Genius prefers and perhaps deserves a monopoly: Shakespeare had no competitors among his contemporaries. But what if the geniuses or genii — the plurality is such an embarrassment that I’m not even sure what to call them — come in pairs, like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Verdi and Wagner, Stravinsky and Schoenberg, Picasso and Bacon? Great artists are unique and therefore incomparable, but that doesn’t prevent them from resenting the incursion of rivals or snidely critiquing one another’s work.
The duel Jonathan Jones writes about began with an exchange of words, when the young, bumptious and priggish Michelangelo insulted Leonardo da Vinci in a Florentine street, perhaps accusing him of bastardy and sexual bestiality, as well as of ineffectually designing a gigantic horse that he lacked the technical skill to cast in bronze. Leonardo, so far as Jones can tell from his reconstruction of the spat, didn’t reply, but waited to take his revenge on Michelangelo’s most strenuously heroic image. During a debate about Michelangelo’s David, that proud icon of republican virtue, Leonardo sketched a parody of the figure, reducing the liberator to a muscled thug. He then suggested that when the statue was placed on display, its genitalia should be decently covered. The proposal, as Jones argues, was an act of emasculation, laughably hypocritical because it came from an artist whose anatomical drawings made detailed studies of the vulva and the elastic sphincter of the male anus. But when David was trundled out into the Piazza della Signoria, it did wear metal underpants — a thong of brass that supported a dainty, decent fringe of copper leaves.
It’s revealing that the dispute focused on David’s virility, since Jones believes that Michelangelo despised Leonardo’s filmy, dandified dress and his habit of androgynously blending male and female beauty.
When the two artists imagined the infancy of Christ, they produced very different versions of the family romance. Leonardo’s Jesus is petted by two maternal figures, and celebrated by a fetchingly effeminate Baptist; Michelangelo’s version restores the missing figure of Joseph and gives him paternal priority in the household.
The same innuendos pass back and forth between the Mona Lisa and Michelangelo’s stridently energetic male nudes. Jones calls Leonardo’s sly, witchy portrait the “hidden enemy” from whose seduction Michelangelo’s gyrating, immobilized statues try to flee. Yet she has the last laugh: “Without stirring from her chair, Lisa del Giocondo banishes Michelangelo’s men with a mocking smile.”
The imaginative battle culminated with two battle scenes, epic designs that commemorated Florentine victories over nearby city states. Leonardo was commissioned to decorate the council hall with a massive account of the combat at Anghiari, while Michelangelo, allocated another section of the same room, worked on a mural about the engagement with Pisan forces at Cascina. Both works have vanished, but Jones makes it clear that the real clash was between the two artists and their contending visions of the world. Michelangelo idealized and pacified the scene, concentrating on the limbering up of naked soldiers: war for him was a gymnasium, a training ground for body and mind. Leonardo’s battle was an obscene defamation of humanity, with scarred warriors rearing on horses that are as wild-eyed and eager for blood as their riders. The brown ink of the preparatory drawings makes the battlefield look like a “fecal pool.” The result, Jones imagines, must have been as shocking as Picasso’s Guernica — a conscious attack on the civic self-righteousness that Michelangelo sought to uphold.
The feud intuited by Jones enables him to show familiar works in a new and startling way. Images here don’t just converse with each other, as they’re meant to do on the walls of galleries, but engage in barbed hostilities. This slanging match defines the Renaissance, as his book’s subtitle claims, because competitiveness is a by-product of originality, that new and disruptive artistic aim which goaded individuals “to excel, which meant, literally, outdoing others.”
Jones writes well about the period’s intellectual novelty, though he’s aware of its ambiguous nature: Botticelli’s paintings convey a sense of the “new joy in the world,” but the cynicism of Machiavelli and the rapacity of warlords like Francesco Sforza — who employed Leonardo to design military hardware and to fortify his castle — demonstrate the new violence of a world driven by the individual’s quest for dominance.
There is sensuous finesse in Jones’ descriptions of Michelangelo’s stone flesh or of Leonardo’s pictorial conundrums, like the “serious joke” of the “eye-fooling space” in the Last Supper. At times he hyperventilates. He gets a little swoony in the Milanese refectory when he’s studying Leonardo’s decomposing mural: “If pigment on plaster could flutter, it would be fluttering ever so gently in the motions of air that seem to emanate from its depths.” And he totters from the strain of leaning backwards to look at the Sistine Chapel ceiling: what does it mean to say, “the unendingness of Michelangelo’s art is that of the way we experience the world”?
But the only serious fault of his fine, daring book is that it’s miserably under-illustrated. True, the battle murals that its title refers to are unviewable because they are lost. Even so, it’s disappointing to have Jones expect us to think about them rather than looking at the sketches he analyses. The omission is nowhere more tantalizing than in his reference to Masaccio’s depiction of Adam and Eve leaving Eden, copied by Michelangelo in red chalk. Adam has forgotten his fig leaf, and his genitals, according to Jones, are “robustly and somehow tragically portrayed.” A robustly tragic or tragically robust penis? Now that I really want to see!
In late October of 1873 the government of Japan decided against sending a military expedition to Korea to force that nation to open trade relations. Across the government supporters of the expedition resigned immediately. The spectacle of revolt by disaffected samurai began to loom over Japanese politics. In January of 1874 disaffected samurai attacked a senior minister in Tokyo. A month later, a group of pro-Korea expedition and anti-foreign elements from Saga prefecture in Kyushu revolted, driven in part by high food prices stemming from poor harvests. Their leader, according to Edward Drea’s classic Japan’s Imperial Army, was a samurai
Located down a sideroad in old Wanhua District (萬華區), Waley Art (水谷藝術) has an established reputation for curating some of the more provocative indie art exhibitions in Taipei. And this month is no exception. Beyond the innocuous facade of a shophouse, the full three stories of the gallery space (including the basement) have been taken over by photographs, installation videos and abstract images courtesy of two creatives who hail from the opposite ends of the earth, Taiwan’s Hsu Yi-ting (許懿婷) and Germany’s Benjamin Janzen. “In 2019, I had an art residency in Europe,” Hsu says. “I met Benjamin in the lobby
April 22 to April 28 The true identity of the mastermind behind the Demon Gang (魔鬼黨) was undoubtedly on the minds of countless schoolchildren in late 1958. In the days leading up to the big reveal, more than 10,000 guesses were sent to Ta Hwa Publishing Co (大華文化社) for a chance to win prizes. The smash success of the comic series Great Battle Against the Demon Gang (大戰魔鬼黨) came as a surprise to author Yeh Hung-chia (葉宏甲), who had long given up on his dream after being jailed for 10 months in 1947 over political cartoons. Protagonist
Peter Brighton was amazed when he found the giant jackfruit. He had been watching it grow on his farm in far north Queensland, and when it came time to pick it from the tree, it was so heavy it needed two people to do the job. “I was surprised when we cut it off and felt how heavy it was,” he says. “I grabbed it and my wife cut it — couldn’t do it by myself, it took two of us.” Weighing in at 45 kilograms, it is the heaviest jackfruit that Brighton has ever grown on his tropical fruit farm, located