12 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
I was unfamiliar with the second one. Thanks for that, and for the suggestion to look for more — I will. |
Each one tells a powerful story in its own right. I would have to say that they both strike me on the same level, but in very different ways. Thanks for these. |
Yes, thanks for pointing out that there are many. I enjoyed seeing the variety. I found a few that showed Mary from a different angle and liked those. |
I had the privilege of seeing both Pietas. The first one I saw briefly after waiting in long lines. The second Pieta, however, had a much profounder affect on me. I sat for nearly an hour in a relatively uncrowded hall/stairwell as I recall staring and thinking of the significance of that sculpture. Not just with respect to the Jesus but to Michelangelo who had struggled with his faith and the church. There, Joseph of Arimethea rumored to be an architect in his life, was sculpted with Michelangelo’s own face. This sculpture was intimately personal for Michelangelo and his own act of faith. I believe the sculpture was never finished after Michelangelo encountered a flaw in the stone and in a fit of rage shattered where Jesus’s other leg would have been. |
Thanks for posting these images and thoughts. I had the pleasure of going on a trip to Italy with my wife some time ago and seeing the Pieta was one of the highlights of that experience. I am still (and will always be) in awe of Michelangelo. |
Eso, I love you. What a perfect post for Easter. I, of course, am drawn to the mother. |
Amazing post. I’ve always loved the first, because it’s so perfect looking in spite if it’s distortions — classicim at its finest. Christ is so small compared to Mary. Mary is absolutely humongous, and Christ is the size of a pre-adolescent child. Christ himself doesn’t even appear dead — except for the beard and musculature, he could be a 10 year boy asleep on his mother’s lap, yet she doesn’t embrace him. In spite of the nature of scene, the overall impression is balanced and peaceful. The later one, by contrast seems to anticipate certain aspects of Mannerism, with the twisted body, elongated fingers and stretched torso. This kind of stylization is much less classical in nature, and to the extant that it’s used to emphasize the gruesomeness of the scene, it strikes me as slightly sadistic, like so many other portrayals of the crucifixion. In spite of this the handling of the body by the two Mary’s is much more intimate than in the first. They’re both beautiful. It’s absolutely amazing to think that these started as large, unformed rocks. |
J. Madson, The second one is very oddly located. As you say, it is in a stairwell, halfway to the second floor of the museum. This limits your ability to look at it from either side, but does give one the chance to look at it from above or below. All in all, I thought the location was not conducive to comfortably spending a lot of time with the work. Both statues are amazing. The second intrigues me in a way the first does not. I think there’s more going on there. |
Did you know there’s one of the few copies of the first Pieta in Salt Lake City? I saw it at the church (Methodist, I think) on 3300 South and a little bit east of 2300 East. |
I want to say – thank you for this! |
If you look at self portraits of Michelangelo, you will see the man helping mary is none other than the artist himself. The resemblance is uncanny. Whether or not he meant it to be that way no one will ever know, but you cannot mistaken his nose, it was mishappen when he was young and still lived in Florence with the De’Medici family. If I remember correctly it was broken by another artist, although I could be wrong, it has been a while since I read his biography. |
only problem is this isn’t the last one – it is in castello sforzesco and he was working on it the week he died. |