The next Michelangelo?

In a recent conversation I had with an artist friend of mine, he lamented the

fact that the artist, in today's world, is not held in the same regard as were

those from the time of the Renaissance and beyond - say until the Industrial

revolution and after. I think he has a point. Who among us will rise to be the

new Michelangelo? Is it even possible to attain such artistic heights be it

painting, illustration, sculpture, photograph, film, music etc.? Has the advance

of technology and distribution of knowledge diluted the importance and imminence

of those able to create great art?

 

"You can keep all your smart modern writers. Give me William Shakespeare." - Ray

Davies.

"Who among us will rise to be the new Michelangelo?"

 

Who among us will get the commission to decorate the Sistine Chapel or sculpt David?

 

It may not be the talent of current artists, but the banal cheesiness of the current clients.

You may have a point there.

Jeff Koons.

 

ithink it is probably fair t osay that only when looking backward through very distorted glasses and with no actual knowledge of history can you even begin to believe that artists in Michaelangelo and Leonardo and Rembrandt va Rijn's days believe that artists were held in high regard. The historical just record simply doesn't support that romantic view of things.

Michelangelo attempted to beautify and inspire through his art, goals that many of today's "artists" would probably label as copping out.

 

It seems to me that today, edginess is almost interchanged withe "art" ... artists think they must "shock and awe", titillate and taunt. The artist and the clients seemed to share the same goal ... to create something larger than themselves .. to reach out for God through art.

 

I don't know if today's society (clients) share todays edgy artistic goals.

"Jeff Koons." Forget patronage or time . Michelangelo was one extraordinary talent. Jeff Koons, interesting as he may be, is not even qualified to mix the Mich's paint. But certainly Ellis was joking with us. If you have carved stone and made clay sculpture you begin to be qualified to talk about this. No person ever got what Michelangelo did out of stone, and believe me, many have worked hard just to be in his ballgame and failed.

<i>It seems to me that today, edginess is almost interchanged withe "art"</i><p>"Edginess" has <b>always</b> been part of art. Look at Hieronymus Bosch. Or go back further, the Zapotecs' most famous art is grotesque and wondrous. These are just a couple of examples of how art's purpose was not solely to "beautify." If it was, I would find something else to do.

I doubt the next Michelangelo has a computer.

Well there was Picasso? His influence could not be more profound, and far reaching.

 

Jackson Pollack's influence on the visual arts, and the persona of artists has been massive.

Thomas is right. Many of today's artists don't seek to reach out for God through art.

That's, to a great extent, reflective of (and in some special cases, creative of) a

cultural, social, and esthetic shift. I am thankful for such evolution. I expect art and its

goals will continue to change as it will also remain mindful of the past.

Francis Ford Coppola

I think most Geniuses now, instead of becoming sculptures, or painters, become scientist unlocking the secrets of DNA, the Internet, space exploration,or just making money.That does not mean that there are not people with great talent out there,but with people covering their walls with Thomas Kincade prints,dogs playing poker,elvis on velvet, and urine in a bottle , who can find them?

Times and tastes in art change. Rembrandt was considered 'crude' in periods in which smooth surfaces and invisible brushstrokes were accepted as signs of good artistry. We see a similar thing today in which photographs from earlier times are not appreciated by some because they are not "sharp" or "contrasty" enough.

 

"It seems to me that today, edginess is almost interchanged withe "art" ... artists think they must "shock and awe", titillate and taunt."

 

This is not unique to our era (if true), both Baroque and Gothic intended 'shock and awe', for example, and what might seem 'edgy' to us today might not have been in its time. I do think much of Bosch is in that category. He seems far more radical to us than he did to to his contemporaries.

There are two points of view, I think, from which this can be approached without getting into the mire of personal taste and opinion.

 

First: We have exactly the same situation today as in the renaissance: patronage by wealth decides whose art is most valued. That makes the likes of Damien Hirst a direct equivalent of Michelangelo.

 

Second: only time decides which artists' output endures. History is full of erroneous predictions that "A" will stand the test of time and "B" will not. The well worn illustration of this is Vincent van Gogh - condemned as a talentless painter of gaudy daubs, not one painting sold in his lifetime, but now seen as a major figure. So, we cannot possibly say who is the next Michelangelo amongst us - our great grandchildren may be able to begin the task.

 

If asked to be an idiot and pin the tail on the donkey I'd vote for Peter Randall Page or Andy Goldsworthy as candidates ... but...

<B>Mark</B><P><I>Who among us will rise to be the new Michelangelo? Is it even

possible to attain such artistic heights be it painting, illustration, sculpture,

photograph, film, music etc.?</I> Today you can surely spot people that have

Michelangelo's genius but not in the fields you would expect. You won't find them in

painting or sculpture, neither you will find them in a more general category called

<I>art</I>. You will find them in other fields that are the great product of our society,

maybe electronics, computer science etc. and why not... architecture. <B>We are

the result of what we do</B> and every historic period has its geniuses. Geniuses

are born so, then they need a society that will allow them to develop in one or

another way but they will be always geniuses. If M. didn't have the Church to

sponsor his work he would have still painted and sculpted but would not have done

the Sistine Chapel or the Pieta'. Today's problem is that money is people's first aim

and goal and it's so strong the need of power that overwhelms the talents and

dreams of humanity. The world is fast, there is no much time to think, therefore man

best develops his genius in fields that require rather other virtues than patience,

introspection, philosophy etc. Look at Global Warming, we are willing to destroy

ourselves before we renounce to producing oil and give up our beautiful society

made of nice cars, debt, work, useless technology, big screens, pollution. This is

called an <I>advanced society</I>, but we cannot even get rid of our own trash

without doing damage to the environment and to ourselves. In a world like this,

where we would let everybody else die before we renounce to driving a car to work or

having cherries in december, it is impossible for art to reach that profound state that

only a very balanced existence can provide. Italy of the XVI Century provided that

condition to many talented artists, and the landscape was so beautiful, clean and

inspiring. Today in Italy we are worried to get to the end of the month and we are

surrounded by horrors made out of concrete, smog, roads every f.... where.

<P><B>Conclusion</B>. Talent and genius are still there but develop in different

fields according to our lifestyle. The greatness of the ancient and the genius and

beauty of the artists and musicians from the Renaissance up until the end of the IX

Century will be lost forever and replaced by something else.<div></div>

Such pessimism.

 

There are many wonderful artists creating at the very local level right here in San

Francisco. Many are socially conscious and responsible. Many are transformative.

 

I can walk to one great Goldsworthy installation at the new de Young Museum and

drive 30 minutes to another on the Stanford campus.

 

Michelangelo has had centuries in which to become iconic. Give time and context a

chance to catch up with those of today.

 

Yes, the world is a different place and humans need to get a clue about many

things. The Renaissance itself was accompanied by very damaging wars in Italy.

Humans have always been a problematic bunch. I don't think it's anything new.

 

Inside the walls of concrete and outside the reach of traffic, there are still creative

people playing their instruments, painting their canvases, and digitizing their visions.

"Humans have always been a problematic bunch. I don't think it's anything new."

 

Yes, let's not idyllicize the past. A dye factory in the Renaissance was industrial pollution of air and water to the max.

I'll nominate two, one living and one dead:

 

Both Avedon and Salgado have come closer to rendering both humanity and theological truth than did Michelangelo.

 

But Damon D'Amato's earlier suggestion of Francis Ford Coppola, or Abel Ganz (Napoleon...the multi screen original version, with Carmine Coppola's live orchestra), or other great motion picture director, was closer to the mark...directors come closer to the way Michelangelo worked than does still photography.

 

And in any case, it's as logical to compare compare Bach or Babe Ruth or Escoffier to a photographer as it is to compare Michelangelo. They're nearly entirely unrelated.

How about Diego Rivera? He managed to get his work covered as did Michelangelo.

...I'll toss an even more unacceptable idea into the ring: "I'm Not There"...a peculiar film directed by Todd Haynes. Haynes comes closer to Michelangelo than a still photographer could. In fact, he transcends Michelangelo.

 

The movie happens to address the poetic life and character of Bob Dylan (could have been any poet but his celebrity and mythos guaranteed at least some sort of audience), and it does that without being stuck in linear time, factoids, or conventional interpretations. Like this movie, our lives are multifaceted and are perhaps better understood when elements are allowed to be confusing and broken apart than when forced into standard linear biographic format, conventionally interrupted occasionally with flashbacks.

 

A 70-year-old woman's experience as a 22-year-old may today be more "timely" today than was her experience yesterday. Michelangelo was an ignorant person in many ways, seemed incapable of recognizing that sort of truth. Instead of addressing human truth, he addressed human fantasy.

 

Most likely hate this movie. It's more than challenging: I didn't "enjoy" it last night in any usual way, but it may come closer to depicting one human being's nature than any other film, and certainly comes closer than anything Michelangelo attempted. It's "new" in the best sense of the word. And that means it's unpopular.

 

Of course, some of us are reluctant to consider film or video to be "photography" ....but if we're going to be that narrow, why are we considering Michelangelo here?

I'll agree with John. Yes, Salgado is doing a wonderful photography. I think that photography, for him, is a medium or tool to built "modern" Pieta's. Looking into his work it touches me much deeply than of Michelagelo's work. People are evolving, meaning their consciousness in a great part. The recognition is much stronger and compassion too. Salgado has a really a deep peer inside of human suffer. The photos of women are not "poor" to me. Their suffer and pain transcended into something beautiful, almost unearthly. I wonder how he succeeded to make such a harmony between technology and spirituality. He is really incredible artist.

I don't see a photographer or cinematographer ever reaching the status of Buonarroti. There are no equivalents to the Sistine Chapel where a photographic image would have the same visual impact.

 

It is a matter of cultural context. I cannot effectively reconcile the era of Michelangelo's work with the present era. The volume of Michelangelo's work, 57 including his architecture, is a fraction of the work produced by any recent artist of the modern era. His scale was monumental and largely historically religious in nature.

 

After much thought I find Michelangelo sits in a unique place in history. There cannot be a next Michelangelo. There can be someone new with the same kind of iconic recognition. Whether that is a painter, photographer, cinematographer, sculptor, or graphic designer remains to be seen.

The empire for which Michelangelo worked is long dead.

 

Glenn: you consider Michelangelo to be someone who produced large numbers of "monumental work" having "visual impact" and "iconic recognition." Presumably his equivalent would be someone who's kept, as Michelangelo was, by a global cult group with staggering economic power.

 

Stalin's crew is gone and only Walmart seems to have replaced him....

 

Your new Michelangelo would, by your definition be the executive at the helm of Walmart's corporate brand management, or some member of the Walton family.

On the one hand there's 1500 years of christian theology and art, maybe another 600 years of reading Torah, at least one school of Islamic philosophers, plus the recovery of pagan Roman and Greek philosophy and art to provide a dynamic matrix for intellectual and creative activity, and on the other there's planning the Junior Miss catalog for the Sunday supps.

"The empire for which Michelangelo worked is long dead."

 

His works still endure and do have "visual impact" and "iconic recognition" no matter what you may think.

 

Empires are not what existed within Italy during the Renaissance. City States were the norm. Even the Papal States were considered small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

 

"Your new Michelangelo would, by your definition be the executive at the helm of Walmart's corporate brand management, or some member of the Walton family."

 

John, do not paint my definition with the broad strokes of intent for which there is no basis. A more correct metaphor might be Ferrari becoming the new Medici dynasty and patrons of the arts and then commissioning a new cathedral decorated by Ang Lee.