illustrating Cupid and Venus incestuously. Lorenzo Lotto painted his “Venus and Cupid” around the same time, in 1541. Lotto’s version has only the two figures in the composition and creates symbolism all around in the guise of objects. Immediately the viewer notices that Cupid is urinating on his mother. Venus seems content with the act as she stares straight into the viewers gaze. One could interpret this as a fetishistic act, or a playful metaphor to something else entirely.

     Venus commonly posed as a fetish object for the heterosexual male, although she is nude in Bronzino’s Allegory, she is not the main sexual focal point of this painting. An adolescent Cupid displays robust homoeroticism. Cupid’s pose is less normative than his mother. He sticks out his buttocks possibly for admiration from the viewer, or for the plausibility of penetration, further demonstrating his dedication to fool Venus. The distasteful shift of displaying Cupid as the fetish, rather than Venus, is another questionable symbolic mystery that adds to the allure of the painting.

     The figure on the far left (behind Cupid) is theorized to be Syphilis. Determining the identity of the figure is challenging due to its shadowy existence and position within the work. In relation to the other figures surrounding Cupid and Venus, and due to the physical attributes associated with the figure, many argue that it is indeed a representation of the symptoms of Syphilis. Syphilis is placed in the painting to warn against lust and folly, as they can render a person susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases. The transmission of Syphilis was rapidly rising during the Renaissance, and although the public were well-educated about it, they were powerless to cure it. In The Allegory, the figure is shown pulling hair with a hand that has fingernails missing. Red eyes and toothless gums are also apparent and are indicators of syphilis as well. This figure is placed strategically as a warning that suffering from disease is only one lustful act away.

     The two mythological figures on the top right and left of the painting can be interpreted together due to their collective interactions with each other. Erwin Panofsky speculated in his 1939 book Studies in Iconology, that the woman in the top left corner is Truth and perceives her as supporting Father Time (top left) in unveiling the spectacle.[2] A lustrous blue veil is the only noted background in the scene, minus the array of props spread throughout. Later, Panofsky refuted his previous notion that the allegory scene was being unveiled by Father Time and Truth. He later believed that the top left figure was indeed Night, and she was helping Time in his attempt to lift the blue veil. Why does Truth want the incestuous act of Cupid and Venus to be brought to light? Perhaps to “unveil the truth”. The top left figure has also been hypothesized to be Oblivion. This is supported by a theory that due to the missing eyes and brain of the figure, she is forgetful and is aiding the viewer in also forgetting the spectacle at hand. She reinforces this by throwing a veil over the scene. Father Time conflictingly could be forcing the veil open to reveal the scandal taking place. Father Time’s identity is certain, because there is an hourglass on his back. He gazes at the disputed female figure on the left, which indicates a sort of interplay between the two figures. If a highly respected art scholar, such as Panofsky, cannot be convinced of the interplay taking place between the two, how can we? Father Time is swooping into the frame, and extends a very elongated muscular arm. Only the very tip of his upper torso and arms are visible, as his arm frames the top of the composition in contrary to the placement of Venus’ legs at the bottom. The elongated form, angle and placement of the figure are all attributes of the mannerist style.

     The figure on the right foreground that is throwing rose petals over Cupid and Venus is known as Folly. He is a young mischievous boy (supported by his blushing red cheeks), who acts with no restriction and stares upon Cupid and Venus with delight. Folly’s S shape curve is copying Venus’, and further concluding the identification of this figure as a supportive accessory in the allegory. Although, Folly seems joyous and full of delight, he is unknowingly stepping upon thorns, causing his foot to bleed. Folly’s infatuation with the scene at hand, has rendered him oblivious to the pricks puncturing his foot. Bronzino reminds us again of the dangers of lust. Lust can potentially extract us from reality. Poet Oliver Goldsmith’s poem quotes “When lovely woman stoops to folly/And finds too late that men betray/What charm can sooth her melancholy/What art can wash her guilt away?” (Eliot 1909).

     The final figure in the painting is behind Folly, and looks directly at the viewer. She is theorized to be Desire and Temptation. She is half girl, half monster, and her body is distorted and twisting. Her humanized features are highlighted, and her monstrous features are in the shadows. In one hand she displayed a honeycomb and in the other she holds her tail. The stinger at the tip of her tail, could represent the sharp, stinging implications associated with lust. Yet, this tortuous feat is disguised as an innocent young girl. Erwin Panofsky believed “[Desire and Temptation is] the most sophisticated symbol of perverted duplicity ever devised by an artist” (Panofsky 90).

      Props play a huge role in this painting, and are placed about cleverly. In mythology doves are attributed to Venus. In this painting, a pair of doves are placed at the bottom of Cupid’s feet, looking as though they may be crushed. The bushel of pink roses in Folly’s hands represent love and romance, and also were symbols attributed to Venus. The myrtle leaves are the sacred plant of love and lust, heightening the subject matter of the painting. The two masks at the bottom right of the painting represent both comedy and tragedy. This is rationalized into the masterpiece by conveying the message that we all wear masks. It seems Cupid and Venus are not revealing their true selves. These two particular masks seem to be looking up at them disapprovingly.

      It was written by Giorgio Vasari that the painting was commissioned, likely by Cosimo I de Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and sent as a gift to France for King Francis. What does this say about the tastes of King Francis and his courtly behavior?[3] He was a devoted patron of the arts and was convinced of the supremacy of Italian art. He commissioned for Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci to be summoned to France. Michelangelo declined, but Leonardo Da Vinci spent the last three years of his life in France. King Francis loved masquerades, tournaments and challenges of any sort. He was known as the ‘King of the Renaissance.’ It would be very important that Bronzino appeal to his wealthy patrons by skillfully displaying smooth, silky textures and vibrant colors. Agnolo Bronzino has to create a masterpiece that would impress the King and his exact tastes. Bronzino demonstrated an excellent ability to provide the viewer of the Allegory of Cupid and Venus with a complex and psychological experience. This work embodies all the imperfections of mannerism and all the perfections of classical styles. The viewer experiences something that is aesthetically pleasing, psychologically perplexing and incestuously taboo all together.

     There has been no definite conceived notion of what the Allegory of Cupid and Venus represents, but there are similarities in most of the interpretations we read about. We can assume that the painting is cleverly warning us of the dangers of lust through deception, blinded infatuation, disease and folly. The hidden meanings and various interpretations can be a topic of debate for art historians and scholars, helping them better understand allegories from the past, and how they can be incorporated into our future.

---

[1] Elke Linda Buchholz, Gerhard Buhler, Karoline Hille, Art: A World History (Abrams, New York, 2007), 173.

[2] Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance (Oxford University Press, 1939), 90.

³ R.J. Knecht, The Reign of Francis I (Cambridge University Press, 1994), 7.