how does donatello’s depiction of mary magdalene deviate from others

How does donatello’s depiction of mary magdalene deviate from others
Donatello pulpit Crucifixion San Lorenzo
We now walk to the right aisle, where you can see the work of Settignano just before the celebration.153 If you look at the putti, the angels and the three figures in the relief at the bottom, you will notice how different the figures of Desiderio are. Donatello, whom we have just seen, and Settignano are both artists from the Renaissance, but what a difference in style. Although the figures of Settignano are very true to nature, it is striking that they are charming and sensual, very different from the Christ of Donatello who rises from his grave. Despite this big difference you see here, if you look closely, Donatello has indeed had an influence on Desiderio da Settignano. 154

How does donatello’s depiction of mary magdalene deviate from others
Da Narni died in 1443 and soon afterwards, his family commissioned the Gattamelata to commemorate da Narni’s military prowess and fame.
Often compared to the oversized classic equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, the Gattamelata is nonetheless unique and, many scholars argue, far superior because of its reliance on emotion, composition, and symbolism – rather than sheer size – to communicate its subject’s power and authority.

In an infamous 1926 article in La révolution Surréaliste, André Breton roundly condemned Giorgio de Chirico, faintly praising his early ‘metaphysical’ works, yet rejecting the artist’s later production. This judgment has had a marked impact on later criticism, which often separates the artist’s work into his early ‘metaphysical’ period and his production after 1919, when he proclaimed himself a pictor classicus advocating a ‘return to craft’ that focused on painting as a technical skill and the copying of Renaissance masters. Building on work of recent scholars, this essay investigates de Chirico’s relationship to Renaissance painting, arguing that his interest in early modern Italian masters predates his 1919 break with the avant-garde. Through an examination of de Chirico’s writings and early metaphysical canvases, the artist’s interest in Renaissance paintings is shown to be a constant thread throughout his early career, rather than a reactionary rejection of contemporary artistic currents.
In un eclatante articolo pubblicato nel 1926 su La révolution Surréaliste, André Breton condannava Giorgio de Chirico, lodandone vagamente la prima produzione ‘metafisica’ ma rifiutandone le opere successive. Questo giudizio ha avuto un forte impatto sulla critica che spesso separa il lavoro dell’artista in due periodi: il primo periodo, precedente al 1919, viene definito ‘metafisico’, mentre il secondo comprende tutta la sua produzione dopo il 1919, quando de Chirico, proclamatosi Pictor classicus, si fece sostenitore di un ‘ritorno al mestiere’ enfatizzando la pittura come abilità tecnica e la riproduzione di maestri rinascimentali. Sull base di studi recenti, questo saggio indaga il rapporto fra de Chirico e la pittura rinascimentale, mostrando che l’interesse di de Chirico per quest’ultima preesiste alla sua rottura con l’avanguardia nel 1919. Un’analisi degli scritti e delle prime tele metafisiche di de Chirico dimostra in effetti che l’interesse dell’artista per la pittura rinascimentale si può considerare come un filo conduttore della sua carriera, e non come il risultato del suo rifiuto delle correnti artistiche dell’avanguardia.

References:

http://www.artble.com/artists/donatello/sculpture/equestrian_statue_of_gattamelata
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02614340.2019.1556446?fbclid=IwAR1Q5EjXGQD9UZGNl2n-qtds78P4XH3GgiHbrzfoJ0BOo_HSRIoVHzH5O9s
http://www.biography.com/artist/donatello

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *