Study Abroad Journal May 18

The philosophical question for today is the life span of art and how long we should prolong this.  Also, the availability of art and whether things should be preserved for the few or for all even if it hastens the destruction of the said piece of art.  I’m not really torn on this.  I believe that art should be accessible to all as much as

May 18, 2014.  The facade of San Lorenzo in Florence.  It is hard to believe that Santa Maria Novella and Santa Maria de Fiore looked like this when they were completed and for many years afterward.  I always associate Florence with green and white striped marble with pink accents and couldn't imagine how ugly and utilitarian the underside is until this church.  Consecrated in 393 CE outside the walls of Florence, it was redesigned by Brunelleschi in the 15th century.

 possible (not that this piece should travel the world coming to everyone, but that one should be able to visit it with an entrance fee).  Also, I believe that art should be restored and protected as much as possible, but there is nothing to guarantee a lifespan or any piece of work.  What if Michelangelo’s David would have been destroyed in the bombing in WWII?  Would it be any less an ideal form?  If you haven’t traveled to Florence to see it, but have seen pictures and reproductions, does it mean that your experience of the piece of art is less?

May 18, 2014.  Caravaggio MMX at the Ricardi Palace.  Photographs by Zanoni, Sprondele, and Pietraplana.  A rendition of Caravaggio's Judith and Holofernes.  The artist stated that this was a daughter shooting her father as a happy family looked on in the background.  I couldn't believe how perfectly they captured Caravaggio's lighting, Judith, and I liked the modern twist on it.  

Having seen many works in textbooks and other media before then seeing them in person, I believe that there is something essential about laying eyes on the art that expands the experience.  The work might speak to you in a new way, it might fail to speak to you and make you ask, “so, what was so important about this?”  But these are things that can’t happen when looking at a photo or a work.  The artist has made this work in a certain way and it was meant to be viewed in a certain way.  When you change that viewpoint, you alter the intention of the artist.

I believe that this David would still be beloved, lamented, and copied even if it had been destroyed.  I honestly can’t see what is so perfect about the Belvedere Apollo that has it in the Vatican Museum with people falling in love with half a torso of someone.  And this is coming from a person who believes that the Nike of Samothrace without a head is great and Venus de Milo without her arms is beautiful.  I don’t know if Michelangelo’s David would

Seen May 18, 2014, but illegal photo was taken by John Scott Gray in May of 2011.  Michelangelo's David as displayed in the Galleria delle Accademia.  Renaissance sculpture completed between 1501 and 1504.  David was a symbol of Florence as an underdog against bigger city states and there are many versions of him in the city.  This statue was displayed outside until the 20th century and now has sensors on his legs to monitor his breakdown due to the weight of 17 feet of marble.  If you focus on the head by his right foot, you get an idea how truly gigantic this statue is.

work without his legs, his head, his hands, his whole body.  I believe that the sheer size and perfection with the setting inside the Academy is part of the experience.  He is highlighted here in a way that he is not highlighted in the reproductions standing in piazzas, which is not how Michelangelo designed him to be shown (but I think he would agree that the work looks spectacular in this setting).